3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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.