I'm not sure how many people know this, but one of the first instances of "union busting" ever committed by the US federal govt was against air traffic controllers. The job used to be extremely competitive and prestigious, but overall lower wages and security has made it way harder to attract as many highly talented individuals.
And with how many rules there are in that pdf, it's shocking we don't see multiple accidents a year.
Police unions improve the lives of police officers but do little to improve policing. Teachers' unions improve the lives of teachers but have little effect on student outcomes. It's not obvious to me that a powerful air traffic controllers' union would do anything to improve safety. In fact if other public sector unions are informative, the result of a strong ATC union would be to protect and insulate poor performers.
> 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.
I personally think stability and having some bureaucrat monitoring hours is good. I don't want my air traffic controllers popping pills and pulling double shifts, or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick. People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves
> showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick
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.
Then you shouldn't be involved in safety-critical areas. That's just entirely the wrong outlook. You should never skip an important verification step because someone promises things are fine.
yes, Freedom, Personal autonomy, Privacy, and Innocence until proven guilty are all the "entirely the wrong outlook " and people holding that "wrong outlook" clearly can not be anywhere near "safety-critical areas"
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?
So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?
You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening?
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 "
So you believe in absolute personal freedom except when you don't like its consequences and in curtailing personal freedom except when doing so might inconvenience you personally?
Where did I say anything about "absolute personal freedom"
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
I disagree with this take when it comes to safety-critical applications, especially when you are directly responsible for the safety of thousands of lives at any given moment in the day.
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%.
IIRC that figure is partially due to understaffing leading to long hours and six day workweeks, and it’s not exactly ideal for us to have overworked ATC
That's not some statement unique to unions. Every organization suffers from the principal-agent problem and every union has a tension between what the union wants, what it's officers want, and what the members want. Also, there's nothing wrong with greed: it's one of the prime human motivators and is encourage in capitalist/individualist societies.
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.
In 2020, ATC directed an incoming United 787 on the wrong runway at Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport. The only reason nothing terrible happened is that the Easyjet pilot on the wrong runway called for go-around after looking out the window, moments before the would-be collision.
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.
This is clearly bad law. Not only is it unknowable and unenforceable, but it serves to reduce oversight if actually followed. Society is better off when we pay attention to how it runs and this type of law directly criminalizes that.
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.
People seem to believe other nations have freedom.. In reality when looking at it objectively Most nations lack a huge amount of core freedoms we in the US take for granted
PATCO went on an illegal strike, continued the strike in contravention of court orders, and then remained on strike after a deadline from the president.
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.
A union not allowed to strike isn't really a union, when you boil it down the only real leverage a union has is the ability to withhold labor. If the government is allowed to come in and force a contract on people then the bargaining power of the union is severely curtailed. All the business needs to do is wait and lobby the politicians to impose their preferred contract instead of negotiating with the actual employees.
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.
There is a fundamental difference between private and public sector unions.
"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.)
If a private employee union strikes and makes unreasonable demands, the employer eventually goes out of business.
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).
Air traffic controllers do have a union. PATCO, the previous union that was "busted", was a public employee union that chose to hold critical public infrastructure hostage, which is unacceptable. Any union that does that should expect to be stripped of its monopoly on that kind of labor.
No, they did not. Reagan very much wanted to spread that lie, but no infrastructure was held hostage. The laborers who held the skills needed to run that infrastructure declined to work when their compensation negotiations were declined.
Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class that is still being felt today.
Had they all quit that would have been fine - nobody can force you to work. But they chose to not work and keep their jobs.
> 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.
A union that can't strike is a shared suggestion box at best. The ultimate power of a union boils down to the ability to deny labor to businesses and support it's members through that period in order to bargain.
I always assume that a movie like Pushing Tin is about as accurate of a portrayal of the job of ATC as Swordfish or Antitrust is for software development.
And with how many rules there are in that pdf, it's shocking we don't see multiple accidents a year.