4 ms·

Agreed. In the 80's Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers. It was the start of society's war against unions. The US was very strange at the time in

Agreed. In the 80's Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers. It was the start of society's war against unions. The US was very strange at the time in that most people viewed themselves as upper middle class. Of course they weren't but the idea let many people look down on union members as an undeserving underclass. That in turn was used by capital owners to create support for legislation outlawing activities by upstart union members against the more deserving mid and upper classes.

kasey_junk 11y ago
Some part of society has been at "war" against unions since their beginnings. To call the Reagan air traffic controller strike the start is bizarre.
- forgotAgain 11y ago
  To call the Reagan air traffic controller strike the start is bizarre. Not at all. Bizarre is the need to immediately jump to such invective.
  - kasey_junk 11y ago
    The US government deployed armed federal forces to literally kill union strikers at privately held companies nearly 80 years before Reagan used his executive powers to fire federal employees. I stand by the phrase bizarre.
    - forgotAgain 11y ago
      After WW II unions became a pathway for millions to enter the middle class. It was Reagan who changed that back to the pre-war situation. Speaking with disdain doesn't make your position any stronger or more correct.
      - kasey_junk 11y ago
        I didn't disdain your position. I thought it was odd, strange, maybe to the point of amusing as it seemed to use a particular word "war" that was a much more apt description of the state of societies interaction with unions many years before your supposed "start". You've already revised your position, to one that I think is still overly broad and simplistic, but one that I think is common and thus not bizarre. If I were to describe my thoughts on the particular point in history its that Reagan's action was an effect of the decline of labor unions, that occurred because in many ways they had accomplished a lot of their stated and most approachable goals. The only reason he could get away with it was because the unions had lost so much of their sway. They didn't lose their sway because he fired striking workers. You also see that it was not confined to the US as Thatcher was doing similar things in the UK.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        From an outside observer to this conversation, you (forgotAgain) are speaking with much more disdain than kasey_junk is.

kasey_junk 11y ago

Some part of society has been at "war" against unions since their beginnings. To call the Reagan air traffic controller strike the start is bizarre.

forgotAgain 11y ago
To call the Reagan air traffic controller strike the start is bizarre. Not at all. Bizarre is the need to immediately jump to such invective.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  The US government deployed armed federal forces to literally kill union strikers at privately held companies nearly 80 years before Reagan used his executive powers to fire federal employees. I stand by the phrase bizarre.
  - forgotAgain 11y ago
    After WW II unions became a pathway for millions to enter the middle class. It was Reagan who changed that back to the pre-war situation. Speaking with disdain doesn't make your position any stronger or more correct.
    - kasey_junk 11y ago
      I didn't disdain your position. I thought it was odd, strange, maybe to the point of amusing as it seemed to use a particular word "war" that was a much more apt description of the state of societies interaction with unions many years before your supposed "start". You've already revised your position, to one that I think is still overly broad and simplistic, but one that I think is common and thus not bizarre. If I were to describe my thoughts on the particular point in history its that Reagan's action was an effect of the decline of labor unions, that occurred because in many ways they had accomplished a lot of their stated and most approachable goals. The only reason he could get away with it was because the unions had lost so much of their sway. They didn't lose their sway because he fired striking workers. You also see that it was not confined to the US as Thatcher was doing similar things in the UK.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      From an outside observer to this conversation, you (forgotAgain) are speaking with much more disdain than kasey_junk is.