in reference to the firing of the PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981. The penalty in this case was the complete dissolution of a strong union and the unemployment of several thousand skilled workers. Personally, I think the punishment well exceeded the ‘crime’ of breaking the no-strike clause.
No-strike clauses are, in my opinion, complete abominations and should be fought tooth and nail if they’re ever brought up in contract negotiations. The greatest weapon organized workers have in their fights around wages, hours, and conditions is the strike. It shows the bosses where actual economic power lies - they can’t make the money they do if their employees don’t work. No-strike clauses effectively shackle union workers into accepting whatever conditions the management chooses to enforce, regardless of the effects they have on workers’ lives both in and out of the workplace.
Additionally, I don’t believe a contract becomes some sort of magical all-binding fetish as soon as it’s signed by all parties concerned. It’s a document made and signed by people and enforced only by those parties’ good faith and actual efforts in holding up their end of the bargain. Nor do I think one side should blindly cling to honoring a contract if the other side clearly isn’t doing so. If one party feels the other isn’t holding to the contract in good faith, they have the right to break their terms of the contract in the effort to either renounce it completely or to force the other party into renegotiations.
I don’t have all the resources regarding the PATCO strike of 1981 immediately to hand , but I seriously doubt the union violated the no-strike clause for no good reason at all, nor do I believe the strike was an initiatory action - it was a response to management actions. I suspect it had something to do with the effects airline deregulation would have on their jobs, but I’ll need to read up on it.
I gotta admit, Reagan’s reaction to the strike was indeed harsh. I mean, I can see the effects of the firing here in my office - the controllers’ union is now called NATCA, and my money’s on the majority of its members being people who got hired by the FAA after 1981. And considering the FAA is pretty much the only place where their skills are applicable, the lifting of the hiring ban 12 years later is probably cold comfort.
Well, I can appreciate what a strike is for. I can even support striking on a specific scale. But you strike in an effort to change circumstances to be more toward your advantage.
Essentially one would accept a contract because it suits you. Adding a no strike clause is basically saying, “Look, we’re agreeing on this. Because you are agreeing, you shouldn’t strike, and you are saying as much here.”
If a union can simply strike whenever it feels like it, regardless of contract, what is the use of contracts? I suppose I would need to know the exact wording of the no-strike clause. If it were simply “we cannot strike to change the conditions of this contract while this contract is in effect” then I think it is perfectly acceptable. Else why have a contract?
Which DDG showed in her first quote. The controllers were bucking for higher pay, shorter hours, and better conditions (in the form of an improved retirement package).
Not necessarily. Contracts are also ratified because one side - usually labor - clearly is no longer able to fight for better terms, or the leadership of the union decides to go ahead and sign without the support of the rank and file. More often than not in these cases the contract is not one that most union members find acceptable.
Contracts aren’t only to keep unions in check. They’re also attempts to limit the power of management as well. The fact that union grievances exist, to me, testifies that management isn’t always engaged in the efforts to honor their end of the bargain. Unions have the right to strike whenever they feel their conditions have become too unacceptable and/or they feel their grievances aren’t being properly redressed. While contracts should definitely be honored as long as both sides are making good faith efforts to observe them, that commitment shouldn’t stand in the way of action when the other side fails to keep its word.
I’m coming from the view that no-strike clauses are unacceptable under any conditions. Contracts are paper - it’s up to the men and women behind the signatories to honor it. If one side fails to do this, the other side has the right to take whatever action it deems necessary to either force its opponent to honor the contract or to bring them both back to the negotiating table. Which makes Reagan’s reaction to the strike even more nasty - he made it clear that neither honoring the contract nor re-negotiating it were options he was ready to consider.
All I said was that I agreed with a no-strike clause if that no-strike clause only referred to striking over the conditions agreed upon in the contract. If you agree to accept this pay, then do not strike for more.
I see no reason to disagree with you that should one side do something unacceptable but not covered in the contract then it can willingly sever the relationship. I feel that if an employee is guaranteed two weeks notice in case of termination (for example) then in case of the employee quitting he should give mandatory two weeks notice as well. If an employee can be fired for any reason, then the employee can quit for any reason, either as an individual or as a group.
There are things that are specific to a person or specific to the employer, but generally I feel that the employee should have no more rights than the employer.
I have a very big problem with the way unions appear to be run, and as you mention there are cases where the unions do not accurately represent their members. What does an employee do then, strike against the strike and cross the line? Fucking unions, I seriously hate the form they take today.
But really, a no-strike clause is perfectly acceptable to me in the terms I specify above. I don’t feel that the company exists merely to sustain the workers, and I don’t feel that the workers exist solely to sustain the company. The company, IMO, is well within their rights to ask for a no-strike clause on the terms of the contract provided they don’t violate the contract. If they want to strike over sexual harassment, for example, and the contract mentions nothing about sexual harassment, then fine; no one would be striking over something that the contract supposedly settled.
Why? Seriously, what is there about the “right to strike without penalty” that makes it more hallowed than the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to dress how you choose, or any number of other “rights” which can be voluntarily surrendered in a contractual arrangement?
[contract]
Contracts are paper - it’s up to the men and women behind the signatories to honor it.
[/quote]
Correct. And by striking after they had signed a contract containing a no-strike clause, union members failed to honor it.
Or to sever the relationship, as the Reagan government chose to do. Now, don’t misunderstand me. I disagree with the harshness of Reagan’s reaction, but not because I find something hallowed in the “right to strike without losing one’s job”. The union members violated their contract in a calculated gamble. They calculated incorrectly. They lost their jobs. I feel, and felt, bad for them as human beings. I don’t, and didn’t, think they were treated unethically, just uncharitably.
Well, the union members had already demonstrated that they were unwilling to honor the contract. Reagan said, in effect, “no do overs”. Then he carried a grudge by saying, “and I’m never going to play with you cheaters again.”
You are correct in saying that if one side fails to honor the contract the other side is justified in also not honoring the contract. This is exactly what happened. The union broke the contract by striking and since the contract was no longer valid the government fired them. In a labor contract a party may give something up in excahnge for something they wanted more. Neither party in a contract can unilaterally decide to break the contract and not expect there to be consequences. All the workers knew what the consequences would be and they chose to strike anyway. Reagan was a former labor leader and believed that if you sign a deal than you are obligated to live up to it.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. General Questions interlude here.
Virtually all union agreements have a “no strike” clause that runs for the length of the agreement, conditioned on management fulfilling its parts of the contract. That is why virtually all strikes come after a contract has elapsed and before a new one is signed or during the unionization process before a first contract is signed. How to determine whether management is doing it’s part is also a part of the negotiations.
Virtually no union agreements have a “no-strike” clause that survives the agreement. That is, once the agreement lapses, a union may strike if there is no new agreement.
The issue with PATCO was not a no-strike clause which they had signed, but rather a no-strike law that applies to many (most?) federal workers (these laws also exist in many municipalities) and which was passed without the workers’ agreement.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, if there is one.
This General Questions moment has been brought to you by New York Ironworkers Local 506. “We built them then, we’re taking them away now, and we’re gonna put up new ones later. You got a problem with that?”
I’m open to correction, but I think that people are under a misapprehension with respect to the firing of the air traffic controllers. My recollection is that it wasn’t the collective agreement that prohibited them from striking - it was federal law.
The provision that I’m thinking of is found in Title 5 of the United States Code:
So, the air traffic controllers who went on strike were breaking federal law, enacted by Congress, and President Reagan’s firing of them was under his responsibility to see that federal laws are “faithfully executed.” (Of course, there is scope for debate about whether the firing and life-time prohibition on federal employment was necessary for the “faithful execution” of the law, or whether some lesser sanctions were available.)
[oh, piffle - preview indicates that Manhattan got there first. oh well…]
I work for the Federal government and I didn’t know about the “no strike” law. I don’t believe I would ever strike, because I like my job. However, I believe that law is unconstitutional. It is probably the only tool workers have that makes managers deal with their employees honestly. If workers are not allowed to strike, this means that management can implement any sort of unreasonable working condition and workers have no choice but to submit or quit and look for a new job.
Nope. The “right to strike” arises from the National Labor Relations Act of 1937 (as amended), which only applies to nonsupervisory workers of employees of certain private employers who are engaged in interstate commerce (there are LOTS more restrictions, and they keep changing as the political wind blows different directions). The Constitution doesn’t give you a right to work.
The government is free to refuse to hire anyone for any rational reason as long as it doesn’t amount to discrimination on the basis of a protected class. Participation in a strike against the government is evidence that suggests that you’re likely to do it again, and so the government is justified in refusing to hire you as a result.
And if the contract was signed against the will of the union’s rank and file? What then?
The employees should be entitled to any rights they can wrest from the employers either through negotiations or through strikes. That’s how a lot of things we take for granted were won - like the eight-hour day, a minimum wage, two consecutive days off out of every seven (aka ‘the weekend’). Employers didn’t have to fight for those same rights.
Strikebreaking is an unpardonable sin. On the other hand, I know of very few, if any, cases where union management forced an unwilling rank and file to go on strike. More often it’s been the reverse - an angry membership wants to strike and the leadership pulls the rug out from under them.
Well, no, that’s true - employers and employees don’t exist in some sort of symbiotic relationship. It’s inherently unequal. While companies and managers wouldn’t make profits and share in them if the employees weren’t at work, the workers wouldn’t cease to exist if production were organized in a different manner and corporate management were rendered superfluous.
And the employees are well within their rights to reject such a clause in negotiations or to strike against it if negotiation fails. They get fired en masse? They should block off the factories so nobody gets in to work.
IMHO.
And there’s the key. If the union feels management hasn’t been keeping its end of the bargain, it has the right to strike. And, moreover, it seems that the PATCO strike - according to DDG’s cite from the Virginia page - came about during a period of contract negotiation after the previous contract had expired. IOW, except for that damn federal law, PATCO was well within its rights to do what it was doing at the time.
I’d argue, then, that this particular law is unjust because it denies a part of the working population of America a right granted to the rest, and it is doubly unjust because it was passed over the heads of the people it affects. I suppose if it had been subjected to a referendum of one sort or another it would have gone down in flames, but that would have been unacceptable to the government.
What’s the deal with government employees in other parts of the world, I wonder?
Without the ability to strike, what power do unions have? Why would any employer listen to their demands or requests if they have no influence over the employer?
Quite frankly, I’m a little bit insulted by this. Are you now, or have you ever been, a union member, Olentzero? I have - also serving at times as union delegate, shop steward, and member of the negotiating teams for two contract renewals. And sure, we signed the new contracts without approval from our rank and file - but before the contract was put into effect, it was ratified by the members of the union. Had they not voted to approve, the contract would have been null and void.
Back in the Bad Old Days, contracts were often put in place without rank and file approval - but it is illegal, and (witness the Teamsters) the NLRB doesn’t let such things happen anymore.
They aren’t “rights” - they are negotiated terms. In any event, the minimum wage and the forty-hour week were not earned through strikes - they were earned through legislation.
Again, are you now or have you ever been a union member? Union memberships never want to strike - being on strike is an incredible hardship, both financially and psychologically. Unions go on strike only when they see no other alternative. (Some special cases, such as airline pilots and sports players, are more willing to go on strike, because they can more afford to, and very often these strikes are brief because the union members are effectively irreplaceable.) You’ve been watching too many films about the Molly Maguires.
Not surprisingly, you ignore the role of capital. Were it not for the investment in machinery, whathaveyou, there would be no work for the employees to do.
Of course the employees are well within their rights to reject a no-strike clause. However, they are also well within their rights to use a no-strike clause as a negotiating tool - “we’ll agree to a no-strike clause if you give us X.” After all, shouldn’t it be the workers who decide what is most important to them?
Sua
P.S. concerning the “no-strike” law that PATCO fell afoul of - said air traffice controllers entered into the employ of the FAA knowing (or should have known - the law wasn’t hidden), that, as federal employees, they were forbidden to strike. The law may or may not have been fair, but there are distinct benefits to being a federal employee - including, but not limited to, strong Civil Service protections against being fired. It’s not a bad trade-off.
Further, people able to undergo the requisite training to be an air traffic controller obviously had the ability to choose a different profession at the start of their career - if they wanted the right to strike, they should have taken a different path.
I wasn’t happy with what happened to PATCO back then, but PATCO knew precisely the risks they faced when they went on strike - hell, I was only 12, but I remember the news reports, before the strike, that federal law prohibited them from striking.
Communications Workers of America, Local 32-100. Translators and Interpreters Guild, part of The Newspaper Guild. Or does that not count?
That seems a little bass-ackwards to me, Sua. It seems to me the rank-and-file of a local or the union (depending on the scale of the contract) should vote to approve the contract before it’s signed by the union reps. But never having been a part of a negotiating committee, I’ll defer to your expertise on the matter.
I’m sure I’ve read of contracts being forced down union members’ throats recently - will follow up on that and come back.
Legislation that was put on the table because of strike actions and other organized activity on the part of the working class. That legislation had a material impetus - it didn’t just suddenly seem like a good idea to the industrialists and Congress. It was demanded from them. And it certainly seems to me that plenty of people now regard an eight-hour day and a weekend off as a right rather than a negotiated term. I know I do.
I see a contradiction here. If union members never want to strike, why would they turn to it under any circumstances? It would be foolish to assert that the union members are strike-happy and have no idea of the financial and material consequences. But it’s also ridiculous to assert that union leadership never acts as a brake on strike activity, either.
Capital is a result of the way production is organized in today’s society. It’s not some fundamental feature. Capital isn’t necessarily required by machinery to come into existence. It’s required if profits are to be generated from the manufacture and use of machinery, but not to manufacture and use the machinery itself. Capital is the motor of capitalist society. It is not the motor of human society in general.
Which is why I would argue, were I ever involved in rank-and-file discussion of a contract to be ratified, that nothing was important enough to give away our right to strike over wages, hours, or conditions.
Not one I would have supported. Protection from dismissal and the right to strike are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to demand, and win, both.
That’s a pretty damn stupid argument. Workers should have the right to strike no matter what field they’re in or who their employer is. If they thought the law was unfair, they should fight to change it, not avoid the career choice altogether.
