"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch

Of course not! Hehehe.

Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the
executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in
behalf and in the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union
was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were
strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating
the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a
political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often
enough some people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch


Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always
opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I
was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union
strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York.

Well, with all due respect, the fact that you have always opposed legal
restrictions on the right to strike doesn't change the fact that that
Congress determined it to be illegal in 1955 (for federal employees) and the
Supreme Court determined the law to be constitutional when challenged in
1971. You have been out voted.



I always thought Reagan was a charlatan because of his involvement in the
Iranian hostage crisis, his double-dealing with the Iranians later to sell
them arms, his budget-busting deficit spending on military wastage, et
cetera. I often wondered when in his terms he began to deteriorate
mentally because of his illness.

You are entitled to think what you want but consider:

In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack of)
to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of the FAA
in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would be
congratulated.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
It's the result of over crowded flight paths, antiquated equipment and
increased demand for flights.
The people in the ATC system do an amazing job under the circumstances.
It has nothing to do with Ronny Wrinkles busting an illegal strike 20
years ago.

Eisboch
Of course not! Hehehe.
Correct me if I am wrong. Because of the massive negative affect on US
transportation, both personnel and commerce, the ATC strike was illegal,
even under the union contract conditions. Being illegal gave the
executive branch of the federal government the authority to intervene in
behalf and in the interest of the general population.

So, you are of the opinion that the ATC union had the right to ignore the
law and go on strike anyway?

Reagan did exactly the right thing and it wasn't unilateral. The union
was well advised of the consequences of a system shutdown and were
strongly encouraged to continue contract negotiations without violating
the law.
They ignored the opportunities and got what they deserved.

It's amazing how the spin is applied 20 years later to support a
political agenda. I suppose if one says something loud enough and often
enough some people will begin to believe it.

Again, please correct me if I am in error.

Eisboch

Reagan wanted to show he had balls, so he busted a union. I've always
opposed legal restrictions on the right to strike. In the early 1970s, I
was pleased to be involved in a number of "illegal" teachers' union
strikes in Michigan, Indiana and New York.

Well, with all due respect, the fact that you have always opposed legal
restrictions on the right to strike doesn't change the fact that that
Congress determined it to be illegal in 1955 (for federal employees) and the
Supreme Court determined the law to be constitutional when challenged in
1971. You have been out voted.



I always thought Reagan was a charlatan because of his involvement in the
Iranian hostage crisis, his double-dealing with the Iranians later to sell
them arms, his budget-busting deficit spending on military wastage, et
cetera. I often wondered when in his terms he began to deteriorate
mentally because of his illness.

You are entitled to think what you want but consider:

In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack of)
to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of the FAA
in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would be
congratulated.

Eisboch





Yeah, and Mussolini kept the trains running on time.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch



Yeah, and Mussolini kept the trains running on time.


LOL. I have to give you credit Harry. You ardently stick to and believe
what you want to believe.

Kinda like GW Bush in a way ..... an admirable trait if you happen to be
right.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch

Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch

Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.

Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981. Do
you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's a
fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:27:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


In the aftermath of more recent crises .... the fed's response (or lack
of) to natural disasters like Katrina, wildfires, etc., the actions of
the FAA in 1981, in terms of developing a contingency plan to keep air
transportation going in the event of an illegal strike, would today be
considered to be masterfully executed and Reagan's administration would
be congratulated.

Eisboch



Except the contingency plan was Jimmy Carter's.



Maybe, but the decision to execute the plan was made by Reagan in 1981.
Do you seriously think that Carter would have done the same, even if it's
a fact that the plan was designed on his watch? I don't know, but it's
doubtful in my opinion.

Eisboch


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced to
take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications were both
immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any responsible
president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation like that.

Eisboch

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:29:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced
to take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications
were both immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any
responsible president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation
like that.

Eisboch

I think you were right the first time. I think Carter had a contingency
in place to survive the strike. I don't think he would have fired the
controllers.

It has been argued that the firings were an ambush, a chance for Reagan
to look tough. Note the letter to Robert Poli, head of PATCO, written in
Oct, 1980. I wonder what changed.


Dear Mr. Poli:
I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable
state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that
too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has
placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so
clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to
act responsibly.
You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take
whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with
the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work
days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of
public safety....
I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with
you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the
air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan

wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:29:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


After I posted the above I thought about it a little more and I think my
expressed opinion was wrong. Carter probably *would* have been forced
to take similar action. The strike was illegal and the ramifications
were both immediate and potentially disastrous to the nation. Any
responsible president would be forced to uphold the law in a situation
like that.

Eisboch

I think you were right the first time. I think Carter had a contingency
in place to survive the strike. I don't think he would have fired the
controllers.

It has been argued that the firings were an ambush, a chance for Reagan
to look tough. Note the letter to Robert Poli, head of PATCO, written in
Oct, 1980. I wonder what changed.


Dear Mr. Poli:
I have been briefed by members of my staff as to the deplorable
state of our nation's air traffic control system. They have told me that
too few people working unreasonable hours with obsolete equipment has
placed the nation's air travellers in unwarranted danger. In an area so
clearly related to public safety the Carter administration has failed to
act responsibly.
You can rest assured that if I am elected President, I will take
whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with
the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work
days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of
public safety....
I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with
you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the President and the
air traffic controllers.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan



What changed...was that Reagan needed a way to look tough, as I
previously stated.