In 1981 Reagan fired all the ATC professionals involved in a union strike
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
My opinion is their initial ask and even strike was pretty reasonable, but then rejecting a pretty good offer and then doubling down by ignoring a court order in a public safety industry - well - gets you fired and that ain't a completely bad thing.
the part you never adressed is that government was not SUPPOSED to EVER get a favorite in a private conflict, part firing employees and banning them from ever serving for any gov posision? not only intent was so outrageous, but the reaction was disproportional, not only affecting more than 10K people, but leaving the whole industry barely hanging.
maybe the time will forget the outcome, but what I and prob the generations to come will never understand - what whas the gov stake in this? why they never tried to have a council with a gov as a mediator and most importantly - what is the value of at-will contracts if mostly works only one way?
The fired workers had to sign and swear an official oath, exactly like members of the armed services do, with the government that they would not strike. They were then given three days to reconsider, knowing their outcome. Most miscalculated. This is why they were fired. There can be sympathy, but only for the amazingly large disconnect between the union and the tenability of its position that so many went along with it. The firings were extremely clear cut legally in this case. Not just illegal from a labor law sense - criminally illegal.
For context, please see the following. Reagan was at one time the president of Screen Actors Guild and a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO. He presided over the SAG's first strike. He knows what is legal and what is not:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160123122143/https://www.reaga...
the gov or court was never a part of ATC union negotiation, until they decided that a legal(explicitly legal, defined, upheld in courts) strike was illegal.
what they did to a union who can protest the decision? they formally decertified it.
thats wrong in so many directions, not only in legal system favoring one side, not having a council between the parties, but also ill-defined sharp response, as well as showing that gov dont need any base to dissolve(formally - discertify) any union organization? and all this without formal involvement of the POTUS?
i thought i understood the values and boundaries of local legal system. turns out i'm lost.
the gov was the other party
> explicitly legal, defined, upheld in courts
no it wasn't - not be a long shot. this was why it was declared illegal. ATC controllers are legally NOT allowed to strike.
> gov dont need any base to dissolve(formally - discertify) any union organization?
an illegal strike is more than a basis, it's a guarantee.