Export thread

Ronald Reagan- what a commie pinko socialist.

Wasn't he in favor of unions while it suited his interests, then dumped the guild when he ran for Governor?

And then he fired 11,000 striking Air Traffic Controllers. Sounds to me like he had a change of perspective.

GasBandit said:

And then he fired 11,000 striking Air Traffic Controllers. Sounds to me like he had a change of perspective.

Click to expand...

Not a politician who changed his mind!

Espy said:

Not a politician who changed his mind when it benefited him!

Click to expand...

Fixed with the bold.

Krisken said:

Fixed with the bold.

Click to expand...

Well thank goodness we don't have those any more, especially not our current president, who has once and for all put guantanamo bay out of commission as he promised only a few years ago.

Yes, while the Republican party celebrates their poster child being a hypocrite, those on the left have become quite upset with the continuation of the Bush policies Obama has made.

False equivalency much?

Krisken said:

Yes, while the Republican party celebrates their poster child being a hypocrite, those on the left have become quite upset with the continuation of the Bush policies Obama has made.

Click to expand...

What burns me up is continuation of policies they should have been prosecuting over. You have Bush administration officials practically bragging of war crimes to the media, knowing full well no one at Justice is gonna do a thing about it.

Krisken said:

Yes, while the Republican party celebrates their poster child being a hypocrite, those on the left have become quite upset with the continuation of the Bush policies Obama has made.

False equivalency much?

Click to expand...

Or perhaps it's a valid equivalency where both people involved realized they had been mistaken in the past?

I do think that the GOP is on the long slide to insanity, but I don't think that this action was part of that. While people may argue that the crux of the position is terrible, and ignoring that the method of getting it voted in *may* have been illegal, union busting is arguable one of the oldest traditions of the Republican Party.

I a way, this actually represents a bit of a return to sanity compared to the hearings on Polical Islam etc going on.

GasBandit said:

And then he fired 11,000 striking Air Traffic Controllers. Sounds to me like he had a change of perspective.

Click to expand...

How is not meeting their demands being anti-union? Firing those people and taking away union rights are different things you know.

Me being pro-unions doesn't mean i think every demand they have needs to be met you know.

@Li3n said:

How is not meeting their demands being anti-union? Firing those people and taking away union rights are different things you know.

Me being pro-unions doesn't mean i think every demand they have needs to be met you know.

Click to expand...

This. "Allowing people to negotiate" is not the same thing as "give in to all their demands into perpetuity". There's a lot of things I don't like about modern unions, but it has nothing to do with their ability to negotiate.

@Li3n said:

How is not meeting their demands being anti-union? Firing those people and taking away union rights are different things you know.

Me being pro-unions doesn't mean i think every demand they have needs to be met you know.

Click to expand...

He fired them for going on strike. It destroyed the PATCO union. I'm not a union supporter, but just from a rhetorical standpoint, if a union is legally barred from going on strike, what recourse do they have when dealing with an "Eff you, take it or leave it" employer?

GasBandit said:

He fired them for going on strike. It destroyed the PATCO union. I'm not a union supporter, but just from a rhetorical standpoint, if a union is legally barred from going on strike, what recourse do they have when dealing with an "Eff you, take it or leave it" employer?

Click to expand...

^ This ^

Negotiation is based entirely on the balance of power and it only works if both sides have the means to harm the other. Without the means to deprive labor (the only power the workers have that can seriously harm a company), a union and more importantly the workers they represent don't have the equal footing to make demands.

GasBandit said:

He fired them for going on strike. It destroyed the PATCO union. I'm not a union supporter, but just from a rhetorical standpoint, if a union is legally barred from going on strike, what recourse do they have when dealing with an "Eff you, take it or leave it" employer?

Click to expand...

Didn't he say basically "get back to work or you're fired?"

Sure, it's a shitty move, but i don't think it's something that the employer shouldn't be able to do... if enough employees folded then too bad.

Point is he didn't actually do anything to change the rights unions had.

@Li3n said:

Didn't he say basically "get back to work or you're fired?"

Sure, it's a shitty move, but i don't think it's something that the employer shouldn't be able to do... if enough employees folded then too bad.

Point is he didn't actually do anything to change the rights unions had.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing.. only 10% of them folded. He fired the other 90%. 11,000 or so. And he banned them from federal service for life (though Clinton rescinded that later). The union promptly ceased to exist after that, and from its ashes two separate and new unions eventually rose.

That he didn't change a law to destroy a union is irrelevant. He could have chosen not to fire them. He could have just brought in scabs and broken the strike that way - but he chose to make an example of them, and anyone who has any interest or knowledge of the history of labor issues in this country often speaks of the '81 ATC firings in the same breath as President Grover Cleveland's use of the Army to break up the railroad strike.

Point is that he didn't do anything to stop new unions from forming etc...

So it's not really a betrayal of any position on the right to freely unionise...

@Li3n said:

Point is that he didn't do anything to stop new unions from forming etc...

So it's not really a betrayal of any position on the right to freely unionise...

Click to expand...

When you penalize members of a current union by stripping from them the right to work in a chosen field, based on their politics alone, you ARE affecting their right to freely unionize... if only because your previous actions hint on what will happen if they re-form.

Yeah, the part about not letting them ever get a public sector job again is unjustifiable i guess...