Trump will copy Reagan and fire them all; sending in military ATCs actually helps them normalize the domestic use of the military.
Then it will go to shit and planes will start falling out of the sky, because things are a whole lot more complex than they were in Reagan's time, and it barely worked then.
I don't think Reagan's strategy of firing them all and hiring a new bunch of air traffic really works in this day and age because the job is significantly harder than it used to be and the pool of people who can and want to do it is not much larger than the existing pool of air traffic controllers.
DuckDuckGo search assist (don't have time to confirm accuracy) tells me there were 5,000 flights in the air at any given time over the US in 1989, and there's are 10,000 at any given time over the US today.
I feel like an entire 1989s worth of planes is a lot, a quick search shows there were 11,000 controllers in 1981 and only 9,500 today, so double the planes for less controllers. Apparently the methods used for control have not changed much since the Reagan era as well.
There are many government functions that have to continue no matter. I think it’s only about 50% of the workforce on furlough but none are getting paid. A law passed in 2019 says we’ll all get back paid when funds are available, so technically the people working are getting paid.
Here's a better idea than blocking ploiticians pay durring a shutdown (bacause that can be used to strong arm poorer politicians). If the government ever shuts down, funding continues as it was and we immediately hold elections for both the senate and house with all current members being barred from ever holding office again.
there's literally no government, why pretend there is.
i didn't mean that we shouldn't pay politicians during a shutdown. just that it is bullshit that they can vote to not pay all the federal staff while they still get paid and demanding them to work while they do fuck all.
And what is he going to do? Fire them? They're going to get fired eventually anyway. Especially if they're a woman or minority. Protests are about all we have left before violence is the only option. Let's do anything we can to keep non-violence the best option!
Can everyone just quit, and require that to be hired back their demands are met? Or is their pension system scummy in that pension only counts based on continuous employment?
From an admittedly ignorant perspective, I don't understand strikes; I don't understand why collectivized workers don't group quit instead of staying home and submitting demands through a rep. It's like how companies mass fire, and then offer jobs back at lower pay. Uno reverse. Fascist laws easily target employees on strike like we saw with Reagan, but it would be extremely difficult to enact laws targeting people who don't even work for some company any more. And the reps can be bought out to take an offer on behalf of members anyway.
if the strikers had backbone (and proper support from the community) yes. hiring everyone back on and preventing retribution is the first or second demand from any halfway decent labor strike.
this is what the NALC did back in the 70's...but they're a shadow of their former selves ever since betraying their brothers in 2008
Sometimes strikes have better worker protections than mass quitting.
Also, usually besides "not doing the work", strikes usually involve engaging in some practices (e.g. picket lines) to prevent or inhibit anyone else from "doing the work". That's not true of mass quitting.
I've never been in a position where I could earn a pension. But, vestment of employer contributions to my 401k used to be contingent on years of continuous employment. Quitting and being rehired would have resulted in losing all funds that hadn't yet vested.
But, yes, mass quitting is an option, particularly when legal and union protections are little or non-existent.
They won't freak out, they feel like they know exactly what to do - exactly what Reagan did. Just fire them all. That worked out great, it's not like we are still suffering from that terrible decision 40 years later.
Trump will copy Reagan and fire them all; sending in military ATCs actually helps them normalize the domestic use of the military.
Then it will go to shit and planes will start falling out of the sky, because things are a whole lot more complex than they were in Reagan's time, and it barely worked then.
Bloom County covered it.
BC reference, hell yeah
Ran from 1980-1989, perfect snapshot of the decade.
Don't forget the new ones!
Wasn't a big fan of the follow up. Are there truly new comics?
EDIT: Damn! Anywhere to see all these without paging through FB?!
He put out books of the new ones too
I don’t think they can legally thanks to Reagan.
Edit: Not saying they won’t. I think they should walkout.
I don't think Reagan's strategy of firing them all and hiring a new bunch of air traffic really works in this day and age because the job is significantly harder than it used to be and the pool of people who can and want to do it is not much larger than the existing pool of air traffic controllers.
How much traffic are now compared to that day?
DuckDuckGo search assist (don't have time to confirm accuracy) tells me there were 5,000 flights in the air at any given time over the US in 1989, and there's are 10,000 at any given time over the US today.
I was expecting a lot more grew.
I feel like an entire 1989s worth of planes is a lot, a quick search shows there were 11,000 controllers in 1981 and only 9,500 today, so double the planes for less controllers. Apparently the methods used for control have not changed much since the Reagan era as well.
They still use little placards on a tray to organize flights. It's bonkers.
Systems are outdated AF, probably haven't changed much
I'd guess there are larger planes than they had then too
Larger and maybe faster
Perhaps harder and stronger
Soo 3dB?
Yeah Reagan had a large pool of fresh Vietnam vets to pull from as scabs.
how tf is it even legal to demand workers to work for free?
the US doing wage theft in the open.
🔫 Always has been
I’ve worked every shutdown except this one, you acknowledge that you will have to work in the absence of funds before you start.
that's insane.
imagine telling a contractor that they might it might not get paid but they still have to work.
There are many government functions that have to continue no matter. I think it’s only about 50% of the workforce on furlough but none are getting paid. A law passed in 2019 says we’ll all get back paid when funds are available, so technically the people working are getting paid.
that's bullshit. if it's vital, then make laws that ensure payment, not laws that force work for a potential future payment.
tells you what politicians really care about. because lawmakers are getting paid during the shutdown.
Here's a better idea than blocking ploiticians pay durring a shutdown (bacause that can be used to strong arm poorer politicians). If the government ever shuts down, funding continues as it was and we immediately hold elections for both the senate and house with all current members being barred from ever holding office again.
yes.
the government failed, elections.
there's literally no government, why pretend there is.
i didn't mean that we shouldn't pay politicians during a shutdown. just that it is bullshit that they can vote to not pay all the federal staff while they still get paid and demanding them to work while they do fuck all.
Some Dems at least made a show of trying to pass a law so they wouldn't get paid during shutdowns. Unsurprisingly Rs voted it down.
This would be a good first step. And then lock them up inside the building until they found a common ground. Make it like the papal conclave.
That is the situation with ANY contractor doing work for Trump.
You're asking that of a country that was literally built on slave labor?
yhea, not surprising
Legality matters little when you’re starving and hopeless
And what is he going to do? Fire them? They're going to get fired eventually anyway. Especially if they're a woman or minority. Protests are about all we have left before violence is the only option. Let's do anything we can to keep non-violence the best option!
You must have missed the 1980s. :) We've already seen this play out.
Reagan had an entire swath of Vietnam vets trained in directing aircraft to pull from. Don't have nearly the same numbers today.
And they're also not paying the troops at the same time... Tough to get people to scab if they're not getting paid either
Would you show up to work knowing you will not get paid?
If they don't, they lose their pension. Right now it's an investment in ever retiring.
Can everyone just quit, and require that to be hired back their demands are met? Or is their pension system scummy in that pension only counts based on continuous employment?
From an admittedly ignorant perspective, I don't understand strikes; I don't understand why collectivized workers don't group quit instead of staying home and submitting demands through a rep. It's like how companies mass fire, and then offer jobs back at lower pay. Uno reverse. Fascist laws easily target employees on strike like we saw with Reagan, but it would be extremely difficult to enact laws targeting people who don't even work for some company any more. And the reps can be bought out to take an offer on behalf of members anyway.
if the strikers had backbone (and proper support from the community) yes. hiring everyone back on and preventing retribution is the first or second demand from any halfway decent labor strike.
this is what the NALC did back in the 70's...but they're a shadow of their former selves ever since betraying their brothers in 2008
Sometimes strikes have better worker protections than mass quitting.
Also, usually besides "not doing the work", strikes usually involve engaging in some practices (e.g. picket lines) to prevent or inhibit anyone else from "doing the work". That's not true of mass quitting.
I've never been in a position where I could earn a pension. But, vestment of employer contributions to my 401k used to be contingent on years of continuous employment. Quitting and being rehired would have resulted in losing all funds that hadn't yet vested.
But, yes, mass quitting is an option, particularly when legal and union protections are little or non-existent.
They won't freak out, they feel like they know exactly what to do - exactly what Reagan did. Just fire them all. That worked out great, it's not like we are still suffering from that terrible decision 40 years later.
It’s not a strike if they’re not getting paid, it’s a slave rebellion.
More like
I think trump might be one step ahead of Regan in this case