# Why didn't Reagan just use the Taft-Hartley act on the air traffic controllers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 9, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530 "2002-10-09T14:19:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/1 "2002-10-09T14:19:57Z")
Ah ha, Evil OP-Munching Hamsters at work! But I have foiled you, Demon Rodents!! I had Word Pad open in another window! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Bush has used the [Taft-Hartley Act](http://www.multied.com/documents/Tafthatley.html) to force open the West Coast ports, closed by a dispute between labor and management. So, why didn’t Reagan do this in 1981 during the PATCO strike? Force all the air traffic controllers back to work, because their absence was endangering the health and safety of the Country, or however it’s phrased? Or am I missing something here? wouldn’t be the first time… ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/2 "2002-10-09T14:28:06Z")
Without looking anything up (i.e., relying on Ringo RAM alone), I seem to recall that, unlike the longshoremen, the air traffic controllers were expressly forbidden by contract to strike, so any accomodation of such a job action was seen by the Reagan administration as condoning an abrogation of that contract. IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/3 "2002-10-09T14:30:58Z")
This feels like a win for the workers. Now they can go back to their work slow-down and management can’t lock them out for it. ---
**Author:** ![zuma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@zuma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zuma)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/4 "2002-10-09T16:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ringo \* > \*\*Without looking anything up (i.e., relying on Ringo RAM alone), I seem to recall that, unlike the longshoremen, the air traffic controllers were expressly forbidden by contract to strike, so any accomodation of such a job action was seen by the Reagan administration as condoning an abrogation of that contract. IIRC. \*\* That’s how I remember it as well. By law they were forbidden to strike. Plus, Reagan had military ATCs to step in and take over the air traffic control system. That made the decision to fire them even easier. ---
**Author:** ![mattymillhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@mattymillhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mattymillhouse)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/5 "2002-10-09T17:09:06Z")
i agree with all the answers so far, but would just add that there was also the more practical consideration that you don’t want to force air traffic controllers to work against their will. a “work slow-down” on the docks is a pain in the rear, but in air traffic control it would be disastrous. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/6 "2002-10-09T19:02:20Z")
Okay, thanks, guys. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/7 "2002-10-09T20:44:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mattymillhouse \* > \*\*i agree with all the answers so far, but would just add that there was also the more practical consideration that you don’t want to force air traffic controllers to work against their will. a “work slow-down” on the docks is a pain in the rear, but in air traffic control it would be disastrous. \*\* I was under the impression that the Taft-Hartley act would be used against a slow-down too. BTW, the last paragraph of that Taft-Harley link seems to be how Reagan dealt with the air traffic controllers, too. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/8 "2002-10-09T23:12:46Z")
The language of Taft-Hartley defines an employee slowdown as a strike (it’s edited in the above link, longer version [here](http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/tafthartley.html)) > [@](#): > > Sec. 501. [Sec. 142.] When used in this Act [chapter]– > … > (2) The term ``strike’’ includes any strike or other concerted stoppage of work by employees (including a stoppage by reason of the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement) and any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations by employees. And while this isn’t the thread to debate it, this goes somewhat in response to **Attrayant** ’s comment – a slowdown during the injuction period could result in the union being fined. And this probably isn’t a win for the workers. In eighty days they’ll have lost a lot of bargaining power and doubtless most of their morale. Some representatives feel they’re going to be nailed for a slowdown regardless of what they do (since there’s such a backlog of work). ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/9 "2002-10-09T23:54:08Z")
**panamajack** : Eighty days will take them well beyond Chri$tma$, meaning they’ll lose that major bargaining chip of “Make us happy or we stop Santa.” So this ensures the season will go off without a hitch. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/10 "2002-10-10T01:21:35Z")
As I understand it, longshoremen are very highly paid, and the strike was not about money. Or so their union representative said on TV. What is it about, then? Medical benefits? More leave time? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/11 "2002-10-10T02:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mattymillhouse \* > \*\*i agree with all the answers so far, but would just add that there was also the more practical consideration that you don’t want to force air traffic controllers to work against their will. a “work slow-down” on the docks is a pain in the rear, but in air traffic control it would be disastrous. \*\* I seriously doubt that _any_ ATC’s would have intentionally crashed an airplane full of people. Or even endangered them. Taft-Hartley was talked about by others, but not considered by the administration for the excuse mentioned by **ringo** , above. Actually, Reagan _wanted_ to bust the union. There’s a lot of very interesting reading on this subject, and it’s effect on american unions. Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/12 "2002-10-10T02:30:14Z")
**barbitu8** It was NOT a strike. It was a lockout. The shipping companies would not allow the union members to work. The shipping companies were ordered to bring the workers back. As I understand it, the main contract issue is whether or not new employees hired to run more automated systems will be allowed to join the union. I’m sure there are also other issues. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/13 "2002-10-10T02:40:07Z")
**Squink** ’s right. The union wanted to phase in new technology, much as they did for container shipping methods. ---
**Author:** ![Fishhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@Fishhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishhead)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/14 "2002-10-10T03:22:56Z")
Invoking the Taft-Hartley act will have little effect on the ability of the unions to have a work slowdown, because regardless of the language, it will be difficult to prove that the slowdown was really going on. Or at least that is the feeling of one of the industry types I heard on talk radio yesterday. It is just hard to police. It can be kind of like blue flu, they can find legal methods to avoid coming to work, or just do the absolute minimum while at work. Fishhead ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/15 "2002-10-10T08:16:43Z")
How does “work-to-rule” figure into this? Would that be considered the same as a slowdown? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/16 "2002-10-10T12:18:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mangeorge \* > **I seriously doubt that _any_ ATC’s would have intentionally crashed an airplane full of people. Or even endangered them.** No, but having lived near an ATC center, and having had many friends whose fathers were ATC’s, I can say that they did engage in acts of terrorism, vandalism, harassment, sexual harassment, death threats, and finally a very brutal beating of a father of a close friend - all because he tried to cross the line before the firing deadline. He was hospitalized for a week by his own fellow co-workers, and he refused to press charges because someone sent him photos of his kids at school, taken from a telephoto camera. Given the violence that is all-too often associated with unions (another boring anecdote about being threatened by a union deleted) I don’t think we can really say what someone on strike may or may not do, which could cause harm to others. ---
**Author:** ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-reagan-just-use-the-taft-hartley-act-on-the-air-traffic-controllers/131530/17 "2002-10-10T12:44:30Z")
The air traffic controllers were federal employees. That’s the difference.