With respect to employer behavior, it is commonly believed that the firing of th

Question

With respect to employer behavior, it is commonly believed that the firing of the public-sector air traffic controllers by President Ronald Reagan during the illegal PATCO strike in 1981 created a climate in which it was acceptable for private-sector employers to actively fight unions and resist their legal strikes. What arguments might someone give to support this acceptance? What arguments might someone give to dispel the logic of this acceptance? Do you think the President made the right decision in firing the air traffic controllers? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

In 1981 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (formed in 1968) went on for a strike demanding better working conditions and better pay. Reagan warned the workers of harming the national safety and ordered them to get back to work. When they failed to do so, he fired them in (around 11000 members) 2 days later and banned them from feral civil services.

Supporting the acceptance

This created a precedent for employers regarding unions. If the federal government is issuing such orders for a massive lay off, then it would be acceptable for private employers to for such employee cuts at least on a smaller scale. Several employers are taking the brunt of federal laws to retain excess employees and paying them, This PATCO firing gave seems have sent a clear signal that employers have the rights to act against employees in special cases like the financial crisis

Dispelling the acceptance

This case cannot be put on the same lines with other union’s case. Air traffic controlling affects both national security and integrity. It also affects the air transport of flights from other countries. Delaying this would lead to increased skepticism about US air transport management. So a difficult decision may have been necessary. But this cannot be used as a precedent to other private employer-employee relationships where employers’ decisions are based on purely economic grounds

President’s decision

Ronald Reagan practically backstabbed PATCO. He was a staunch supporter of the trade union and its activities during election sand PATCO supported him in the election. But once he came to power, he showed an employer mindset.

Certain associations like PATCO know the consequences of their strike and know how this would affect the national transport. So they don’t go strike every now and then. I am sure this strike call was made out after a long deliberation

Reagan exhibited a dictatorial mindset and used federal laws for his support to oppress unions. This set a bad precedent because other federal unions may be wary of a strike in future. This also sent out a wrong signal to other capitalists in the country

He did not call them for negotiation and was not listening to their requests. Even a preliminary discussion was not held. He ordered a get back and when they failed to do so, he punished them (even banned them from federal civil services).

When employees go on for such a strike they are actually requesting for something, not going against the public or the government. But some governments and the administrators take it as an action against the administration and indulge in suppression tactics like Reagan did.

Going for a protest is secured by the first amendment (freedom of speech) and Reagan’s action goes against the very basis of the constitution. Employees should be able to voice their opinions and requests. He seemed to have overlooked the domino effect of this into privet sector industries

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.