~~~ Worst Philosophy in the History of Mankind ~~~

[John K]

How many members did PATCO have in 1981?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I believe around 17,000?


Wiki may have a page dedicated to this?




Thanks again for your support in adding to this thread.





.

[John K]

Could it not be argued that Reagan acted on behalf of a nation of 300 million people by ending a strike that would have benefitted only 17,000? As I understand it, the controllers (or at least PATCO leadership) knew their strike was against standing policy. There's more than one side of this story, yes?

[bobevenson]

The truth is that all unions practice legal extortion, using government hit men to avoid paying off the police.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


There are innumerable side to this continually unfolding story.


The breaking of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization by Reagan was the recognized turning point in the evisceration of America.


We have been on a downward economic slide ever since.


Our union membership as a percentage of the total workforce has dropped dramatically.


There is a correlation.


EVERY country that has surpassed the USA in any significant measure has a higher percentage of union membership.


Google it and witness it with available graphs.





GREAT question. Thank you for participating. You really brought the importance of this thread home for me.









........................................





.

[bobevenson]

If private citizens attempted to do what unions do, they'd be thrown in jail.

[John K]

There are innumerable side to this continually unfolding story.

But a law was broken, yes? I can't see Reagan's action simply as union-busting. The good of the many trumps the small fraction of ATC's that stand to gain at the expense of the public. In other words, what kind of precedence would this set? Without rule of law, we become a self-serving mob.

[bobevenson]

Any law forcing employers to deal with unions is an improper law, pure and simple.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




~~~ There are innumerable sides to this continually unfolding story ~~~



From Wikipedia:



Michael Moore said that Reagan's firing of the PATCO strikers was the beginning of "America's downward slide", and the end of comfortable union jobs, with a middle-class salary, raises, and pensions. Moore stated that wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. He also blamed the AFL-CIO for telling their members to cross the PATCO picket lines.


President Reagan's director of the United States Office of Personnel Management at the time, Donald J. Devine, argued that "when the president said no...American business leaders were given a lesson in managerial leadership that they could not and did not ignore. Many private sector executives have told me that they were able to cut the fat from their organizations and adopt more competitive work practices because of what the government did in those days. I would not be surprised if these unseen effects of this private sector shakeout under the inspiration of the president were as profound in influencing the recovery that occurred as the formal economic and fiscal programs."


In 2011, Oxford University Press published Joseph McCartin's book, "Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, The Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America". Reviewing the book in Review 31, Richard Sharpe claimed Reagan was "laying down a marker" for his presidency: "The strikers were often working class men and women who had achieved suburban middle class lives as air traffic controllers without having gone to college. Many were veterans of the US armed forces where they had learned their skills; their union had backed Reagan in his election campaign. Nevertheless, Reagan refused to back down. Several strikers were jailed; the union was fined and eventually made bankrupt. Only about 800 got their jobs back when Clinton lifted the ban on rehiring those who had struck. Many of the strikers were forced into poverty as a result of being blacklisted for employment."







Again, thank you for getting my pro-union juices flowing tonight!


I needed that...


.........................................................................




.

[John K]

I ask again, was the PATCO strike in violation of existing federal regulations? One of my gripes with public sector unions is when they strike, in a sense they strike against the taxpayers, whereas private unions strike in order to get more of the money they helped create. That's a huge difference. Most public sector unions exist to serve the public that pays them; e.g., police, firefighters and so on. If we make an exception with one strike in which an agreement has been made not to strike, how do we know there won't be a dozen similar strikes the next week? The very people who flip the bill are completely out of the collective bargaining loop. At the end of the day I am pro-union, but at the same time very aware that public unions sometimes forget their obligation to serve the public first and foremost, and can suffer from human greed too. You're a philosopher Bill, and part of that includes looking at all possible scenarios.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



As I stated, philosophically speaking, there are many different vantage points that you can view Organized Labor, the PATCO strike, and just about everything.



You will find information about the strike on-line but you will not find me telling you how you must view the strike.



GREAT to hear from a pro-union brother here at the forums!



Again, thank you for your honesty and some good questions that helped me define, in detail, the Worst Philosophy in the History of Mankind.




.

[John K]

GREAT to hear from a pro-union brother[/b] here at the forums!

Don't get too excited. My backing is confined to private sector unions representing skilled workers, and even that has limits.
For example: right now, fast-food workers in Chicago want $15 an hour, and are trying to form a union; a position I find ridiculous. Why? Because it's a job anyone can do. My pro-union stance simply means the right to organize if the majority agrees to such action via the vote.

[bobevenson]

GREAT to hear from a pro-union brother[/b] here at the forums!

Don't get too excited. My backing is confined to private sector unions representing skilled workers, and even that has limits.
For example: right now, fast-food workers in Chicago want $15 an hour, and are trying to form a union; a position I find ridiculous. Why? Because it's a job anyone can do.

If that were true, the restaurant could just grab anybody off the street. What the pay should be for any job is what the buyer and seller of labor mutually agree upon, based on a shopping list of requirements of either party.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Whenever you ingrain Organized Labor into a moment, that moment, becomes inherently better.





I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor
~~~ Bill Wiltrack ~~~





.

[bobevenson]

Whenever you ingrain Organized Labor into a moment, that moment becomes inherently better.

A moment is a small measure of time. Time is time, it doesn't become better or worse.