The strike that busted unions

[Recursion]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html

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.

More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions. It also polarized our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles: the continuing stagnation of incomes despite rising corporate profits and worker productivity.

...

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. Over time, however, his crushing of the controllers’ walkout — which he believed was justified because federal workers were not allowed under the law to strike — has helped undermine the private-sector rights he once defended.

...

Although he opposed government strikes, Reagan supported government workers’ efforts to unionize and bargain collectively. As governor, he extended such rights in California. As president he was prepared to do the same. Not only did he court and win Patco’s endorsement during his 1980 campaign, he directed his negotiators to go beyond his legal authority to offer controllers a pay raise before their strike — the first time a president had ever offered so much to a federal employees’ union.

Thirty years? Oi...

Also, Ronald Reagan was... wait for it... our first, last, and only President who was also in a labor union.

[OHdem10]

1. Reagan may have started it. Where were the Democrats for the

last thirty some years????

We can blame---but when does our Party bear any
responsibility???

[Recursion]

2. Management evolved; labor didn't for the most part

Frankly I place a lot of blame with AFL/CIO leadership: their policy was all protection and no expansion (and I don't think SEIU should have waited nearly as long to break away and focus on organizing). Younger workers saw unions as impediments to work (sorry kid, union shop), and corruption scandals didn't help either (I'm looking at you, teamsters and longshoremen).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. This was unconscionable. The Reagan administration did immeasurable harm to our country.

NO ONE should ever say this man did good. He did not.

[OHdem10]

4. Yes the GOP Agenda starting with Reagan and ending with Bush

did harm.

Where was the Democratic Party. Very often voting with
them and enabling them. At times the Democrats controlled
both Houses.

I guess I have reached the point of what are we going to
do about it.

I was screaming when they (GOP) were doing all these things.
Where were the Democrats on the Hill????

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. The Democratic Party went nuts when too many of them began to admire Reagan. For what, I ask.

The man was a buffoon, stupid, evil, ridiculed the helpless and poor. How could anyone lib jump on the bandwagon of supporting such an ASS?

[FreakinDJ]

5. Perhaps Reagan was the Epitome of Union Leadership

As others in this thread have stated in 1981 Unions were in a protectionist mode often refusing new membership.

Althou International Union Bodies have recognized this and mandated Local Organizations with "Open Enrollment" the same "Good Ol' Boys Club" is still running a majority of the local organizations. This is killing Unions on the local level.

Reagan was merely in the "Spot Light" as the Typical Union Leader selling out Unions

[Recursion]

6. My problem is I only see two attitudes towards unions on the left

1) They are outdated, irrelevant, and get in the way of "growth" (and don't donate to us anymore)
2) They are ideal and perfect and can do no wrong and if you have any complaints about them you are obviously a Republican

I think unions today are seriously flawed and too often good old boys networks, and have for the most part proved much more interested in protecting their own privileges than in letting more workers in on them (can you say "two-tier"?). And the way they're structured is a relic of an economy that's long gone and isn't coming back: you don't graduate from high school, go work at the factory, and get a gold watch after 45 years anymore. The developing world has developed and we aren't going to be able to keep dumping durables on them.

A much more relevant model for today, I think, is the one proposed by Rogers and Freeman where unions would take all comers regardless of majority status at their workplaces and under such obligations as the employee can undertake. This would return unions to something like their original sense, rather than the pseudo-guild structure most of them have become (a guild and a union are very different things, when you think about it).

[FreakinDJ]

7. Important point your missing - Unions provide Training/Certification

and a portion of dues go to fund those endeavors.

The youth of today sure isn't going to gather job skills from our underfunded education system any more. Yet the "Good Ol' Boy" network within many of the local authority works feverishly to undermine that so they can hand jobs out to their friends

[Recursion]

8. The ones that do (say, IBEW) are the ones that the old model still works for

It works less well for a union like AFSCME, let alone SEIU. But as a proportion of the population, highly-skilled workers like electricians, who have the kind of leverage IBEW has, are dropping -- and consider IBEW's nearly constant fights with carpenters' unions (who, when you get right down to it, IBEW doesn't consider "skilled").

I also think gender politics may play a part of this: IBEW, the Teamsters, etc. are majority male while AFT, SEIU, and AFSCME are majority female; I think the sexes come at the notion of solidarity with different viewpoints.

[FreakinDJ]

9. While the membership may be "Gender Nuetral" the leadership sure isn't

100% Male dominated "Good Ol' Boy" BS. and the point I was trying to illustrate. Policies for the membership have changed, but leadership - not so much