4 ms·

That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build

by doikor 5y ago

That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build up huge war chests so that they can pay their striking members. For example the largest property investor in Finland is a company owned by the unions. So they got wealth in the billions to fight if need be.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?
- smolder 5y ago
  > Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
- biaachmonkie 5y ago
  That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.
- dijit 5y ago
  I mean; he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY Additionally; laws follow humans, not the other way. If you're a person in a profession that is not allowed to argue for better conditions: then that's the best way to get the worst possible conditions. Seems like a false economy to force people to accept the conditions that they get with no recompense. A bitter FTC employee is much worse than a strike. A bitter FTC employee can kill hundreds.
beerandt 5y ago
The argument was whether firing a critical employee made sense if they're critical. An ATC being fired doesn't ground flights any more than an ATC on strike grounds flights. "Stop getting a paycheck" is just a euphemism for "the employee/union has already burned their leverage and gets fired".

by doikor 5y ago

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?

smolder 5y ago
> Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
biaachmonkie 5y ago
That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.
dijit 5y ago
I mean; he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY Additionally; laws follow humans, not the other way. If you're a person in a profession that is not allowed to argue for better conditions: then that's the best way to get the worst possible conditions. Seems like a false economy to force people to accept the conditions that they get with no recompense. A bitter FTC employee is much worse than a strike. A bitter FTC employee can kill hundreds.

beerandt 5y ago

The argument was whether firing a critical employee made sense if they're critical. An ATC being fired doesn't ground flights any more than an ATC on strike grounds flights. "Stop getting a paycheck" is just a euphemism for "the employee/union has already burned their leverage and gets fired".