Getting back to the OP for a second, its seems ATCs may have join the unofficial “sickout” (a complication for them it seems if they take too many sick days they can lose their certification, just like a pilot can):
The big difference here is the public will be overwhelmingly for the strikers. They aren’t after a pay raise, they just want to not have to go to work without getting paid. Almost everyone can sympathize with that.
Is it possible to write that while overlooking that Trump’s tax cuts caused the deficit to zoom up to a trillion, after Obama managed to cut the deficit by a trillion dollars? Wouldn’t the strain on the cognitive dissonance bone make it too painful to type?
I find it laughable that conservatives, who normally screech about wasteful spending, are practically lining up to throw tax money at such a dubious enterprise as The Wall. And I stated why I’m honestly opposed. It’s a misbegotten waste of money and resources.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t this issue much bigger than any wall?
I mean, we have the executive branch using force to make the legislature to pass a law it doesn’t want to pass. Is that how it’s supposed to work? Isn’t congress supposed to be the one making the laws?
Don’t look now, but I think you guys are in the middle of a constitutional crisis.
I can’t imagine that Congress refusing to provide backpay to federal workers who actually worked during the shutdown would fly. What I have heard during previous shutdowns is some conservative grumblings over backpay for those employees who were furloughed, with the argument that they were paying bureaucrats for doing nothing. (The fact that they were forced to stay at home gets ignored.) Still, in every previous shutdown Congress had provided backpay for both essential and furloughed employees, and I don’t see the Democratic House agreeing to a budget that doesn’t do so.
That’s not really the problem. As bad as Trump has been for the US, the bigger problem for the last decade has been McConnell. There is no reason except for his political scheming that the Senate couldn’t have a vote on the various House bills, and if they pass and Trump vetoes see if the houses can get enough votes to override the vetoes.
I’m not saying that McConnell having a fatal heart attack would fix the Senate, but it wouldn’t hurt.
I am not conceding that there’s any truth to this (the idea that immigrants are coming to America for EBT benefits is laughable), but I just have to question the logic and morality of anyone who would spend $26 billion dollars so they didn’t have to feed kids lunch.
But the PATCO strikers were not asking for a pay raise. Kind of the opposite: they wanted fewer hours (in a high-stress job). Their misfortune was that Reagan was able to sub for them using USAF personnel, which is why he was able to fire them.
What’s the size of the air travel industry now vs in 1981, both in absolute terms as well as a percentage of people’s travel? Would it even be feasible to do the same thing now as was done then? *Could *all the ATCs be replaced?
There’s no guarantee that furloughed workers will be paid, but AFAIK the government can’t renege on paying people who have already worked, because they’re owed a debt.
Which is, I think, the rationale for the whole “shutdown” concept as we’ve had it since the Carter administration. If people weren’t legally entitled to pay for their labor, there would be no need to furlough the non-essential employees.
We couldn’t immediately replace all 11,000 fired ATC’s in 1981 even with utilizing military ATC’s - because the military needs some, too. Right now the system needs about 15,000 controllers on duty any given day.
It takes 3 years to train a new controller.
At best, if you fired all the current ATC’s, or they all walked off the job (or just a large percentage of them) you’d be under-staffed for three years which means either limiting flights or accepting greater risk. In practice, it took about 10 years to fully re-staff the ATC system after 1981. I don’t see where we’d do it any faster these days.
Question is - is the general public more used to air travel as a “right” nowadays, that they’d put up with more than a few days of that level of reduction? I don’t know about the US, but for us, air travel was much more of a luxury back then, there weren’t budget airlines or near as much air travel - buses and trains and roadtrips were still a viable option for holidays. Business travel wasn’t as much of a thing, either.