This subject was touched on by the guest, Gregory Pardlo, on Fresh Air yesterday. The guest’s father was one of the 11,000 controllers fired in 1981, and he never recovered professional or emotionally.
Looking back, is Reagan’s action considered smart, dumb, helpful, destructive? What have been the consequences?
This came up on a PCN (Pennsylvania) show about unions hosted by several state unions and the opinion of the guests was not much in the way of consequences. Their overall opinion seemed to be that the economy and the general mobility of workers between jobs is much more significant to what is happening today. In our terms I would describe them as being pretty much “meh” about the Reagan move.
There are those in the labor-union community that cite it as a significant moment in the decline of unions in the US. It rendered federal unions docile; work stoppages by federal unions used to happen from time to time (despite being illegal under federal law) but never again since. Scott Walker cited the firing as a significant moment, in his battles with Wisconsin’s public unions. I’m not sure there’s much else in the way of lasting consequences.
I blame the crash World Airways flt 30 on Reagan, though it was only one contributing factor: “the failure of air traffic control to transmit the most recent pilot reports of braking action to the pilot of flight 30”: http://www.airlive.net/onthisday-in-1982-world-airways-flight-30-overruns-the-runway-on-landing-at-boston-logan-airport/
The move undercut collective bargaining rights for employees of government agencies in general, and presaged a larger movement in labor unions in general (although the latter was arguably occurring independently of Reagan and the conservative movement owing to massive corruption in upper manage management of many of the largest labor unions such as the Teamsters Union and the AFL/CIO). PATCO was correct in insisting that air traffic controllers were underpaid (the average salary for a mid-career controller was in the mid-$30s in 1981 and cost of living increases were below increases in inflation in the ‘Seventies) but calling for a walkout was neither technically legal nor politically smart, and arguably contributed to the legacy that has left other government workers significantly underpaid.
And yes, there argument is that if people want better pay they can go to the private sector, but that is not a good way to run a circus unless your objective is to “make government as small as possible” by selling off all functional aspects of it to private contractors which after winning a contract enrich themselves by claiming extenigent external costs or special concessions. Setting aside that propensity for corruption, there are clearly services involving public safety, education, administration, et cetera for which the government should directly control and seek to employ competent people at a competitive salary so as to assure adherence to minimum standards rather than allowing a contractor to cut corners and then deny culpability for the resulting damages.
Stranger
“Neither technically legal nor politically smart” is a tactful way of putting it. PATCO thought Reagan was an ineffectual weakling like Carter, and that Reagan was bluffing.
PATCO: “We’re underpaid! We’re going on strike!”
Reagan: “That’s illegal. If you go on strike, you will be fired.”
PATCO: “We double-dog dare you!”
Oops.
Regards,
Shodan
It seems to me that a decision of that magnitude shouldn’t be made on the basis of, “Nyah nyah-nyah *NYAH *nyah!” :dubious:
I don’t think it was.
AFAICT the verdict of history is “Reagan had a nice smile, but you might not want to fuck with him.”
See also the interactions between Arthur Scargill and Maggie Thatcher.
Regards,
Shodan
The employees decided that they would rather interact with their employer as a group, an actual legal entity in the form of a union. Reagan representing the employer in the form of the Federal government owed no compassion to the union. They attempted to shut-down a vital piece of our commercial infrastructure. This wasn’t a nyah nyah moment. This was insuring that commerce would continue, that people and goods would continue to be transported through the airways.
PATCO had existed well before the 1981 ATC walkout (was founded in 1968) and actually endorsed Reagan over Carter in the 1980 US presidential election because they felt that Carter was not addressing the problems of inadequate salary increases and overwork. To be fair, PATCO also engaged in some less than legitimate practice such as planning a “sickout” and other efforts to make the lack of air controllers felt, most of which actually backfired on them, and the 1981 walkout occurred at a time when Reagan had the need to show strength against unions. The ban-for-life on most controllers came off as vindictive but also showed that the Reagan administration wasn’t playing when it came to federal employee unions and collective bargaining.
Whether it was justified or not is a matter of opinion—the air traffic controllers had some very legitimate issues which were not being addressed through the normal channels, but they ultimately did not get what they wanted. And Reagan got a reputation for “breaking” unions, but strictly speaking, a lot of unions were subject to internecine problems with corruption and upper managment infighting which was independent of anything Reagan did.
Stranger
I’ve always had a problem with public sector unions.
If a private sector union strikes, and coerces concessions from management, at least they have market forces to keep them in balance. If United Airline’s unions force higher wages, United’s prices go up, and American Airlines can beat them in the marketplace. That is a check and balance on the union-vs-ownership power struggle.
But in the public sector, there is no such check or balance. The union strikes, the government employers cave, and the taxpayers suffer. Not fair.
I’m not sure if this addresses the OP directly, but I think it is worth considering.
How do the taxpayers suffer?
It wasn’t. It was illegal for them to strike, and a violation of the oath of service they swore as federal employees; Reagan enforced the law, after giving them a clear opportunity to comply.
If nothing else it was a statement that the Federal Government would not respect the right of Unions to strike and that attitude trickles down.
Smart and destructive. It was an incredible power play that worked entirely in Reagan’s favor and it completely destabilized the american fight for worker’s rights.
Note Reagan had been a labor union leader:
It didn’t take long for the new controllers to form a new union, ftr.
In college my economics professors credited the firing for leading to a major shift in the federal government which helped put an end to the economic woes of the 70s.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Because the government negotiates with itself with someone else’s money. It’s quite common for politicians to negotiate generous contracts with unions which leads to higher union dues which in turn allows the union to contribute more money to the politician. So they are quite literally bribing unions with taxpayer money in exchange for kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I’m normally in favor of unions. My wife is a union member. But in this specific case the strike was illegal. So I think Reagan did the right thing. And for the most part I disliked Reagan.