And with how many rules there are in that pdf, it's shocking we don't see multiple accidents a year.
> The median annual wage for air traffic controllers was $129,750 in May 2021
SOME unions do take advantage, given the traffic controllers' 'single point of failure' it can be very attractive for some unions who are greedy. Again I reiterate, unions are not a bad idea, just not all of them are solely in the interests of the actual employees.
Much like air hosts and pilots, air traffic controllers (at least in the EU) are tested frequently for substance issues including alcohol. A friends father who was an air traffic controller was tested daily for the very reason you mention. Nobody WANTS an accident.
> People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves
Absolutely agree, they're professionals though and well trained. I believe they can be responsible adults. That's why it's so rare to see unfortunate mistakes like this seems to be.
Which also limits the hiring pool as many people, myself included, would refuse to be tested daily on principle. Hell I object to pre-employment screenings.
And I have not drunk a drop of Alcohol in over 25 years, nor done any drugs, dont smoke, nothing. That said I am not taking your little test to prove that to you unless you have a reasonable articulable reason to suspect I may be under said influence.
that is just absurd, Safety Theater is basically what you are advocating for
Let me ask you this, do you think forcing me to remove my shoes is a "critical safety" process before boarding a plan, and that allowing someone to pay $100 to bypass that means it is secure?
You think the response to security theater, no security it all?
You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes "
That is just absurd
I clearly outlined that my freedom (in this case my privacy and body autonomy) should be respected unless there is a reasonable and articulable individualized justification to preform a search (i.e drug screen) on the basis I am a danger to others
Your position is we assume everyone is on drugs and they have to prove they are not
My position is we use logic and reason to look at a situation, and if the reasonable suspicion someone may be under the influence then we make the accusation and attempt to collect evidence to prove that.
My position is one of rationality and respects freedom as much as possible while still keeping people safe
your position is authoritarian with no rationality to it at all
At the end of the day, I don't see potentially sacrificing the lives of multiple planeloads of people as a worthy tradeoff for foregoing verification that the controller is not under the influence of mind-altering substances when performing their job because it invades their privacy. Performing the job must inherently be approached with a collectivist attitude.
For other jobs where the magnitude of the mistake doesn't involve bodily harm or significant resources, I agree 100%.
I feel like there are a plethora of issues there.
Unions are frequently reasonably well aligned and sometimes not.
There are many solutions like government mandated elections of the officers, rotation of the officers, multiple unions for a given sector or company or factory, etc... Each solution of course comes with a cost including weaker officers coming in, dilution of the power of the union, etc...
This pattern also exists for governments, transnational organizations, corporations, non-profits, etc... and it doesn't make them bad or good or greedy or saintly - it just is the nature of any group.
Didn't make it beyond aviation news, probably because recording ATC is not allowed in France.
Human error will creep up everywhere, all you can control is the frequency.
And it shows a basic misunderstanding of government, if it's paid for by your tax money it clearly involves you.
This is what the USA has over almost every other country - an acknowledgement that ultimately the people charter the government not the other way around.
They could have returned prior to the final deadline, they could have had a sick-out, they could have worked to rule.
I’m sympathetic to labor demands, but if your oath of office makes it illegal to strike and you participate in a walkout, well, that’s on you.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt (the guy who created the NLRB and was responsible for modern labor law in the US.)
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...
If a public employee union does the same, the government can't go out of business. So what that means is, as long as the union is granted monopoly on its kind of labor supply, they are holding the taxpayers and their infrastructure hostage.
Public employee unions should not be allowed to strike without giving up their monopoly on labor. And we would do well to not entitle private employee unions to mandatory membership and rigid seniority rules (I know from personal experience that these rules make them incredibly corrupt).
We saw this essential pattern play out with the recent near railway strike. The rail companies barely had to give up anything because the strike would have been too effective to be allowed to happen.
Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class that is still being felt today.
> The laborers who held the skills needed
So did many other people. They conspired to break the law by arranging to violate their employment contracts in a group so as to cause undue difficulty to their employer and they held public infrastructure hostage to prevent anyone else operating it.
> Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class
The death of unions is a lot broader of an issue than RR killing the ATCU, and generally much deserved. Unions exist to save lives where the law isn't capable but for every plausibly relevant situation like air-traffic control or deep mining there are a hundred overreaches like trying to unionize Amazon warehouses.
As society and work got safer in general it became less important to have such an option as the right to blockade someone's property and dictate who they can hire.