8 ms·

Reagan fired the ATCs when they tried to assert their rights - can't be good if they think they may be the next in line for DOGEing.

• richwater 2y ago
  > when they tried to assert their rights That's an interesting way of phrasing going on an illegal strike which they agreed not to do as part of their employment contract.
  • brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    The fact that a strike can be illegal is, in and of itself, an erosion of worker rights.
    • richwater 2y ago
      It's a compromise to ensure the functioning of the country. PATCO members were offered more than double % raises of any other government employee with a small reduction in work hours. They overplayed their (illegal) hand and it bit them. No sympathy.
      • snailmailstare 2y ago
        Everyone else was offered 2.5%?
    • amazingamazing 2y ago
      unpopular opinion - but public workers should not be able to go on strike, and in fact shouldn't even be allowed to unionize. it's antithetical to democracy. they should simply run for office and change things, not hold taxpayers' services hostage. unions make sense for private organizations because private organizations are effectively authoritarian entities, not democracies. there is no mechanism in which you could actually "vote" anyone out or establish a leadership position by virtue of popular support, and most importantly there's no constituency to air grievances to
      • jacobjjacob 2y ago
        I don’t agree with your opinion but I think you make a great point. They are definitely very different situations which at least warrant some differences in policy.
      • lesuorac 2y ago
        Yeah, imagine if somebody at say Google made a union as opposed to just buying up 51% of the stock to vote somebody out. Everybody makes in-groups to advocate their positions. idk why when it comes to workers people are all like "but they shouldn't". Let me know when you're against the US Chamber of Congress ...
      • nemo44x 2y ago
        I don't think that's an unpopular opinion really. Unions are supposed to be an adversary of management who they negotiate with, and depending on who wins the election they are an ally. There's a conflict of interest. So naturally the group that supports the person that wins the election will have a favorable contract and be able to grow their union as that's beneficial to the political party and the union. At the very least states should implement laws and statutes that define limits and rules such as union compensation must be paid with the current years revenues and not with bonds that are paid for by future generations, etc.
      • callc 2y ago
        That’s a good point against unionization for government employees. But anti-union is against the right to assemble, and any law requiring an individual to work goes against some very basic freedoms (self-determination, slavery?) Let’s not make stripping away of freedoms a common thing that employers, government or private, can do. Rights are rights.
      • Carrok 2y ago
        > simply run for office That "simply" is doing an absurd amount of heavy lifting.
      • rtkwe 2y ago
        The people in federal workers unions aren't in elected positions, no country or government anywhere has voters weigh in on every clerk, office manager, etc.... They're just jobs, no one votes for them beyond in some cases voting for the head of their agencies but more often by voting for the people that will select the agency heads.
• paulddraper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • Something1234 2y ago
    Considering how high stress the job is they definitely should have a 32 hour work week. Strange hours with lots of complicated bits. And a union is about more than just workers rights it's about ensuring worker safety. Workers must be able to advocate for safety within their jobs and to ensure the best end result for a customer.
    • paulddraper 2y ago
      > And a union is about more than just workers rights it's about ensuring worker safety Sure, I was just responding to the claim they "asserting their rights." Whereas it was a comp+workload disagreement.