Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Remembering the day the strike died
By Joseph A. McCartin
Published August 1, 2006
Chicago Tribune
This week will mark the 25th anniversary of a turning point in American
economic history. On Aug. 3, 1981, some 12,000 members of the
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization walked off their jobs
directing the nation's air traffic for the Federal Aviation
Administration. Defying laws that prohibited federal workers from
striking, PATCO members tried to force the government to negotiate over
demands for a shorter work week and higher pay. President Ronald Reagan
responded with an ultimatum: If the controllers did not return to work
within 48 hours, Reagan promised to fire them. When more than 11,000
strikers decided to test Reagan's resolve, they lost their jobs and their
union.
With the PATCO episode, American labor relations entered a new era. In
the years after 1981, a number of prominent private sector employers
followed Reagan's lead and permanently replaced their own strikers. The
stiffened resistance to collective bargaining that became evident in the
1980s accelerated organized labor's decline.
Twenty-five years later, union leaders have yet to reverse that slide.
Last summer a raging debate over labor's ongoing crisis finally split
unions into two factions. Yet, for all of their differences, both the
AFL-CIO and its rival, Change to Win, share a basic consensus. Both
groups agree that the declining rate of union membership is labor's
fundamental problem, even though their strategies to deal with it
diverge. Unfortunately, union leaders may have put their fingers on a
symptom rather than the cause of labor's woes. They would be wise to
ponder an even more deeply rooted problem facing labor today--one
highlighted by this week's painful anniversary. Since 1981, the strike
has nearly disappeared from labor's arsenal. Unless unions can recover
that weapon, they may not reverse their slumping membership figures.
During labor's heyday, American workers struck frequently and
effectively. Between 1950 and 1980, the U.S. witnessed an average of more
than 300 major work stoppages (each involving at least 1,000 workers) per
year. But between 1982 and 2000 the annual average of stoppages plummeted
to 46. Nor has it bottomed out yet. In this century, the average is under
30, less than one-tenth the 1970s rate. The drop in strikes has been much
more precipitous than that of union membership and far out of proportion
to declines in unionization. Between 1952 and 2002, the share of U.S.
workers who paid union dues fell from 35 to 13 percent. But the number of
workers who struck in 2002 was a mere one-sixtieth of the 1952 figure.
If the PATCO debacle alone did not kill the American strike, it
undeniably marked the dawn of a no-strike era. Since 1981, global
competition, economic deregulation, heightened anti-unionism, and more
have combined to rip the strike weapon from workers' hands. Strikes are
seemingly less common now than hurricanes. The result is that even when
they are organized, workers today wield less leverage than they did a
generation ago. Undoubtedly, this realization discourages non-union
workers from assuming the risks of organizing. And this suggests that
unions may not recoup membership losses unless they can also recover the
capacity to strike and the leverage that comes with it.
But the fate of the strike is not something for unions alone to ponder.
It concerns us all. No one likes strikes, of course. They can cause great
inconvenience and bring painful conflicts to the surface. But in time we
may come to like today's strike-free world even less well. For when
workers lack the power to prod employers into bargaining with them,
employers enjoy an advantage that too often translates into sagging real
wages, reduced benefits and growing inequality for wage-earners. We
cannot tolerate trends like these indefinitely.
The PATCO anniversary thus invites us to ask: Are we really better off in
a nation without strikes? If American inequality continues to grow in the
future as it has over the last 25 years, it may become ever harder to
answer "yes" to that question.
Joseph A. McCartin teaches history at Georgetown University in
Washington. He is writing a book on the PATCO strike.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
By Joseph A. McCartin
Published August 1, 2006
Chicago Tribune
This week will mark the 25th anniversary of a turning point in American
economic history. On Aug. 3, 1981, some 12,000 members of the
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization walked off their jobs
directing the nation's air traffic for the Federal Aviation
Administration. Defying laws that prohibited federal workers from
striking, PATCO members tried to force the government to negotiate over
demands for a shorter work week and higher pay. President Ronald Reagan
responded with an ultimatum: If the controllers did not return to work
within 48 hours, Reagan promised to fire them. When more than 11,000
strikers decided to test Reagan's resolve, they lost their jobs and their
union.
With the PATCO episode, American labor relations entered a new era. In
the years after 1981, a number of prominent private sector employers
followed Reagan's lead and permanently replaced their own strikers. The
stiffened resistance to collective bargaining that became evident in the
1980s accelerated organized labor's decline.
Twenty-five years later, union leaders have yet to reverse that slide.
Last summer a raging debate over labor's ongoing crisis finally split
unions into two factions. Yet, for all of their differences, both the
AFL-CIO and its rival, Change to Win, share a basic consensus. Both
groups agree that the declining rate of union membership is labor's
fundamental problem, even though their strategies to deal with it
diverge. Unfortunately, union leaders may have put their fingers on a
symptom rather than the cause of labor's woes. They would be wise to
ponder an even more deeply rooted problem facing labor today--one
highlighted by this week's painful anniversary. Since 1981, the strike
has nearly disappeared from labor's arsenal. Unless unions can recover
that weapon, they may not reverse their slumping membership figures.
During labor's heyday, American workers struck frequently and
effectively. Between 1950 and 1980, the U.S. witnessed an average of more
than 300 major work stoppages (each involving at least 1,000 workers) per
year. But between 1982 and 2000 the annual average of stoppages plummeted
to 46. Nor has it bottomed out yet. In this century, the average is under
30, less than one-tenth the 1970s rate. The drop in strikes has been much
more precipitous than that of union membership and far out of proportion
to declines in unionization. Between 1952 and 2002, the share of U.S.
workers who paid union dues fell from 35 to 13 percent. But the number of
workers who struck in 2002 was a mere one-sixtieth of the 1952 figure.
If the PATCO debacle alone did not kill the American strike, it
undeniably marked the dawn of a no-strike era. Since 1981, global
competition, economic deregulation, heightened anti-unionism, and more
have combined to rip the strike weapon from workers' hands. Strikes are
seemingly less common now than hurricanes. The result is that even when
they are organized, workers today wield less leverage than they did a
generation ago. Undoubtedly, this realization discourages non-union
workers from assuming the risks of organizing. And this suggests that
unions may not recoup membership losses unless they can also recover the
capacity to strike and the leverage that comes with it.
But the fate of the strike is not something for unions alone to ponder.
It concerns us all. No one likes strikes, of course. They can cause great
inconvenience and bring painful conflicts to the surface. But in time we
may come to like today's strike-free world even less well. For when
workers lack the power to prod employers into bargaining with them,
employers enjoy an advantage that too often translates into sagging real
wages, reduced benefits and growing inequality for wage-earners. We
cannot tolerate trends like these indefinitely.
The PATCO anniversary thus invites us to ask: Are we really better off in
a nation without strikes? If American inequality continues to grow in the
future as it has over the last 25 years, it may become ever harder to
answer "yes" to that question.
Joseph A. McCartin teaches history at Georgetown University in
Washington. He is writing a book on the PATCO strike.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Last edited:
Do you really expect Duanne to go to jail on your behalf?:laugh: Purple does not have to hire Irish or Nigerian pilots for one reason, there are plenty of Americans available. I've also flown with a number of former EAL PFEs that thought they could never be replaced. When the other cockpit union broke the strike they learned otherwise. The PATCO guys/gals also thought the same thing.
