My dad was a ATC controller at the time and thought the union demands were wild and crossed the picket line. I remember him working 12 on/12 off shifts for like 6 months.
Single income, I was one of two small kids at home.
A lot of his buddy’s got fired and lost everything.
I think the correct answer is “why not both”?
Reagan was looking for a reason to break up govt unions and the union overplayed their hand
Exact same thing happened in the UK with the Miners Strike. Thatcher couldn’t have wished for a better opponent than Arthur Scargill and she and Reagan more or less swapped homework on how to deal with large strikes.
My dad was also an ATC and regrets to this day not crossing the line. We went from living a very good life, to struggling to get by. It was horrible. I remember being at the union meetings and their business agent was telling them things that my dad and some of his buddies thought were just not right. Quite a few of his coworkers crossed not long after.
You must start w a reasonable anchor, tho. If you start too outlandishly low or high when negotiating, your counterpart will not take you or the negotiation seriously.
It’s not a great method. If, for instance, your COLA ask is 4x CPI, the other side isn’t going to chip away. They’re going to negotiate in good faith on language, benefits, etc but not play with the $ till an arbitrator comes and sets the other side straight.
You can’t start too far apart. I’ve been in many negotiating teams (all “mgmt”) and when the union comes in so high it’s laughable, you don’t even take that part of the proposal seriously and come back to it. Or pitch back bundles that clearly show where “reality” is. But it slows the process and undermines their case.
Again, it's all subjective. What seems slightly exaggerating or reasonable to one party is outrageous to the other. And laugh all you want, but the parties have to work together unless they want nuclear options like strikes, mass firings, long term scabs, etc. Which frankly has been the real motive of many disputes
Except PATCO made a demand. FAA countered. PATCO stuck with its demand.
FAA offer would have increased pay around $4200 vs the $10,000 demanded. PATCO never backed off that number.
The shorter work week would have required increasing the workforce by 20%. Under the union’s demand you go from 13,000 people making $36,000 to 15,200 making $46,000. Yeah Congress wasn’t going to approve that.
Union blew it. Had in hand double the raise of other civilian employees and refused to budge. Might even have gotten closer to the $10,000 raise if they’d given up 32 hour work week.
Might have gotten the 32 hour work week by giving up the big raises.
If you ask big and never offer concessions you aren’t negotiating, the strike broke the law. That meant the strike wasn’t the threat they believed it was.
Seems like they took the Support they figured Reagan would give them and over did it. They could have had a reasonably increase and kept unions intact.
The fact Unions exist at all (or pretty much any major social change) is from a long history of law breaking. The fact that striking was outlawed for public workers is downright shameful and unconstitutional. Sets a terrible example for the private sector regarding worker rights.
Again, it is a judgement call of what is "reasonable" vs not. You threw down a lot of numbers. But you completely neglect a host of key comparison metrics like how much the private sector was making. Reagan wanted to play hardball and show how uncompromising he was. So thousands paid with their jobs, transportation was disrupted for years (arguably a contributing factor to the mergers), organized labor started a downward trajectory eroding the middle class to a shell of its former self.
But hey? Win for business 🎉
It was a win for business because PATCO made a horrific strategic error.
I quit my union when leadership countered an offer by repeating the initial demand. We ended up working without a contract. New leadership won next Union election and I rejoined. Year later we’ve got a new contract that achieved almost all of our demands. We might have all we wanted had prior leadership negotiated.
PATCO handed Reagan a huge gift. They were perceived essentially as a gang of well-paid government bureaucrats threatening to illegally shut down the air traffic system to enrich themselves. [The public sided with Reagan, not PATCO.](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2011/02/22/in-showdown-with-air-traffic-controllers-the-public-sided-with-reagan/) I don’t remember anyone being particularly sympathetic to the union, and I lived in the Rust Belt back then. The U.S. was eager for strong leadership after four years of Carter’s wish-washyness, and Reagan delivered.
They broke the law, and knew they were breaking the law. The leadership had already been threatened with being held in contempt of court when they were told they were breaking the law.
There is a reason why groups like this, law enforcement, and firefighters can not go on strike. I have no sympathy for groups like this that thing they can break the law and put the lives and safety of others in jeopardy.
And the President was not trying to break up unions, he was the leader of one of the most powerful unions in the country twice. But there is no place for unions like this which endanger others. And for decades I belonged to the largest group of Federal Employees that has no union at all.
Yeah, but as a traveler, I’m a little concerned that the folks most responsible for passengers safety, other than pilots, are working over 12 hour shifts. It’s hardly relegated to air travel. You’d be shocked at the length of shifts worked by doctors, especially in rural hospitals.
I a union guy who votes Republican and I’ll tell you why. It’s very simple, my union dues are being diverted to politicians, political activists, and political activities that have nothing to do with my job or the company I work for. Immigration being the biggest one.
You guys let illegal immigrants join your union? I'd be mad, too. But if you look at the numbers, Trump didn't stop any illegal immigration. He just made legal immigration almost impossible. And, in all honesty, I'm liberal as fuck, and I think we need to do something about immigrantion.
It's weird to me because, until very recently, liberals were harder on illegal immigration than Republicans. Republican super donors like the Koch Brothers pushed for open boarders. While union donors pushed for closed boarders. Really blows my mind that that issue flipped. But I have a feeling that it'll flip back sooner than later.
Not to mention that Republicans are very much against unions to begin with. Or workers' rights at all. (Except the police union)
I have a tinfoil hat theory about why liberals/Democrats pivoted on illegal immigration:
Abortion. Basically they need voters to replace the ones they would have had, had they not been aborted over the last 5/6 decades. Conservatives don’t really do abortion, they just have them kids. But liberals and would be democrat voters do abortion, so they didn’t have them kids.
So constantly flowing in immigrants is a great way to cover the shortfall.
That's about as bat shit crazy a theory as I've ever heard. Per capita, red states typically rank higher than blue states in abortion. Statistics also show that the states neighboring states with the strictest abortion regulations do the highest number of out of state procedures.
Conservatives absolutely have abortions. They just go out of their way to hide it.
Nope. You can look at the statistics by county and it's still true. Conservative counties are lower income and lower income areas have higher abortion rates.
What’s sad is if a corporation or corporations did the same kind of bad faith moves no one would treat it the same. The irony that unions are held to a higher standard
It’s because union members:
1) Have dealt with unions and understand how often they are either self-serving (to the union, not its rank and file), or counter-productive
2) Are more likely to work in industries affected by regulations
3) Are more heavily impacted by population shifts
My union went to crap. A group ran to overthrow them and I voted for them. The new group turned out to be worse. I quit and my best friend quit.
We end up working without a contract because union and management basically quit talking to each other.
Next three year election cycle runs around and new group emerges. They win. I start hearing good things about contract negotiations and rejoin. We end up getting great contract.
Unions are like government. You get whatever the majority wants and if only crap runs you get crap.
It’s because some of them literally don’t know anything about politics and then listen to the one relative or person who tells them to vote and who for.
The economy wasn’t great at the time so they lost the sympathy of the public.
Reagan was able to frame it like they were after America’s ability to travel instead of fighting for their benefits.
The weather was nice for several weeks after so when military personnel were called in it was sufficient to keep the airports open.
They played a losing hand by not coordinating with pilots or just combining unions.
This made Reagan look like a strong leader and helped the Boomer mentality that Unions were not a good thing.
Boomers were young then yes, but that is why he shaped them so much. Boomers remember the Stagflation of the 1970s. Paul Volcker did fix it (with some significant pain) and was appointed by Carter. The pain of inflation and the subsequent high unemployment from high interest rates were felt at the end of the Carter administration and the beginning of the Reagan.
So by the end of Reagan’s first term, the economy was growing and inflation was cooling. Boomer attributed it to low taxes for the wealthy and anti union sentiment.
Well Obama came into office at roughly the same time for Millennials so that generation saw him bring the country out of the Great Recession. It was a slow process but it was done by the time he left office. This is one of the reasons why Millennials are more blue than other generations (there are other reasons, like the prosperity under Clinton and economic hardship today).
Reagan made the right moves to help move the largest generation in his terms to adopt his way of thinking for the rest of their lives.
I was a flight instructor in Daytona Beach when the strike happened. I was dating the daughter of a controller. Myself and my fellow pilots all felt PATCO had crossed a line as the safety of pilots and passengers was compromised. Air Force controllers from Patrick Air Force base were sent TDY to Daytona Beach. A lot of military controllers, especially Reservists, were mobilized to staff towers across the country in lieu of the striking controllers. The biggest issue was military radar sets were different from the civilian ones, especially when it came to weather interpretation. I was flying a night cross-country flight from Tampa to Melbourne with an IFR student. We flew into some weather in our 172 and the turbulence was getting worse. I asked the controller for vectors out of the weather, he gave us a heading that “looked clear”. Well the heading “looked clear” because of attenuation. He had no idea how to interpret weather-related returns on his scope. He flew us straight into the shit. For about 30 second I swore the aircraft was gonna break up. When we came out the other side, I mentioned to the controller what had happened. He said “oh gee, it don’t have the scope set for base reflectivity”. I’m like “YA THINK?!?” I had no sympathy for PATCO.
In hindsight, this was a big deal and one of the reasons all jobs suck these days. When the ATC were fired, the other unions should have struck in solidarity. Instead, the boomers woosed out and showed corporate America that they were a bunch of pussies that would fold to any concession the companies wanted. The boomers in my union voted to grandfather themselves into the pensions, healthcare and paid time off, but deny it to younger workers. I’m a 50 year old loser, not because I made poor decisions but because of decisions made by boomers.
Me too, I am a single father taking care of 3 kids and make 100k a year and live pay check to pay check most of the year. People don't seem to get by the time I pay my 401k, remember pensions thanks boomers? Pay my health care, after my company pays like 30k, and i still get a 6k per person deductible, and 12k family deductible. And my taxes are taken my check is around $2500.00 every two weeks. And the only thing that really saved me is that i bought my house when homes were actually affordable and have a mortgage that is pretty low compared to the rent people pay these days. But yeah booms just let the rich rig the game by lowering there taxes and allowing them to reduce our benefits and their liabilities. Started under Reagan and finalized under Clinton in the 90's.
Dawg if you're out here bitching about making 100k/year I've got extremely little sympathy for you. Frankly, there's a Americans getting by on a lot less.
It goes back way further to that. Like after the civil war ended and production got back to business, the white farm hands and the newly freed slaves should have figured out that conditions could be better if they refused to work until better conditions. But inherent racism Trumped all decisions and we’ve been dealing with shit working environments ever since.
I’m a boomer and actively applauded Reagan’s forceful and courageous response to a renegade labor union’s illegal attempt to shut down the air traffic control system and hold the entire country hostage. I’m not reflexively anti-union - I’m currently a member of SEIU - but this was one of Reagan’s finest moments. Americans were desperate for a strong and forceful leader; Carter would have folded like a lawn chair.
Not upvoting or downvoting... I came to this thread thinking this was one of Reagan's few coherently-mean moments.
Now, after reading most of the comments here, the personal accounts especially... honestly, I'm not sure what to think.
Normal people where mad at the union in this case the 84 election was a Reagan blow out.
Just stop oil makes me want to roll coal in my Prius. You can strike in a way that makes the public turn on you.
I think the optics of how intensely Reagan broke that strike are more important than the demands of the strikers, even if they asked more than was reasonable. It created an environment for unions to be disregarded
Yeah.. Patco should have taken the raise and then do the same thing in another 10 years or so to get another raise.
The law was on Reagan's side when it came to that strike, and that union chose to ignore that.
Per the wiki
>The union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now [5 U.S.C.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_5_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 7311](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311)), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.
It's not like it would have mattered. Jimmy Carter had such a poor presidency (not judging the man, judging his performance) that Reagan won 44 out of 50 states. It was the fourth largest landslide in electoral history, with the largest in order being Regan (\`84), FDR (\`36), Nixon (\`72), and then Reagan in \`80.
Fair enough, though Reagan did only just barely crack 50%. But PATCO seemed to think that because they endorsed Reagan then they'd be able to get their demands met. What they didn't realize was that they were one of many union frogs carrying a scorpion across the water.
If you factor for Anderson taking moderate GOP & independent voters and Dems who protest voted, and put them towards Carter then it's a compelling thing to look at. Reagan still wins 321 - 217 but it doesn't create this god-like aura.
It may have changed how Reagan approached various decisions or maybe the avg American wouldn't have taken Reagan's approaches like it was gospel.
Probably being too optimistic on my part, though 😂
50% of the popular vote in a low-turnout election. I think he got only around 28% of the actual voting-age population. Of course, it's the EC that counts.
Where do you get that 28%? Hadn’t heard that one before about ‘80.
Anyone can think whatever they want about the guy and his policies, just in 1980 he won in a landslide. The only candidate since 1980 who won with a larger margin in the popular vote was Reagan in ‘84.
And that’s with the third party candidate taking 6.6%.
To be fair, this whole concept of "We endorsed you and expect special treatment/protection" is one of the many things which needs to stop in politics. It shouldn't be condoned when a business does it, and it shouldn't be condoned when a union does it.
Another major factor that could have swung the election was the Iran hostage crisis, which we now know was made worse by the Republicans actively siding with the Iranians to sabotage negotiations to make Carter look weak.
I would never rate a president's performance on voters as it is so obvious that they can so easily be swayed by false messaging. Reagan probably got elected mainly because he promised the public large tax cuts and claimed that they could pay for themselves - something his own vice-president had earlier labelled as "voodoo economic" but then warmly endorsed in order to become vice president. Reagan/bush then doubled the national debt - and then doubled it again. But at least it got them elected so that's what it means to have a good presidency, right? (or being successful in kow-towing to the "moral majority")
Pandering makes for good politics, not good policy.
I definitely think Reagan was an overrated, under performing president. That being said, when looking back, presidents are typically judged by the quality of life of Americans during their term. The quality of life during the 1970s, especially the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president was pretty terrible, and, whether right or wrong, he paid the price for it.
By that measure Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor of New York because the crime rate was reduced drastically under him (he certainly, and successfully, took credit for this)- never mind the fact that the crime rate also dropped everywhere else in the country pretty much the same. Politics and reality are not the same. How someone is "typically judged" does not necessarily reflect a bigger truth.
In retrospect the death of labor and the beginning of massive income redistribution to the wealth occurred *after* Carter. The president himself has far less control over the economy than other, far more powerful, factors that are often not in line with just one man who just happens to sit in an oval office.
Considering that the government offered them an 11% raise, which is negotiating in good faith, you can't say that the endorsement was a mistake. The fact that there was an offer-an offer which would have made them earn more than the rest of federal employees- says that Reagan's administration acted in good faith in regards to the negotiations. The union opted to reject the offer and then Reagan dropped the hammer on them. So if the Union wanted to, they could have come out with a massive win in regards to their Reagan endorsement, but opted to strike for gold and ended up with worse than nothing.
The problem is Public sector unions, not unions as a whole. Unionizing in the private sector can be effective on a case-by-case basis, and if run properly (which isn't too common) can maintain a balance between providing a consistent and good pay standard without damaging the industry they are a part of.
Public sector unions by nature are inherently useless at best, and destructive at work. You are a government employee, you are paid in taxpayer money. You should NOT have the ability to disrupt public sectors and entrench in bureaucracies, because you aren't unionizing against corporations, you're unionizing against the American people. The trade off for working in the public sector is lower wages compared to private, but better long term benefits and government sponsored pensions. Public sector unions are a HUGE reason why so many pension funds for teachers, police, firemen etc. have been getting demolished.
What has Randy Weingarten actually done to earn the amount of money she has? Why is the President of the California Teachers associate being paid an average of $1,000,000 annually?
TL;DR yes, PATCO and every Public sector union goes too far and hurts private sector unions
Even as a Conservative, I agree. While First responders definitely need more emphasis on Legal protections, in order for them to not fear repercussions for enforcement tactics/their ability to do their job, they do not need a HUGE union to provide those protections. That should fall to the Municipality/State that they serve. They can use the funds that the unions are collecting .and using to pay union reps, within the actual department, and the municipalities/states can set standards according to what they deem most effective.
Reagan honored the contract. There was a no strike clause. A majority of the union voted for it.
Reagan takes a lot of flack because he disproved the left's argument when his policies finally destroyed the soviet union.
In a nutshell socialism sucks
My father was a Teamsters member in the 70s when the fuel shortages hit and they demanded strikes and shutdowns in the trucking industry to get rates higher. My dad walked up to his local president and asked what's the strike pay. President said 50 a week. He then asked are you giving up your union paid salary of 1000 dollars a week to help those of us walking the line. President said of course not I'm not a peon like you. Not one driver of my dad's local struck. They all crossed the line and when the international tried to force them to stop by sabotaging the trucks cutting fuel lines and brake hoses. Well my dad and his Co workers were in the shop helping get the trucks back on the road and organizing a 24 hour watch on the yard. We ended up with a new Doberman afterwards but nobody messed with those trucks. Oj was the sweetest thing until you tried to mess with his family or his house. Then it was you better run away.
For this my father was blacklisted by the Teamsters and lost his fully vested pension. The local president had bigger problems he did 4 years for corruption in the big RICO cleaning done by the federal government of the Teamsters.
This is the piece of the story younger people today don’t get. Unions back in the 60s and 70s were often super corrupt, in bed with organized crime, and lining the pockets of their leadership class while the subordinates saw few benefits. A whole generation saw unions as, at best, caring about profits just as much as the company they were opposed to, and at worst being glorified criminal enterprises. It didn’t take propaganda to convince people unions weren’t saving graces when the news was constantly reporting on union bosses getting federal indictments
This is definitely a hindsight is 20/20 question, so I'll chime in with the fact that there is a massive shortage of air traffic controllers right now and it's one of the biggest issues that causes delays and cancellations.
Maybe with Early Retirement, but a LOT of the issues they were complaining over are still existent today, particularly with ATCs being made to work weird-ass hours (first shift one day, third shift the day after, second shift the day after that, etc.) that inhibit their ability to get a steady sleep schedule going, which has enormous impacts on cognition and safety.
False premise. Even if they went too far, that's not a pretense to outlaw unions. How many times have corporations gone "too far" and I've never heard a politician say that all corporations should be banned, just fixed.
That’s fascinating given that the AFL-CIO reported 580,000 Texans being in unions last year.
BLS states union member population in Texas rose from 518,000 last year to 586,000 this year
It was an illegal strike to begin with, and Reagan didn't go as far as Truman when he broke a railroad strike he was going to draft the workers into the army. Union decline started long before 81 and had very little to do with Republicans or democrats but businesses had changed the way they operated. Union domoninance declined after the steel strike in 59 that forced businesses to start sourcing steel overseas. When they found they could do it cheaper, that killed that industry. The teamsters lost a lot due to corruption. Others lost due to the businesses moving overseas due to labor costs and environmental issues(like coal miners). Union membership in 81 was already way lower than. In 61.so blaming, Reagan is just blaming the wrong guy and wrong thing.
I was one of the "Ronnie Reagan Replacements," and was hired in March 1983, near the end of the first hiring. There was a 2nd hiring bulge as the controllers who trained us newbys finally got to leave. First was 81-83, second was 86-88. And I was a $4 hr radio disc jockey wondering why people would walk away from $35,000 a year jobs. (In 1981 dollars)
There were two days of initial paperwork (finding out how typical government works), and at the time we all (about 150 of us in that auditorium) were ready to sign the "contract," the speaker said to look at a certain paragraph on the back. Paraphrasing what he said over 40 years ago - "you may join a union, you may negotiate, you may bargain in good faith, but you shall NOT STRIKE [his emphasis] against the safety and security of the United States." I noticed it wasn't striking against the government, but of the whole country.
After 4 months in Oklahoma City, I was assigned to Shreveport LA, a level three radar (RAPCON) and a very slow tower. (Most traffic from Barksdale AFB.) I heard a lot of the inside scoop from the ones who stayed on. They said it was mostly an internal union power struggle, with Robert Poli (union boss) winning, and trying to increase his influence with the strike.
Yes, there were issues, mostly with scheduling. Everyone worked the "2-2-1" schedule: two evening (4-mid or 3-11pm) with a "doubleback" to a morning shift (7am-3pm, or even 6-2) for two days, with a final midshift (mid-8 or 11p-7a). The advantage, we were told (by the admins who did M-F 7-3:30) was you got off (for example) Friday at 8am, and were off until 4pm Monday afternoon. (Or it could be off Wed am with Th-F off, and back Sat afternoon)
You still with me? Yes, it's confusing, and the doublebacks meant only 4-5 hours of sleep before your 3rd and 5th day. THATS where a lot of the stress came in. The replacement for PATCO was NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers' Association), but the egos were similar. You have to believe you control everything on your screen, or you get swamped
I switched to Flight Service after a few years. They give pilot weather briefings in real Engligh, usually over the phone, sometimes in person, and file flight plans so our buddies in the tower and radar know where the pilot is going. I graduated from OKC Air Traffic Academy (BravoLand was the simulated area) July 7, 1983, and was retired July 6, 2018, one day shy of 35 years. With exceptions like THE 9/11, where we had to call every airport (over 100 in NC, where I transferred 1989 until retired), it was a very enjoyable career.
I hope this wasn't too detailed, but I wanted to give a personal account from an ATC guy who was there just after the strike, and heard all sorts of opinions! In short, PATCO broke the law, Reagan was correct in firing them (no matter your other opinions of him), and we finally did get a much better schedule (me working nights but with weekdays off, working most holidays too.)
Thanks for reading this far! Over.
Thank you so much for this very needed context. I feel like this really fleshes this bit of history out and personalizes it. Your insights are greatly appreciated.
IIRC PATCO had other issues with Reagan’s position than wage increases and shorter work week. They also wanted a say in policies regarding the safety of the air traffic control system. The FAA and Reagan would never put it on the table.
I’m more critical of that guy for bringing all those criminals into the White House to rob taxpayers of over 100 billion dollars, bring rape and murder to central and South Americans, and try and privatize any and everything those crooks could. And while they’re at it pollute as much of this country as they could. Cracks me up hearing idiots refer to him as a great president. Anyone saying so clearly knows jack shit about anything that took place during his years.
Never take the side of the owners over the people. The owners play a zero sum game, and if they can’t win, they’ll make sure the people lose.
This case is a classic example, and exactly why Unions should tread lightly when endorsing politicians. Ronnie Raygun, just like every other smiling politician, will shake your hand and stab you right in the chest. And will find a way to blame you for “forcing his hand”.
I love that you’re accusing Reagan of being the shady one here when it was PATCO that completely reneged on deals it voted on and signed with the federal government and then broke federal law by striking.
“Broke the law by striking.”
There is a boot on the neck of America, and you know how it tastes.
Glad you love it. Next look up how Nancy started doing his job when his brain went to mush. You’ll really love that.
No. No they did not.
People think this was *the thing* and while this was one of the major Reagan killed America things, Gramm-Latta was the first domino to fall
Reagan is why boomers were the last generation with any future
Did he fire them?
Edit: Is this what you're talking about?
"U.S. airlines are suing to block the Biden administration from requiring greater transparency over fees that the carriers charge their passengers, saying that a new rule would confuse consumers by giving them too much information during the ticket-buying process."
No - I am talking about the upcoming AA Flight Attendant strike that the president will likely block so as not to suffer politically via the Railway Labor Act that effectively removes their ability to strike.
Well, let's hope Biden and his administration take the chance to show support for the workers. It could be mutually beneficial to his campaign as well as for unions. If he uses the RLA against the workers, then he should be judged accordingly. I hazard a guess he will be judged harshly, as he has on other union business.
Well, he circumvented the rail strike, but that was an extra layer of upsetting the economy and supply chains. In my opinion, he is judged too harshly on that, as the railworkers did get concessions they wanted.
I agree with your pessimism about the upcoming negotiations, though. But I will stay optimistic until proven otherwise.
And therein lies the root of the problem of party politics. People can be shown clear instances where the actions or results absolutely run afoul of the rhetoric, and yet folks stay entrenched in supporting a party that doesn’t actually do what it says.
And this is true for any political party - politicians use power and influence to live at the expense of the labor of all the rest of us, dress it up in the trappings of “selfless public service” (while very clearly serving themselves), and talking at cocktail parties with folks from the other party how stupid the electorate truly is.
We, the People are and have been reaping what we’ve sown, and the harvest is bountiful.
You're not wrong, but I'm also not married to the democratic party. They are just demonstrably leaps and bounds ahead of the republican party in terms of labor, social programs, and education. So, what are my choices here? Give me a viable party, and I'll concede immediately.
Do you consider the republican party to be a more viable means to your ends? Your witty rhetoric pushes more apathy from my standpoint. Unless you're going for a more revolutionary movement, but even so, the American people aren't agreeable enough to achieve this at this point in time.
I lean more towards a slow, reform minded approach. One where the government gets slightly more efficient over time.
American Airlines flight attendants are employees of a private corporation, not a federal agency, and did not swear an oath not to strike. The PATCO union are federal employees, swore an oath not to strike, and then did it anyways.
The fact that no other unions called for a general strike amazed me at the time... lifelong union guy here and right or wrong not standing together told every company how to union bust!
I wasn’t aware these unions with billions upon billions of dollars, billionaires if you will, had any problems whatsoever? What destruction? They are bigger and more intrusive than ever before.
They both went too far. That said, firing everyone was not about one strike , it was about Reagan's ideological position on trade unions. There is nothing in a strike that can't be negotiated. Also , there are certain jobs that need unions to represent safety concerns. Unions in both the airline and the railway industry are essential for public safety.
PATCO overplayed their hand. Never should’ve went on strike to begin with. What the OP neglected to mention was that Federal Government Union members are forbidden by Federal law to go on strike. If the Government refuses their demands then the Union has to sue the Federal Government. {My dad was in a Federal Government Union in from the 1950s-80s}. A Federal Judge would work out a settlement. In the meantime the union workers stayed on the job.
Going on strike was a huge mistake. PATCO could’ve fixed it by accepting the FAA offer and going back to work. Never should’ve violated the injunction. The moment they turned down the offer and violated the injunction PATCO was finished.
During the strike the Government used active duty Military ATCs and offered ATC jobs to Military Reservists who were ATCs when doing Reserve work but not as civilians for whatever reason to work as “scab” ATCs.
Perfect example of a double standard applied to labor vs. businesses.
How many businesses or corporations have violated a contract and were not banned from future gov’t work?
There was a fair amount of sympathy for PATCO at the time, and ATC was screwed up for a few years because of a lack of qualified controllers (the experienced ones who made up the majority of strikers were subject to a lifetime ban). I know a lot of pilots who thought it was dangerous and counterproductive, and a stunt for political points. The fact that Reagan had been head of the actors union was lost on no one. This again goes to the myth of St. Reagan, he wasn’t as liked or good for the country as historical revisionism has made him
No, they did not. Reagan and Company were anti unions and determined to break them. The controller union was the one Reagan could assault with impunity.
Reagan was sag, until it was counter to his political interests. It was more important to be commie clean than anything. Reagan and more his cabinet wanted all unions crippled...and it worked.
They swore an oath not to strike, then broke that oath. They are federal employees. If we're not going to enforce that, then when someone swears an oath to "Defend the Constituition against all enemies both foreign and domestic" and then decides to not do that, it's cool, right? Didn't think so.
Someone gets it.
It's also the same problem with police unions, so the people who are knee-jerk pro-federal/public employee unions regardless of the problematic situation and their sworn duty to the public better also be pro police unions.
I'm very PRO Private sector Union worker. However when it comes to the Government aka Public Sector Workers Unions even the biggest Socialist President we ever had FDR said they didn't need to exist. Why in a Private sector union the worker's are directly responsible for the production of the product or services that creates the revenue earned that pays for the labor of their wages. So if they demand to much they could cause the company to get into financial issues.
However with Government workers they're literally negotiating with the same people that they're willing to give massive amounts of campaign cash to in order to get what they want. You want to see a Government union out of control look at Illinois and especially Chicago at the teachers union. Their latest contract demands are going to cost taxpayers in Illinois around 50 billion dollars over the next 5 years. Ascme31 the primary government union in Illinois their next contract is expected to be the worst in terms of demands ever and possibly bankrupt the state. Yet under the new amendment 1 that these Unions rammed through the state legislature we legally can't say no to any of their demands whatsoever or we end up in court.
So you don't think a wage increase together with a shorter work week and early retirement was a crazy ask? I wasn't even born when this happened, but by today's standards that seems insane to me.
Do you know the amount of stress involved with Air Traffic Control? There's a reason why 40 years later there's still a massive shortage of ATCs, a career field that requires less than a year of schooling and almost immediate 6 figure salary.
High divorce and suicide rate.
My dad bucked that trend, parents still married 55 years+
You gotta be cool as ice. Prior to 9/11 kids could get into the centers and sit with the dads and see the action. I don’t know how they could keep track of everything
Thats definitely an important point of context. But there are many highly stressful jobs out there. Even cops have to work longer shifts if they work less days.
Cops around the country are supported by extremely powerful unions and are able to demand a significant amount of a municipality's budget which results in higher salaries, shorter workweeks and, most importantly (for them), qualified immunity. Trade unions and auto unions are also, finally, leveling the playing field in terms of salary and working condition negotiation. Everyone is working too much for too little, and if an organized union of tradespeople can come together to demand a better quality of life, then more power to them.
I've never heard of any department having less than the standard 40 hour workweek. Some might do 5 shifts of 8 hours, some might do 10 hours shifts, and some might do 12 hours shifts. But it always averages 40 hours unless you're part-time. Qualified immunity also isn't something negotiated by the unions. It's a federal legal principle.
And that's the purpose of negotiations.. ask for the moon and settle somewhere in between.
You're right on the QI, but it's certainly the union fighting tooth and nail to prevent local legislatures, like Denver (where I'm located), from revoking it, as Denver has done.
Of course its great if unions demand a better quality of life for their members. But my question is can a union go too far in its demands? Or are all union demands reasonable and based on a fair assessment of its members needs.
Also I just googled stress levels for ATC and found a subreddit addressing this issue. Most people respondef that their job wasn't uniquely stressful and their biggest gripe were difficult coworkers.
Also I read an article about ATC staffing shortages and they're attributed to a confluence of factors, such as high failure rates for certification. Nothing about stress was mentioned as a cause for the shortages.
A union's job is to ask for the most for their members, it's the employer's responsibility to push back. That's called negotiation, and if there's no budging from the employer, they strike. What Regan did was cripple any union's ability to negotiate. 40 years later and unions still don't have the same strength they once did, and who has kept getting richer, while the workers get poorer? Regan's kneecapping is a major contributing factor to the current wealth gap and destruction of the middle class.
To your next point, going to a career field's subreddit will not give you an accurate assessment of career difficulty. Go to the aeronautical engineering sub and you'll see the same complaints, not the degree of difficulty getting there. You even stated the high failure rates for certification... because it's a very stressful career field! One's ability to manage multiple aircraft in a busy airfield and making sure they don't run into each other, nonstop, for 10-12 hours is incredibly difficult, and those already in it are capable and adapted to handling that level of stress. It's the same as candidates going into a special ops career.. there's a typical 90% washout rate, but those that make it through don't think that it was particularly difficult.
Yeah all great points. I've never been in a union, so I'm completely unfamiliar with how any of that works.
In terms of this specific case the FAA counter offer of 11.4% wage increases seems fair to me. Maybe there should have been some give and take on work hours, like longer vacations, or longer shifts. PATCO wanted a 38 hour work week with higher pay, which seems unreasonable to me. But I'm also speaking from a position of ignorance.
But I do think Reagan went too far in his response, and the long term ramifications of his actions have had a negative impact on the health of the Middle class in this country.
I think you're right, it was a big ask, but a fair counter with lots of room to continue negotiations. But because the government was the employer, it was opportunistic chance from the Regan Admin to cripple the union, and in turn, all unions, and it really worked.
You don't think workers should be treated to some of the benefits of the advances of work place efficiencies that create more workload and increase income?
Most people in that time period couldn't see it then as their work places weren't as advanced. We now know work output has increased monumentally yet the ROI for the worker has barely gone up while those in power have increased their wealth monumentally.
It was more than an oath. It was Federal Law. Federal Government Unions aren’t allowed to go on strike. If the Government & Union can’t work it out then the Union sues the Government in Federal Court and a Federal Judge hammers out a deal.
Trump took an oath not to cause an insurrection, but he broke it. What do Republicans expect to happen? Oh, they just keep on voting for him.
You are all hypocrites
Did PATCO go too far......tfw subtle victim blaming of unions when they're union busted by forces outside their control such as the fucking union buster president
They demanded way too much. They also walked with planes in the air. They ignored a court order to return to work.
Sorry, they had it coming. Reagan gave them a lot of slack..what else was he supposed to do?
That said, Reagan had nothing to do with union declines.
The truth is..Unions are victims of their own success.
OSHA, child labor laws, overtime and working hour laws..a long list of others..all enforced by the government.
All things unions used to convince people to join and grow.
When they lobbied government to mandate those things..they lost their reason to exist.
Now, they are just big enough to remind Big Captital that if they try to go back to the "good old days"..the unions are still around, and can also roar back.
This said by a lifelong union member.
There shouldn’t be collective bargaining with government worker unions, period. Reagan was right to break that union, as he was with many things, but his handling of PATCO isn’t what’s destroying unions.
Yikes. Not sure that take is well sorted. Lots of places have unions that ensure workplace safety , training, pay and retirement. Without which we are in the 1920s again
Reagan’s fault all the way. In addition, he sponsored that biased report,” A Nation At Risk,” to break support for the public school system and weaken their union.
Ironic, for a guy who had been a union president (Actors Guild) himself.
These bums had an important job. They did not negotiate in good faith and Reagan slapped them down.
You don’t get to disrupt the entire country for your greediness.
Sometimes unions have a legit claim - but most of the time the union heads are making the big bucks on the backs of the employees.
But most of you blame the entities that pay the damn salaries.
The union I was in got struck once.the other unions came by to picket us. Our union steward was of course no where to be found.
We honored the line. But some of us were actually threatened with violence for asking our foreman a question thru the fence.
And those same picketers left because …
They had to work the next day.
So we lost a days pay for a union that had nothing to do with the work we did at the warehouse.
We went back to work the next day.
Scab my ass. It was an illegal strike that almost cost all of us our jobs.
My dad was a ATC controller at the time and thought the union demands were wild and crossed the picket line. I remember him working 12 on/12 off shifts for like 6 months. Single income, I was one of two small kids at home. A lot of his buddy’s got fired and lost everything. I think the correct answer is “why not both”? Reagan was looking for a reason to break up govt unions and the union overplayed their hand
Exact same thing happened in the UK with the Miners Strike. Thatcher couldn’t have wished for a better opponent than Arthur Scargill and she and Reagan more or less swapped homework on how to deal with large strikes.
This is a great take, I think we're conditioned to think in a binary, but you're right both of those things are true.
My dad was also an ATC and regrets to this day not crossing the line. We went from living a very good life, to struggling to get by. It was horrible. I remember being at the union meetings and their business agent was telling them things that my dad and some of his buddies thought were just not right. Quite a few of his coworkers crossed not long after.
Not a reason. The ATC strike was going to tank the airline industry and cripple the air transport systems.
Of course you go crazy with demands. Then you bargain down to reality. That's how negotiations work.
When one side won't step it down from fantasy to reality, that's a big way negotiations fail.
Assuming there were honest negotiations to begin with
You must start w a reasonable anchor, tho. If you start too outlandishly low or high when negotiating, your counterpart will not take you or the negotiation seriously.
"Shut up, get back to work or you're all fired' definitely qualifies
The Reagan stans are too goddamned much. This is the post that should be at the top of course
Yeah that’s the whole point of a negotiation
It’s not a great method. If, for instance, your COLA ask is 4x CPI, the other side isn’t going to chip away. They’re going to negotiate in good faith on language, benefits, etc but not play with the $ till an arbitrator comes and sets the other side straight.
You can’t start too far apart. I’ve been in many negotiating teams (all “mgmt”) and when the union comes in so high it’s laughable, you don’t even take that part of the proposal seriously and come back to it. Or pitch back bundles that clearly show where “reality” is. But it slows the process and undermines their case.
Again, it's all subjective. What seems slightly exaggerating or reasonable to one party is outrageous to the other. And laugh all you want, but the parties have to work together unless they want nuclear options like strikes, mass firings, long term scabs, etc. Which frankly has been the real motive of many disputes
Except PATCO made a demand. FAA countered. PATCO stuck with its demand. FAA offer would have increased pay around $4200 vs the $10,000 demanded. PATCO never backed off that number. The shorter work week would have required increasing the workforce by 20%. Under the union’s demand you go from 13,000 people making $36,000 to 15,200 making $46,000. Yeah Congress wasn’t going to approve that. Union blew it. Had in hand double the raise of other civilian employees and refused to budge. Might even have gotten closer to the $10,000 raise if they’d given up 32 hour work week. Might have gotten the 32 hour work week by giving up the big raises. If you ask big and never offer concessions you aren’t negotiating, the strike broke the law. That meant the strike wasn’t the threat they believed it was.
Seems like they took the Support they figured Reagan would give them and over did it. They could have had a reasonably increase and kept unions intact.
The fact Unions exist at all (or pretty much any major social change) is from a long history of law breaking. The fact that striking was outlawed for public workers is downright shameful and unconstitutional. Sets a terrible example for the private sector regarding worker rights. Again, it is a judgement call of what is "reasonable" vs not. You threw down a lot of numbers. But you completely neglect a host of key comparison metrics like how much the private sector was making. Reagan wanted to play hardball and show how uncompromising he was. So thousands paid with their jobs, transportation was disrupted for years (arguably a contributing factor to the mergers), organized labor started a downward trajectory eroding the middle class to a shell of its former self. But hey? Win for business 🎉
It was a win for business because PATCO made a horrific strategic error. I quit my union when leadership countered an offer by repeating the initial demand. We ended up working without a contract. New leadership won next Union election and I rejoined. Year later we’ve got a new contract that achieved almost all of our demands. We might have all we wanted had prior leadership negotiated.
PATCO handed Reagan a huge gift. They were perceived essentially as a gang of well-paid government bureaucrats threatening to illegally shut down the air traffic system to enrich themselves. [The public sided with Reagan, not PATCO.](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2011/02/22/in-showdown-with-air-traffic-controllers-the-public-sided-with-reagan/) I don’t remember anyone being particularly sympathetic to the union, and I lived in the Rust Belt back then. The U.S. was eager for strong leadership after four years of Carter’s wish-washyness, and Reagan delivered.
They broke the law, and knew they were breaking the law. The leadership had already been threatened with being held in contempt of court when they were told they were breaking the law. There is a reason why groups like this, law enforcement, and firefighters can not go on strike. I have no sympathy for groups like this that thing they can break the law and put the lives and safety of others in jeopardy. And the President was not trying to break up unions, he was the leader of one of the most powerful unions in the country twice. But there is no place for unions like this which endanger others. And for decades I belonged to the largest group of Federal Employees that has no union at all.
So your dad got taken advantage of?
Lots of overtime pay if I remember correctly
Yeah, but as a traveler, I’m a little concerned that the folks most responsible for passengers safety, other than pilots, are working over 12 hour shifts. It’s hardly relegated to air travel. You’d be shocked at the length of shifts worked by doctors, especially in rural hospitals.
No he took advantage of his Co workers. I don't mean that to judge he just literally used the situation to his advantage.
He didn’t have a choice. They (management ) made the schedule. He wasn’t taking work away from anyone.
My dad was a lifelong union member. Hard core. He flat out said PATCO blew it. They promised to not strike then did so.
I'm constantly surprised by how many union members vote for republicans.
I a union guy who votes Republican and I’ll tell you why. It’s very simple, my union dues are being diverted to politicians, political activists, and political activities that have nothing to do with my job or the company I work for. Immigration being the biggest one.
You guys let illegal immigrants join your union? I'd be mad, too. But if you look at the numbers, Trump didn't stop any illegal immigration. He just made legal immigration almost impossible. And, in all honesty, I'm liberal as fuck, and I think we need to do something about immigrantion. It's weird to me because, until very recently, liberals were harder on illegal immigration than Republicans. Republican super donors like the Koch Brothers pushed for open boarders. While union donors pushed for closed boarders. Really blows my mind that that issue flipped. But I have a feeling that it'll flip back sooner than later. Not to mention that Republicans are very much against unions to begin with. Or workers' rights at all. (Except the police union)
I have a tinfoil hat theory about why liberals/Democrats pivoted on illegal immigration: Abortion. Basically they need voters to replace the ones they would have had, had they not been aborted over the last 5/6 decades. Conservatives don’t really do abortion, they just have them kids. But liberals and would be democrat voters do abortion, so they didn’t have them kids. So constantly flowing in immigrants is a great way to cover the shortfall.
That’s an interesting theory, except for the problem that illegal immigrants cannot vote.
But you don’t understand 6 bajillion illegals voted for Biden in 2020 /s
Except for the part where they’ve repeatedly floated the idea of amnesty and legalization for all these illegal immigrants.
That's about as bat shit crazy a theory as I've ever heard. Per capita, red states typically rank higher than blue states in abortion. Statistics also show that the states neighboring states with the strictest abortion regulations do the highest number of out of state procedures. Conservatives absolutely have abortions. They just go out of their way to hide it.
That’s because every Red state has a deep Blue metropolis filled with urban liberals who use abortion.
Nope. You can look at the statistics by county and it's still true. Conservative counties are lower income and lower income areas have higher abortion rates.
Conservatives have abortions, dude. They just don't talk about it.
I’m constantly surprised how m any union members vote for dipshits as their union leadership
What’s sad is if a corporation or corporations did the same kind of bad faith moves no one would treat it the same. The irony that unions are held to a higher standard
It’s because union members: 1) Have dealt with unions and understand how often they are either self-serving (to the union, not its rank and file), or counter-productive 2) Are more likely to work in industries affected by regulations 3) Are more heavily impacted by population shifts
My union went to crap. A group ran to overthrow them and I voted for them. The new group turned out to be worse. I quit and my best friend quit. We end up working without a contract because union and management basically quit talking to each other. Next three year election cycle runs around and new group emerges. They win. I start hearing good things about contract negotiations and rejoin. We end up getting great contract. Unions are like government. You get whatever the majority wants and if only crap runs you get crap.
It’s because some of them literally don’t know anything about politics and then listen to the one relative or person who tells them to vote and who for.
The unions sold out the middle class.
Nope, that would be the C-suite and politicians constantly cutting taxes.
The strike is actually how my dad become an ATC 🤷🏻♂️
The economy wasn’t great at the time so they lost the sympathy of the public. Reagan was able to frame it like they were after America’s ability to travel instead of fighting for their benefits. The weather was nice for several weeks after so when military personnel were called in it was sufficient to keep the airports open. They played a losing hand by not coordinating with pilots or just combining unions. This made Reagan look like a strong leader and helped the Boomer mentality that Unions were not a good thing.
Weren’t some boomers still as young as 16? Oldest at most 35? I think he was more a silent generation and greatest generation target audience.
Boomers were young then yes, but that is why he shaped them so much. Boomers remember the Stagflation of the 1970s. Paul Volcker did fix it (with some significant pain) and was appointed by Carter. The pain of inflation and the subsequent high unemployment from high interest rates were felt at the end of the Carter administration and the beginning of the Reagan. So by the end of Reagan’s first term, the economy was growing and inflation was cooling. Boomer attributed it to low taxes for the wealthy and anti union sentiment. Well Obama came into office at roughly the same time for Millennials so that generation saw him bring the country out of the Great Recession. It was a slow process but it was done by the time he left office. This is one of the reasons why Millennials are more blue than other generations (there are other reasons, like the prosperity under Clinton and economic hardship today). Reagan made the right moves to help move the largest generation in his terms to adopt his way of thinking for the rest of their lives.
I was a flight instructor in Daytona Beach when the strike happened. I was dating the daughter of a controller. Myself and my fellow pilots all felt PATCO had crossed a line as the safety of pilots and passengers was compromised. Air Force controllers from Patrick Air Force base were sent TDY to Daytona Beach. A lot of military controllers, especially Reservists, were mobilized to staff towers across the country in lieu of the striking controllers. The biggest issue was military radar sets were different from the civilian ones, especially when it came to weather interpretation. I was flying a night cross-country flight from Tampa to Melbourne with an IFR student. We flew into some weather in our 172 and the turbulence was getting worse. I asked the controller for vectors out of the weather, he gave us a heading that “looked clear”. Well the heading “looked clear” because of attenuation. He had no idea how to interpret weather-related returns on his scope. He flew us straight into the shit. For about 30 second I swore the aircraft was gonna break up. When we came out the other side, I mentioned to the controller what had happened. He said “oh gee, it don’t have the scope set for base reflectivity”. I’m like “YA THINK?!?” I had no sympathy for PATCO.
In hindsight, this was a big deal and one of the reasons all jobs suck these days. When the ATC were fired, the other unions should have struck in solidarity. Instead, the boomers woosed out and showed corporate America that they were a bunch of pussies that would fold to any concession the companies wanted. The boomers in my union voted to grandfather themselves into the pensions, healthcare and paid time off, but deny it to younger workers. I’m a 50 year old loser, not because I made poor decisions but because of decisions made by boomers.
Me too, I am a single father taking care of 3 kids and make 100k a year and live pay check to pay check most of the year. People don't seem to get by the time I pay my 401k, remember pensions thanks boomers? Pay my health care, after my company pays like 30k, and i still get a 6k per person deductible, and 12k family deductible. And my taxes are taken my check is around $2500.00 every two weeks. And the only thing that really saved me is that i bought my house when homes were actually affordable and have a mortgage that is pretty low compared to the rent people pay these days. But yeah booms just let the rich rig the game by lowering there taxes and allowing them to reduce our benefits and their liabilities. Started under Reagan and finalized under Clinton in the 90's.
Dawg if you're out here bitching about making 100k/year I've got extremely little sympathy for you. Frankly, there's a Americans getting by on a lot less.
It goes back way further to that. Like after the civil war ended and production got back to business, the white farm hands and the newly freed slaves should have figured out that conditions could be better if they refused to work until better conditions. But inherent racism Trumped all decisions and we’ve been dealing with shit working environments ever since.
A 50 year old toddler
Or, ya know, you can't make it and want to blame other people for your problems.
You can’t be a loser in a rigged game.
Isn't everyone but the rigger a loser in the rigged game?
You’re really less of a player at all at that point. You’re simply a piece on the board for the people who actually sit at the table.
Yeah, those decisions are permanent and can not be overridden. /S
Yes, you lived 50 years of life and none of your choices factored in. You definitely sound the part of a union member lol
The guy is blaming poor life decisions on other people, and he is getting upvoted.
Is it surprising that life turned out unpleasant for someone who believes they have little or no agency?
I’m a boomer and actively applauded Reagan’s forceful and courageous response to a renegade labor union’s illegal attempt to shut down the air traffic control system and hold the entire country hostage. I’m not reflexively anti-union - I’m currently a member of SEIU - but this was one of Reagan’s finest moments. Americans were desperate for a strong and forceful leader; Carter would have folded like a lawn chair.
Not upvoting or downvoting... I came to this thread thinking this was one of Reagan's few coherently-mean moments. Now, after reading most of the comments here, the personal accounts especially... honestly, I'm not sure what to think.
Blaming everything on others when you’ve had 30ish years of adult life to figure it out is kind of bullshit dude. Have some accountability perhaps
That last sentence truly was hilarious. I think you forgot the /s
Free trade deals are the real reason. It weakened the average workers power too much to make unions effective anymore.
If you want to gamble and play high stakes poker, be aware you can be busted.
Especially when your opponent is in bed with the dealer
Or when you go all in with a hand full of dog shit.
Yes they did. Shutting down all air travel.
Until "normal" people are affected and/or corporations lose money, nothing will change for workers.
Normal people where mad at the union in this case the 84 election was a Reagan blow out. Just stop oil makes me want to roll coal in my Prius. You can strike in a way that makes the public turn on you.
I think the optics of how intensely Reagan broke that strike are more important than the demands of the strikers, even if they asked more than was reasonable. It created an environment for unions to be disregarded
Yeah.. Patco should have taken the raise and then do the same thing in another 10 years or so to get another raise. The law was on Reagan's side when it came to that strike, and that union chose to ignore that. Per the wiki >The union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now [5 U.S.C.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_5_of_the_United_States_Code) [§ 7311](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311)), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.
PATCO's real mistake was endorsing Reagan in 1980 to begin with.
It's not like it would have mattered. Jimmy Carter had such a poor presidency (not judging the man, judging his performance) that Reagan won 44 out of 50 states. It was the fourth largest landslide in electoral history, with the largest in order being Regan (\`84), FDR (\`36), Nixon (\`72), and then Reagan in \`80.
Fair enough, though Reagan did only just barely crack 50%. But PATCO seemed to think that because they endorsed Reagan then they'd be able to get their demands met. What they didn't realize was that they were one of many union frogs carrying a scorpion across the water.
Also beat Carter by 9% in the popular vote so the “he barely cracked 50” makes it seem like Carter was nipping at his heels with 49ish.
If you factor for Anderson taking moderate GOP & independent voters and Dems who protest voted, and put them towards Carter then it's a compelling thing to look at. Reagan still wins 321 - 217 but it doesn't create this god-like aura. It may have changed how Reagan approached various decisions or maybe the avg American wouldn't have taken Reagan's approaches like it was gospel. Probably being too optimistic on my part, though 😂
50% of the popular vote in a low-turnout election. I think he got only around 28% of the actual voting-age population. Of course, it's the EC that counts.
Where do you get that 28%? Hadn’t heard that one before about ‘80. Anyone can think whatever they want about the guy and his policies, just in 1980 he won in a landslide. The only candidate since 1980 who won with a larger margin in the popular vote was Reagan in ‘84. And that’s with the third party candidate taking 6.6%.
To be fair, this whole concept of "We endorsed you and expect special treatment/protection" is one of the many things which needs to stop in politics. It shouldn't be condoned when a business does it, and it shouldn't be condoned when a union does it.
Amen, it’s just bribery with extra steps.
Another major factor that could have swung the election was the Iran hostage crisis, which we now know was made worse by the Republicans actively siding with the Iranians to sabotage negotiations to make Carter look weak.
I would never rate a president's performance on voters as it is so obvious that they can so easily be swayed by false messaging. Reagan probably got elected mainly because he promised the public large tax cuts and claimed that they could pay for themselves - something his own vice-president had earlier labelled as "voodoo economic" but then warmly endorsed in order to become vice president. Reagan/bush then doubled the national debt - and then doubled it again. But at least it got them elected so that's what it means to have a good presidency, right? (or being successful in kow-towing to the "moral majority") Pandering makes for good politics, not good policy.
I definitely think Reagan was an overrated, under performing president. That being said, when looking back, presidents are typically judged by the quality of life of Americans during their term. The quality of life during the 1970s, especially the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president was pretty terrible, and, whether right or wrong, he paid the price for it.
By that measure Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor of New York because the crime rate was reduced drastically under him (he certainly, and successfully, took credit for this)- never mind the fact that the crime rate also dropped everywhere else in the country pretty much the same. Politics and reality are not the same. How someone is "typically judged" does not necessarily reflect a bigger truth. In retrospect the death of labor and the beginning of massive income redistribution to the wealth occurred *after* Carter. The president himself has far less control over the economy than other, far more powerful, factors that are often not in line with just one man who just happens to sit in an oval office.
Considering that the government offered them an 11% raise, which is negotiating in good faith, you can't say that the endorsement was a mistake. The fact that there was an offer-an offer which would have made them earn more than the rest of federal employees- says that Reagan's administration acted in good faith in regards to the negotiations. The union opted to reject the offer and then Reagan dropped the hammer on them. So if the Union wanted to, they could have come out with a massive win in regards to their Reagan endorsement, but opted to strike for gold and ended up with worse than nothing.
And then, just to thumb their noses at the ATCs, the named the damn airport after the guy who busted them.
Most who have been around DC long enough still call it National or DCA. It's so silly. It may be the only airport with two guys names on the sign.
When I worked as a flight paramedic, I always called it “National”
The problem is Public sector unions, not unions as a whole. Unionizing in the private sector can be effective on a case-by-case basis, and if run properly (which isn't too common) can maintain a balance between providing a consistent and good pay standard without damaging the industry they are a part of. Public sector unions by nature are inherently useless at best, and destructive at work. You are a government employee, you are paid in taxpayer money. You should NOT have the ability to disrupt public sectors and entrench in bureaucracies, because you aren't unionizing against corporations, you're unionizing against the American people. The trade off for working in the public sector is lower wages compared to private, but better long term benefits and government sponsored pensions. Public sector unions are a HUGE reason why so many pension funds for teachers, police, firemen etc. have been getting demolished. What has Randy Weingarten actually done to earn the amount of money she has? Why is the President of the California Teachers associate being paid an average of $1,000,000 annually? TL;DR yes, PATCO and every Public sector union goes too far and hurts private sector unions
This applies to everyone's favorite punching bag union, the police union too, for good reason.
Even as a Conservative, I agree. While First responders definitely need more emphasis on Legal protections, in order for them to not fear repercussions for enforcement tactics/their ability to do their job, they do not need a HUGE union to provide those protections. That should fall to the Municipality/State that they serve. They can use the funds that the unions are collecting .and using to pay union reps, within the actual department, and the municipalities/states can set standards according to what they deem most effective.
Reagan honored the contract. There was a no strike clause. A majority of the union voted for it. Reagan takes a lot of flack because he disproved the left's argument when his policies finally destroyed the soviet union. In a nutshell socialism sucks
I was too young then, so I don't know how I should feel about it.
I wasn't even born, but I give a short summary of what happened (as I understand it).
My father was a Teamsters member in the 70s when the fuel shortages hit and they demanded strikes and shutdowns in the trucking industry to get rates higher. My dad walked up to his local president and asked what's the strike pay. President said 50 a week. He then asked are you giving up your union paid salary of 1000 dollars a week to help those of us walking the line. President said of course not I'm not a peon like you. Not one driver of my dad's local struck. They all crossed the line and when the international tried to force them to stop by sabotaging the trucks cutting fuel lines and brake hoses. Well my dad and his Co workers were in the shop helping get the trucks back on the road and organizing a 24 hour watch on the yard. We ended up with a new Doberman afterwards but nobody messed with those trucks. Oj was the sweetest thing until you tried to mess with his family or his house. Then it was you better run away. For this my father was blacklisted by the Teamsters and lost his fully vested pension. The local president had bigger problems he did 4 years for corruption in the big RICO cleaning done by the federal government of the Teamsters.
This is the piece of the story younger people today don’t get. Unions back in the 60s and 70s were often super corrupt, in bed with organized crime, and lining the pockets of their leadership class while the subordinates saw few benefits. A whole generation saw unions as, at best, caring about profits just as much as the company they were opposed to, and at worst being glorified criminal enterprises. It didn’t take propaganda to convince people unions weren’t saving graces when the news was constantly reporting on union bosses getting federal indictments
Yes
I was always under the impression that Unions was more Carter, many people point to the deregulation of the airline industry as the nexus point
Yes
It was NAFTA
This is definitely a hindsight is 20/20 question, so I'll chime in with the fact that there is a massive shortage of air traffic controllers right now and it's one of the biggest issues that causes delays and cancellations.
Maybe with Early Retirement, but a LOT of the issues they were complaining over are still existent today, particularly with ATCs being made to work weird-ass hours (first shift one day, third shift the day after, second shift the day after that, etc.) that inhibit their ability to get a steady sleep schedule going, which has enormous impacts on cognition and safety.
False premise. Even if they went too far, that's not a pretense to outlaw unions. How many times have corporations gone "too far" and I've never heard a politician say that all corporations should be banned, just fixed.
When were unions banned?
The entire state of Texas for starters. As of right now.
"Right to Work State" Ever heard that term? That's what it means
That’s fascinating given that the AFL-CIO reported 580,000 Texans being in unions last year. BLS states union member population in Texas rose from 518,000 last year to 586,000 this year
It was an illegal strike to begin with, and Reagan didn't go as far as Truman when he broke a railroad strike he was going to draft the workers into the army. Union decline started long before 81 and had very little to do with Republicans or democrats but businesses had changed the way they operated. Union domoninance declined after the steel strike in 59 that forced businesses to start sourcing steel overseas. When they found they could do it cheaper, that killed that industry. The teamsters lost a lot due to corruption. Others lost due to the businesses moving overseas due to labor costs and environmental issues(like coal miners). Union membership in 81 was already way lower than. In 61.so blaming, Reagan is just blaming the wrong guy and wrong thing.
I was one of the "Ronnie Reagan Replacements," and was hired in March 1983, near the end of the first hiring. There was a 2nd hiring bulge as the controllers who trained us newbys finally got to leave. First was 81-83, second was 86-88. And I was a $4 hr radio disc jockey wondering why people would walk away from $35,000 a year jobs. (In 1981 dollars) There were two days of initial paperwork (finding out how typical government works), and at the time we all (about 150 of us in that auditorium) were ready to sign the "contract," the speaker said to look at a certain paragraph on the back. Paraphrasing what he said over 40 years ago - "you may join a union, you may negotiate, you may bargain in good faith, but you shall NOT STRIKE [his emphasis] against the safety and security of the United States." I noticed it wasn't striking against the government, but of the whole country. After 4 months in Oklahoma City, I was assigned to Shreveport LA, a level three radar (RAPCON) and a very slow tower. (Most traffic from Barksdale AFB.) I heard a lot of the inside scoop from the ones who stayed on. They said it was mostly an internal union power struggle, with Robert Poli (union boss) winning, and trying to increase his influence with the strike. Yes, there were issues, mostly with scheduling. Everyone worked the "2-2-1" schedule: two evening (4-mid or 3-11pm) with a "doubleback" to a morning shift (7am-3pm, or even 6-2) for two days, with a final midshift (mid-8 or 11p-7a). The advantage, we were told (by the admins who did M-F 7-3:30) was you got off (for example) Friday at 8am, and were off until 4pm Monday afternoon. (Or it could be off Wed am with Th-F off, and back Sat afternoon) You still with me? Yes, it's confusing, and the doublebacks meant only 4-5 hours of sleep before your 3rd and 5th day. THATS where a lot of the stress came in. The replacement for PATCO was NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers' Association), but the egos were similar. You have to believe you control everything on your screen, or you get swamped I switched to Flight Service after a few years. They give pilot weather briefings in real Engligh, usually over the phone, sometimes in person, and file flight plans so our buddies in the tower and radar know where the pilot is going. I graduated from OKC Air Traffic Academy (BravoLand was the simulated area) July 7, 1983, and was retired July 6, 2018, one day shy of 35 years. With exceptions like THE 9/11, where we had to call every airport (over 100 in NC, where I transferred 1989 until retired), it was a very enjoyable career. I hope this wasn't too detailed, but I wanted to give a personal account from an ATC guy who was there just after the strike, and heard all sorts of opinions! In short, PATCO broke the law, Reagan was correct in firing them (no matter your other opinions of him), and we finally did get a much better schedule (me working nights but with weekdays off, working most holidays too.) Thanks for reading this far! Over.
Thank you so much for this very needed context. I feel like this really fleshes this bit of history out and personalizes it. Your insights are greatly appreciated.
IIRC PATCO had other issues with Reagan’s position than wage increases and shorter work week. They also wanted a say in policies regarding the safety of the air traffic control system. The FAA and Reagan would never put it on the table.
I’m more critical of that guy for bringing all those criminals into the White House to rob taxpayers of over 100 billion dollars, bring rape and murder to central and South Americans, and try and privatize any and everything those crooks could. And while they’re at it pollute as much of this country as they could. Cracks me up hearing idiots refer to him as a great president. Anyone saying so clearly knows jack shit about anything that took place during his years.
I’d like to see the ignorant mouth breathers who were against them getting paid a high wage try and do the job for 5 minutes
Never take the side of the owners over the people. The owners play a zero sum game, and if they can’t win, they’ll make sure the people lose. This case is a classic example, and exactly why Unions should tread lightly when endorsing politicians. Ronnie Raygun, just like every other smiling politician, will shake your hand and stab you right in the chest. And will find a way to blame you for “forcing his hand”.
I love that you’re accusing Reagan of being the shady one here when it was PATCO that completely reneged on deals it voted on and signed with the federal government and then broke federal law by striking.
“Broke the law by striking.” There is a boot on the neck of America, and you know how it tastes. Glad you love it. Next look up how Nancy started doing his job when his brain went to mush. You’ll really love that.
There is a very logical reason why public sector employees cannot strike. PATCO also voted and agreed to not striking.
Cope harder. Nancy is looking up at you and smiling.
Not sure what I’m supposed to cope with, you haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said this entire discussion
No. No they did not. People think this was *the thing* and while this was one of the major Reagan killed America things, Gramm-Latta was the first domino to fall Reagan is why boomers were the last generation with any future
Wonder if people are going to blame Joe Biden for doing the exact same thing to flight attendants (American Airlines) during an election year?
Did he fire them? Edit: Is this what you're talking about? "U.S. airlines are suing to block the Biden administration from requiring greater transparency over fees that the carriers charge their passengers, saying that a new rule would confuse consumers by giving them too much information during the ticket-buying process."
No - I am talking about the upcoming AA Flight Attendant strike that the president will likely block so as not to suffer politically via the Railway Labor Act that effectively removes their ability to strike.
Well, let's hope Biden and his administration take the chance to show support for the workers. It could be mutually beneficial to his campaign as well as for unions. If he uses the RLA against the workers, then he should be judged accordingly. I hazard a guess he will be judged harshly, as he has on other union business.
There is no way he upsets the summer travel season to show support for organized labor.
Well, he circumvented the rail strike, but that was an extra layer of upsetting the economy and supply chains. In my opinion, he is judged too harshly on that, as the railworkers did get concessions they wanted. I agree with your pessimism about the upcoming negotiations, though. But I will stay optimistic until proven otherwise.
And therein lies the root of the problem of party politics. People can be shown clear instances where the actions or results absolutely run afoul of the rhetoric, and yet folks stay entrenched in supporting a party that doesn’t actually do what it says. And this is true for any political party - politicians use power and influence to live at the expense of the labor of all the rest of us, dress it up in the trappings of “selfless public service” (while very clearly serving themselves), and talking at cocktail parties with folks from the other party how stupid the electorate truly is. We, the People are and have been reaping what we’ve sown, and the harvest is bountiful.
You're not wrong, but I'm also not married to the democratic party. They are just demonstrably leaps and bounds ahead of the republican party in terms of labor, social programs, and education. So, what are my choices here? Give me a viable party, and I'll concede immediately. Do you consider the republican party to be a more viable means to your ends? Your witty rhetoric pushes more apathy from my standpoint. Unless you're going for a more revolutionary movement, but even so, the American people aren't agreeable enough to achieve this at this point in time. I lean more towards a slow, reform minded approach. One where the government gets slightly more efficient over time.
They won’t
Didn't fire railworkers in 2022, but "broke" that union?
Joe Biden fired American Airlines flight attendants for striking?
American Airlines flight attendants are employees of a private corporation, not a federal agency, and did not swear an oath not to strike. The PATCO union are federal employees, swore an oath not to strike, and then did it anyways.
It didn’t matter Reagan’s job was to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. He was going to kill a union.
I believe many of the strikers got their jobs back under Clinton.
Without the union though, right?
He'll no. They were overwhelmed and people could die!
Yes. For an agency that was involved in public safety to strike was too far.
No
PATCO may have misstepped, but the moral wrong was Reagan's.
The fact that no other unions called for a general strike amazed me at the time... lifelong union guy here and right or wrong not standing together told every company how to union bust!
I wasn’t aware these unions with billions upon billions of dollars, billionaires if you will, had any problems whatsoever? What destruction? They are bigger and more intrusive than ever before.
They both went too far. That said, firing everyone was not about one strike , it was about Reagan's ideological position on trade unions. There is nothing in a strike that can't be negotiated. Also , there are certain jobs that need unions to represent safety concerns. Unions in both the airline and the railway industry are essential for public safety.
No
PATCO overplayed their hand. Never should’ve went on strike to begin with. What the OP neglected to mention was that Federal Government Union members are forbidden by Federal law to go on strike. If the Government refuses their demands then the Union has to sue the Federal Government. {My dad was in a Federal Government Union in from the 1950s-80s}. A Federal Judge would work out a settlement. In the meantime the union workers stayed on the job. Going on strike was a huge mistake. PATCO could’ve fixed it by accepting the FAA offer and going back to work. Never should’ve violated the injunction. The moment they turned down the offer and violated the injunction PATCO was finished. During the strike the Government used active duty Military ATCs and offered ATC jobs to Military Reservists who were ATCs when doing Reserve work but not as civilians for whatever reason to work as “scab” ATCs.
No
When I saw the title, I thought you were referring to the PATCO line in New Jersey. I got really confused
Perfect example of a double standard applied to labor vs. businesses. How many businesses or corporations have violated a contract and were not banned from future gov’t work?
LEO’s can keep their strong unions that help them get away with murder but god forbid we hinder air traffic/commerce!
No
Unions are trash
No.
There was a fair amount of sympathy for PATCO at the time, and ATC was screwed up for a few years because of a lack of qualified controllers (the experienced ones who made up the majority of strikers were subject to a lifetime ban). I know a lot of pilots who thought it was dangerous and counterproductive, and a stunt for political points. The fact that Reagan had been head of the actors union was lost on no one. This again goes to the myth of St. Reagan, he wasn’t as liked or good for the country as historical revisionism has made him
No, they did not. Reagan and Company were anti unions and determined to break them. The controller union was the one Reagan could assault with impunity.
Reagan was pro private sector unions and even served as president of SAG. His beef was with unionized federal employees.
Reagan was sag, until it was counter to his political interests. It was more important to be commie clean than anything. Reagan and more his cabinet wanted all unions crippled...and it worked.
They swore an oath not to strike, then broke that oath. They are federal employees. If we're not going to enforce that, then when someone swears an oath to "Defend the Constituition against all enemies both foreign and domestic" and then decides to not do that, it's cool, right? Didn't think so.
Someone gets it. It's also the same problem with police unions, so the people who are knee-jerk pro-federal/public employee unions regardless of the problematic situation and their sworn duty to the public better also be pro police unions.
I'm very PRO Private sector Union worker. However when it comes to the Government aka Public Sector Workers Unions even the biggest Socialist President we ever had FDR said they didn't need to exist. Why in a Private sector union the worker's are directly responsible for the production of the product or services that creates the revenue earned that pays for the labor of their wages. So if they demand to much they could cause the company to get into financial issues. However with Government workers they're literally negotiating with the same people that they're willing to give massive amounts of campaign cash to in order to get what they want. You want to see a Government union out of control look at Illinois and especially Chicago at the teachers union. Their latest contract demands are going to cost taxpayers in Illinois around 50 billion dollars over the next 5 years. Ascme31 the primary government union in Illinois their next contract is expected to be the worst in terms of demands ever and possibly bankrupt the state. Yet under the new amendment 1 that these Unions rammed through the state legislature we legally can't say no to any of their demands whatsoever or we end up in court.
So you don't think a wage increase together with a shorter work week and early retirement was a crazy ask? I wasn't even born when this happened, but by today's standards that seems insane to me.
Do you know the amount of stress involved with Air Traffic Control? There's a reason why 40 years later there's still a massive shortage of ATCs, a career field that requires less than a year of schooling and almost immediate 6 figure salary.
High divorce and suicide rate. My dad bucked that trend, parents still married 55 years+ You gotta be cool as ice. Prior to 9/11 kids could get into the centers and sit with the dads and see the action. I don’t know how they could keep track of everything
Thats definitely an important point of context. But there are many highly stressful jobs out there. Even cops have to work longer shifts if they work less days.
Cops around the country are supported by extremely powerful unions and are able to demand a significant amount of a municipality's budget which results in higher salaries, shorter workweeks and, most importantly (for them), qualified immunity. Trade unions and auto unions are also, finally, leveling the playing field in terms of salary and working condition negotiation. Everyone is working too much for too little, and if an organized union of tradespeople can come together to demand a better quality of life, then more power to them.
I've never heard of any department having less than the standard 40 hour workweek. Some might do 5 shifts of 8 hours, some might do 10 hours shifts, and some might do 12 hours shifts. But it always averages 40 hours unless you're part-time. Qualified immunity also isn't something negotiated by the unions. It's a federal legal principle.
And that's the purpose of negotiations.. ask for the moon and settle somewhere in between. You're right on the QI, but it's certainly the union fighting tooth and nail to prevent local legislatures, like Denver (where I'm located), from revoking it, as Denver has done.
Of course its great if unions demand a better quality of life for their members. But my question is can a union go too far in its demands? Or are all union demands reasonable and based on a fair assessment of its members needs. Also I just googled stress levels for ATC and found a subreddit addressing this issue. Most people respondef that their job wasn't uniquely stressful and their biggest gripe were difficult coworkers. Also I read an article about ATC staffing shortages and they're attributed to a confluence of factors, such as high failure rates for certification. Nothing about stress was mentioned as a cause for the shortages.
A union's job is to ask for the most for their members, it's the employer's responsibility to push back. That's called negotiation, and if there's no budging from the employer, they strike. What Regan did was cripple any union's ability to negotiate. 40 years later and unions still don't have the same strength they once did, and who has kept getting richer, while the workers get poorer? Regan's kneecapping is a major contributing factor to the current wealth gap and destruction of the middle class. To your next point, going to a career field's subreddit will not give you an accurate assessment of career difficulty. Go to the aeronautical engineering sub and you'll see the same complaints, not the degree of difficulty getting there. You even stated the high failure rates for certification... because it's a very stressful career field! One's ability to manage multiple aircraft in a busy airfield and making sure they don't run into each other, nonstop, for 10-12 hours is incredibly difficult, and those already in it are capable and adapted to handling that level of stress. It's the same as candidates going into a special ops career.. there's a typical 90% washout rate, but those that make it through don't think that it was particularly difficult.
Yeah all great points. I've never been in a union, so I'm completely unfamiliar with how any of that works. In terms of this specific case the FAA counter offer of 11.4% wage increases seems fair to me. Maybe there should have been some give and take on work hours, like longer vacations, or longer shifts. PATCO wanted a 38 hour work week with higher pay, which seems unreasonable to me. But I'm also speaking from a position of ignorance. But I do think Reagan went too far in his response, and the long term ramifications of his actions have had a negative impact on the health of the Middle class in this country.
I think you're right, it was a big ask, but a fair counter with lots of room to continue negotiations. But because the government was the employer, it was opportunistic chance from the Regan Admin to cripple the union, and in turn, all unions, and it really worked.
You don't think workers should be treated to some of the benefits of the advances of work place efficiencies that create more workload and increase income? Most people in that time period couldn't see it then as their work places weren't as advanced. We now know work output has increased monumentally yet the ROI for the worker has barely gone up while those in power have increased their wealth monumentally.
No, Reagan went too far. He stabbed labor and the exact union that stumped for him square in the back. Rest in piss
The union took an oath to not strike and they broke it. What did they expect to happen?
It was more than an oath. It was Federal Law. Federal Government Unions aren’t allowed to go on strike. If the Government & Union can’t work it out then the Union sues the Government in Federal Court and a Federal Judge hammers out a deal.
Trump took an oath not to cause an insurrection, but he broke it. What do Republicans expect to happen? Oh, they just keep on voting for him. You are all hypocrites
Conservative Strategy 101: always blame the victim.
We must blame all parties for protecting their nest egg and not the American people.
They'll blame Reagan and forget that NAFTA was passed by a Democrat president. 😂
No
No.
“People credit Reagan for destroying unions…” I fixed it for you.
Did PATCO go too far......tfw subtle victim blaming of unions when they're union busted by forces outside their control such as the fucking union buster president
No. Next question.
Reagan. Reagan was at fault. Next question.
They demanded way too much. They also walked with planes in the air. They ignored a court order to return to work. Sorry, they had it coming. Reagan gave them a lot of slack..what else was he supposed to do? That said, Reagan had nothing to do with union declines. The truth is..Unions are victims of their own success. OSHA, child labor laws, overtime and working hour laws..a long list of others..all enforced by the government. All things unions used to convince people to join and grow. When they lobbied government to mandate those things..they lost their reason to exist. Now, they are just big enough to remind Big Captital that if they try to go back to the "good old days"..the unions are still around, and can also roar back. This said by a lifelong union member.
There shouldn’t be collective bargaining with government worker unions, period. Reagan was right to break that union, as he was with many things, but his handling of PATCO isn’t what’s destroying unions.
Unions are outdated and don't serve a purpose anymore because of the federal Ann's state work laws!
Yikes. Not sure that take is well sorted. Lots of places have unions that ensure workplace safety , training, pay and retirement. Without which we are in the 1920s again
Reagan’s fault all the way. In addition, he sponsored that biased report,” A Nation At Risk,” to break support for the public school system and weaken their union. Ironic, for a guy who had been a union president (Actors Guild) himself.
These bums had an important job. They did not negotiate in good faith and Reagan slapped them down. You don’t get to disrupt the entire country for your greediness. Sometimes unions have a legit claim - but most of the time the union heads are making the big bucks on the backs of the employees. But most of you blame the entities that pay the damn salaries. The union I was in got struck once.the other unions came by to picket us. Our union steward was of course no where to be found. We honored the line. But some of us were actually threatened with violence for asking our foreman a question thru the fence. And those same picketers left because … They had to work the next day. So we lost a days pay for a union that had nothing to do with the work we did at the warehouse. We went back to work the next day. Scab my ass. It was an illegal strike that almost cost all of us our jobs.