3 ms·

i was shocked that government decided to intervene into worker/workplace argument and clearly picked the favorite side without even holding a council. the part

i was shocked that government decided to intervene into worker/workplace argument and clearly picked the favorite side without even holding a council. the part you never adressed is that government was not SUPPOSED to EVER get a favorite in a private conflict, part firing employees and banning them from ever serving for any gov posision? not only intent was so outrageous, but the reaction was disproportional, not only affecting more than 10K people, but leaving the whole industry barely hanging. maybe the time will forget the outcome, but what I and prob the generations to come will never understand - what whas the gov stake in this? why they never tried to have a council with a gov as a mediator and most importantly - what is the value of at-will contracts if mostly works only one way?

fargle 5y ago
I think the thing that you misunderstand is that this was in no way a "private conflict". This was a public safety job in the employ of the FAA - a federal government job. In this role, unions are allowed but strikes are NOT and this is taken very seriously. The fired workers had to sign and swear an official oath, exactly like members of the armed services do, with the government that they would not strike. They were then given three days to reconsider, knowing their outcome. Most miscalculated. This is why they were fired. There can be sympathy, but only for the amazingly large disconnect between the union and the tenability of its position that so many went along with it. The firings were extremely clear cut legally in this case. Not just illegal from a labor law sense - criminally illegal. For context, please see the following. Reagan was at one time the president of Screen Actors Guild and a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO. He presided over the SAG's first strike. He knows what is legal and what is not: https://web.archive.org/web/20160123122143/https://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/80381a.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160123122143/https://www.reaga...

fargle 5y ago

I think the thing that you misunderstand is that this was in no way a "private conflict". This was a public safety job in the employ of the FAA - a federal government job. In this role, unions are allowed but strikes are NOT and this is taken very seriously. The fired workers had to sign and swear an official oath, exactly like members of the armed services do, with the government that they would not strike. They were then given three days to reconsider, knowing their outcome. Most miscalculated. This is why they were fired. There can be sympathy, but only for the amazingly large disconnect between the union and the tenability of its position that so many went along with it. The firings were extremely clear cut legally in this case. Not just illegal from a labor law sense - criminally illegal. For context, please see the following. Reagan was at one time the president of Screen Actors Guild and a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO. He presided over the SAG's first strike. He knows what is legal and what is not: https://web.archive.org/web/20160123122143/https://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/80381a.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160123122143/https://www.reaga...