Federal Workers must go on Strike- put the pressure on Trump

[tomhagen]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Federal workers can't legally strike.

Just ask PATCO how that worked out.

[zipplewrath]

2. No but...

Just let the TSA have a massive "sick out" for about 2 days and see what happens.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Which would be an illegal wildcat strike.

They'd probably lose their jobs and back pay and never get them back like the PATCO members, and they'd be replaced by private contractors, who could be paid by local airports just like before 9/11.

[zipplewrath]

4. Over time

They were able to handle the PATCO strike because they brought in the National Guard to handle ATC (many of whom were striking PATCO members). It'd be interesting to find out who they tried to replace the TSA guards with. The days or weeks it'd take to accomplish this could be all it took to bring the GOP to their knees.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. It would hurt a lot more people than just the GOP.

Not a good idea. The airline industry would be seriously harmed (I used to work for an airline and I can tell you they operate on a financial knife-edge even in good times) and people would be laid off. The tourist industry, on which many people and communities rely, would suffer and more people would lose their jobs. The fallout would be massive and you can't be sure the GOP would get the blame they deserve.

[Major Nikon]

7. Probably not, and I doubt the TSA would even try it

All federal employees have appeal rights to an administrative law judge if they are fired. So how does the TSA prove that an employee wasn't genuinely sick? Answer is they can't unless they had a policy in place beforehand to require a doctor's note. Most large employers don't have such blanket policies because it creates far more problems than it would solve.

[Honeycombe8]

8. That's been tried before w/air traffic controllers. Reagan fired them. Hired new ones.

Or at least new ones to replace those who didn't return to work.

It's illegal for at least some federal workers to strike. That's because some of the jobs relate to safety, so it would be harmful for them to walk off their jobs, not just in a financial way.

I don't know about the other types of federal workers.

[zipplewrath]

9. yes, but as I pointed out

The number of AT controllers pales to the number of TSA gate agents. Furthermore, they were able to call up the national guard to supply ATC personnel (many of whom were also PATCO members). I don't see that happening in short order with TSA agents.

[Honeycombe8]

10. They'd be replaced in short order. It's illegal.

By law, if they participate in a strike against the federal govt, they can't work for the fed govt. It's just the law. Whether the govt can bypass that if it wants to, I don't know.

But from a public viewpoint, it would probably be effective in helping to end the shutdown, IMO. But strictly speaking, those doing the striking cannot return to their jobs.

[zipplewrath]

12. Strictly speaking

I understand the technicality, but especially in the current employment market, and with the low wages the TSA pays for most of these positions, it would be difficult to ignore them, much less fire them, without significant short term impact to the traveling public and the associated political price. I also seem to remember that PATCO made the "mistake" of striking in August when many people were still vacationing and getting ready to go to school and the public turned on them in short order. January, maybe not so much.

[Honeycombe8]

13. True. I don't know how that would shake out.

What I was saying, though, was that I don't know if the fed's hands are tied. Someone who has participated in a strike against the fed is not allowed, by law, to work for the fed. I guess the Congress could run through a change in the law, if it wanted. Or maybe the law already contains that option. I don't know.

It's risky. I wouldn't advise anyone to risk his job. But if they want to, I would support it.

[zipplewrath]

14. This ain't PATCO

I'd hope these TSA agents generally aren't looking to make a career out of this. This is entry level stuff. Especially in the current job market, one would hope that they are already looking at their next step. Kinda reduces the risk as compared to ATC.

[Honeycombe8]

15. All federal workers are prohibited by law from striking.

They sign a paper when hired, acknowledging that they have never participated in a strike against the fed, and that if they do, they know they can't work for the federal govt.

What I don't know is if the fed, at its discretion, can overlook that law. I don't know.

[zipplewrath]

16. Yes, it can

PATCO employees were rehired years later (a very few) and Clinton waved it for the remaining in 1993.

[Honeycombe8]

17. So it takes a law to revise the law.

That's what I was wondering. If Congress can pass a law to bypass the restriction. But if the Prez can sign an EO, that's faster. IF Trump would do it. He's so crazy, who knows what he would do.

[zipplewrath]

18. The executive branch can do this

Truth is, the executive has to assert this in the first place, and has the power to "waive" it as well. The law empowers him to do it IIUC.

[thesquanderer]

19. Can the law stop a federal employee from striking if s/he is not being paid?

That would mean the law could force someone to work without pay.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Yes, because they will be paid after the shutdown is over.

Sucks but that's the way it works.

[Midnightwalk]

6. Work to rule

Is a better option I think. These are decent jobs with pensions. It's hard for me to give advice to them on risking their pensions by striking or giving up on them (vesting is mostly final years I think) by quitting. I'm sure they're considering all options as they get their empty stubs.

I'd like to see more public scorn of republicans through ads and around their offices by the general public. We need to get a senators willing to caucus with us long enough to get rid of McConnell and get government reopened. We should be boycotting travel until government reopens.

Besides that and contacting your representatives and senators, I don't know what we can do that could be effective.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I agree. What's really unnerving is requiring some workers to work w/o pay.

That means that at least some people who are having trouble financially are having to use some of whatever money they've got (or charging to credit cards) to pay for transportation and expenses going to and from work. If they have uniforms, they will have to continue having those laundered or whatever. (As for myself, I probably would just go in with dirty uniforms, or wash and iron them myself.)