Politics_Observer wrote:You better believe I am pro-union. But as Drlee has pointed out, unions have been pretty much wiped out. The war against unions has been largely successful. Especially with the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan when he fired government air traffic controllers. That legal precedent has been used to prevent unions from being organized in private sector work places. You can vote in a union but if you strike then the company can use that legal precedent to replace you. Here is an article which discusses the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers and how that affected private sector worker rights:
Reagan didn't set any significant precedent. The PATCO strike was illegal. The president, if he wanted to, could rescind Kennedy's executive order allowing government workers to unionize--effectively ending all federal government unions once contracts expired. Firing PATCO workers doesn't prevent unions from organizing anywhere. Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan was a union president at one point. He was not anti-union per se, but was against abusive union practices.
Here's how your article opens:
THIRTY years ago today, when he threatened to fire nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers unless they called off an illegal strike, Ronald Reagan not only transformed his presidency, but also shaped the world of the modern workplace.
The strike was illegal, and even the author of your article admits this in his opening sentence.
Although there were 39 illegal work stoppages against the federal government between 1962 and 1981, no significant federal job actions followed Reagan’s firing of the Patco strikers.
Again, the author notes that work stoppages are illegal with certain federal unions.
It is clear now that the fallout from the strike has hurt workers and distorted our politics in ways Reagan himself did not advocate.
Right. Reagan was NOT anti-union. In fact, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was a union leader.
Although a conservative, Reagan often argued that private sector workers’ rights to organize were fundamental in a democracy. He not only made this point when supporting Lech Walesa’s anti-Communist Solidarity movement in Poland; he also boasted of being the first president of the Screen Actors Guild to lead that union in a strike.
Well, I have to say, it is refreshing to read a NYTimes article that is actually making factual statements about Reagan!
Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.
Management still has a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith. They were never banned from replacing striking workers. It has never been illegal. It's simply that union demands were excessive. Today, a gantry crane operator at the Port of Oakland makes well into six figures. I have a high school buddy with a masters degree in psychology who works as a janitor for our mass transit system, BART, where he makes well into six figures emptying garbage cans, and will retire in his early 50s with 90% pay. These are jobs that should pay no more than $60k with a 401(k); yet, they are making over twice that with a guaranteed pension for unskilled labor. It's so attractive, that people with masters degrees in psychology will take those jobs instead of helping people unfuck themselves per their education.
By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952.
By 2010, Reagan had been out of office for 22 years. In that time, NAFTA, GATT, MFN status for China and admission of China to the WTO effectively made striking a suicide mission for the private sector. Reagan's administration was brainstorming NAFTA, but he didn't propose that. It was Bush who did that, and it was negotiated and ratified by Clinton. Public sector unions do not enjoy public support now, because they make far more money than most people doing similar jobs in the private sector. Drlee was yammering on about what a great job California was doing running a budget surplus. What he doesn't mention is that CalPers is nearly bankrupt, because they promise absolutely glorious benefits to public sector workers, that private sector workers can only dream about. That's why union workers vote lock-stock-and-barrel for the Democrats even if they don't agree with all their other weird shit. It's regulatory capture.
Although he opposed government strikes, Reagan supported government workers’ efforts to unionize and bargain collectively. As governor, he extended such rights in California.
Right...following Kennedy's action at the Federal level. That led to a lot of teachers strikes, and that's when my parents put me in private schools. Crappy teachers cannot be fired now. Teachers unions ruined the public school system.
In the spring, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin invoked Reagan’s handling of Patco as he prepared to “change history” by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights in a party-line vote. “I’m not negotiating,” Mr. Walker said. By then the world had seemingly forgotten that unlike Mr. Walker, Reagan had not challenged public employees’ right to bargain — only their right to strike.
Yes, but public sector unionism became incredibly corrupt. As I said, I have a friend with a masters degree in psychology emptying garbage cans for a six figure salary and guaranteed pension in the six figures and retiring in his mid 50s. I have a friend who is a cop who gets a similar deal. Cops have to work for a living and risk getting shot at. They have to write reports, show up in court, make arrests of violent felons, and put up with incredible amounts of shit. Any able-bodied person able to follow directions can empty garbage cans. It doesn't even require a high school diploma for all intents and purposes. Six figures? Seriously?
Politics_Observer wrote:It demonstrates the legal precedent set by Reagan that has busted many unions and prevented many unions from organizing in the first place.
There was no legal precedent set. The strike was illegal. There is no argument to the contrary. The precedent set was simply having the balls to call the union out on their bullshit.
Politics_Observer wrote:Companies will tell workers who considering voting in a union that you can go ahead and vote in a union, but that doesn't matter, if you go on strike, we'll just replace you and they cite that legal precedent set by Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers.
That's simply false. Reagan never set any legal precedent. It was already illegal. He just refused to negotiate with people who willfully broke the law and tried bringing the US airline system to its knees in hopes of making him a 1-term president for the benefit of the Democratic party where their political loyalties lie--and it was the union leaders who basically sold out the workers, not Reagan. It's not easy to replace skilled laborers. It's easy to replace unskilled laborers.
Politics_Observer wrote:This why we see the rise of fascism here in America.
Fascism is union friendly. Both Mussolini and Hitler allowed unions. They simply crushed the communist and anarchist factions within them, and brought the unions close to the party. In the United States, the unions are closely allied with the Democratic party, which is why the Republican party has no political incentive to deal with them. Reagan enabled public sector unions in California. He got zero thanks for that. Scott Walker had every political incentive to crush the unions in Wisconsin, because their membership was compelled to make political contributions to the detriment of the Republicans. It's illegal for union leaders to bribe politicians. Is it illegal for labor union leaders to take money under the table from private interests with a co-incident interest in the well being of the Democratic party? In the US, unions like the media, are tied very closely with the Democratic party political machine.
If we're to believe any of the Russiagate bullshit, the emails were the only thing that could have had any meaningful impact, and all they did was ratify what everybody already knew--e.g., Democratic party operatives like Donna Brazil would get the debate questions asked by the media and feed them to the Democratic party candidate to give them a competitive advantage, etc.