Hacker News Reader

Comment by mayneack | Hacker News Reader

Federal workers should start striking. I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them.

Also yesterday some leadership of the flight attendants union called for a general strike until it was over: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/could-an-unlikely-av...

View on HN

It's explicitly illegal for Federal Workers to strike, per the Taft-Hartley Act. On top of that, there's not much indication that this administration really cares about what's popular.

Federal workers haven't gotten a paycheck in over a month, suggesting that they should break the law because of the low likelihood of punishment underestimates the lengths to which this administration will go to punish those who oppose them. Just look at the more than 200 inauguration day protesters who were arrested and charged with felony rioting[0], many of whom are still fighting their cases in court.

[0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/06/in...

It may be illegal to strike but it's not illegal to to not work if you're not paid is it?

Depends on the job. There are some jobs where refusal to do your job may carry significant legal penalties (imagine if airline traffic controllers walked out with planes in the air)

Sure. I'm assuming there's some level of resolution that serves as a transaction. Like maybe a day, or a shift. In your example, I'm talking about your worker not walking out on a flight in final approach, but rather notifying the employer after the shift that she will not be showing up for any future shifts until she is paid.

I don't know the specific rules regarding calling in sick etc for that industry. I know most companies have policies regarding absences, and once you hit a certain point, you can be terminated with cause. (presumably just refusing to come in would be treated worse than just calling in sick excessively) Not only would that make them ineligible for unemployment, but I assume that would impact someone in that industry pretty negatively. (How many different employers are there for ATCs?)

I'm not suggesting that anyone call in sick. That would be a lie. And I'm not suggesting that the stopping of work is permanent like quitting. This situation is one in which the employer is temporarily not paying, therefore there shouldn't be any problem with the employee temporarily not working.

How exactly is being legally forced to come in to a job, especially one that isn't even paying you, not either slavery or at least indentured servitude?

It's only that if you are not allowed to quit. And while this is somewhat pedantic, they are being "paid", but the release of that pay hasn't been authorized. Their situation is total shit to be certain, but comparisons to bona fide slavery are dramatic.

It's a system in dire need of reform, no doubt. I don't agree with the way it works either.

Break the law? They aren’t slaves. Fuck the law.

Nobody is going to jail for quitting their job.

Quitting and striking are different. Sure you could quit, but then when the shutdown ends, you won't have a job at all.

I'm sure some people may consider that option, but others may be hoping to ride it out. Remember, some people want to stay in a federal job due to retirement plans, etc. so they are thinking beyond the short term effects.

This is why many are calling out "sick". I saw an estimate of 10% in some cases. It's not quite as effective as a strike, but it can still make a statement at least.

Reagan did famously fire 11,000 striking air traffic controllers - so while you might be right I can understand a lot of hesitation.

they're explicitly prevented from striking

Wow, is this true? Is this even legal (except maybe police and military)?

It happened in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...

ATC is going to be as important economically and for public safety as police and military. You literally cannot fly commercial flights without ATC. They issue the flight plans, provide the routing, provide clearances for every taxi movement on the ground and every landing and takeoff for every commercial flight in the country.

So what I mean is that whatever argument is made to make it illegal for police to strike (assuming it is), the same argument applies to ATC.

Invest in my startup. UBER for ATC. Algorithms for Routing, Smart Contract, BlockChain, Natural Language...

Disruption

This is just wrong. Commercial flights fly all the time without ATC. The majority of airports in the USA are uncontrolled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-towered_airport

Any flight above 17999 ft in class A airspace requires an IFR flight plan. IFR requires controllers for the clearance, release, and approach clearance. Probably what he means....

Most Jets and planes people have experience with would be flying at those altitudes.

FYI:

Civilian flights in Class A airspace (at or above 18,000ft in most places) require an IFR clearance.

State flights can fly "due regard" (VFR) in Class A airspace.

In Hawaii, there is no Class A airspace, and I once controlled a civilian aircraft flying VFR at FL210 (21,000ft).

Commercial airliners do not take off in non-towered airports.

There are many Commercial flights every day to non-towered airports. In backcounty Alaska this is the norm. Clearly you have a big-city bias in your thinking.

OK, that's fair. Didn't consider Alaska which is known for these requirements.

Yes they do. I have issued clearances through Flight Service to such aircraft.

Air Traffic Controller here. You are correct.

There are many airports that are just a runway and have CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory Frequency) where pilots advise each other of their position, heading, intentions, etc.

ATC can give clearances to aircraft landing and taking off from such airports, but the clearances only apply in controlled airspace, usually starting 700ft above the ground. ATC can also make sure there are no other IFR traffic for aircraft requesting clearances, but if it's VMC (visual meteorological conditions), there could be VFR traffic for the IFR aircraft that ATC is not talking to.

Even taking off from an uncontrolled airport don't Part 125 commercial ops still require ATC to operate?

I never said they didn't. Commercial flights must fly IFR, which means they must receive an IFR clearance prior to takeoff.

What's legal is what 5 people on the Supreme Court say is legal.

Unless it was deemed an emergency, how many months does it take a typical case to make it before the USSC?

All the years it takes to get through lower courts and appeals. And then probably six months after it is accepted.

The usual justification is that Federal workers get more benefits (pensions!!) then other workers and so they give up their right to strike in return.

Safety-critical services like police, military, and yes, air traffic control, are not allowed to go on strike.

Everyone who's working without pay is also not allowed to strike. Everyone else who is not getting paid are not expected to work during the shut down.

Reagan outlawed ATC strikes, after firing all of them during a dispute early in his presidency. Early 80s.

I highly doubt that any president would ever dare do that again. It took years for the US to recover...

How many times since early in 2017 have we collectively said something like "I highly doubt that any president would ever dare ..." only to find out that the current occupant of that position has no such qualms?

Touche.

They can absolutely quit, but not strike. Does not seem constitutional in the US but eh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

The Act allows the President to intervene in any strike that is considered a national security interest. And this has been interpreted in the courts rather broadly.

I would hope this only applies to the Union's ability to call a strike, not an individuals right to call in sick?

I don't know about striking per se. But I have been somewhat confused about why all these workers are reporting to work when they're not being paid. If it's purely out of good will and dedication for their jobs, I appreciate that, but I wonder if it doesn't just serve to mask the problem. Employment at will means that every day is a new agreement - I work then you pay. If one side of that declines, then so should the other. I'm sure that one thing at play is that those that continue to show up will probably have better rep with managers when this is over. That's unfortunate and, I assume, technically illegal. But it's all the more reason that if the pay stops, so should the work - across the board.

The government has effectively outlawed it. They could strike but then the strike would be illegal. It's never been tested in court but with the rush of federal appointments (all happening while we've been watching the circus) of conservative judges it doesn't bode well for worker rights.

I think you mean the government has outlawed striking. But I'm not sure the government has outlawed the ability of an individual to not work without pay.

This really needs to be tested in court. Isn't the government technically in breach of contract by not paying employees?

Probably it's a risk calculation. For some, they may make more than if they took another job, and even if they quit, there's no guarantee they'd find work before the shutdown ends. (Plus add in the typical 2-3 week period before they'd receive their first check at new job)

If they refuse to work without explicitly quitting, then they could probably be terminated with cause, which means they'd likely be ineligible for unemployment benefits.

It is illegal for them to strike. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311

Land of the free!

"Freedom ain't free, bro"

> I gather that in most cases they're explicitly prevented from striking, but I think there's a good chance that it's too unpopular to actually punish them

Yeah, I know.

They could just work-to-rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com