My attempt to defeat all the new Democratic nominees in W.+. I’ve already defeated the original ones in one of my previous posts.

In 1981 President Ronald Reagan fired a large contingency of air traffic controllers after agreeing to give them a 33% pay raise, 11% a year over the next three years. PATCO had asked for an even larger raise, thirty two hour work-weeks and to be exempt from multiple civil service clauses and engaged in a public strike to try to achieve these aims. After asking the controllers to return to work, Reagan invoked title 5 U.S.C. 7311 which prohibits any civil servant from engaging in a strike against the government. This title is upheld by the Federal Labor Relations Authority which ought to consist of three impartial bodies, each from a different political party (more on this later). The political climate of this time was very much akin to ours, inflation was quickly growing and the public sector jobs were having trouble keeping up with the pay of other private employers. Quality of life for controllers was dwindling and aviation was booming rapidly. Looking at flight data for around that time commercial flights amongst air carriers was lower than what it is now and the number of controllers was very similar to what we have now - the key difference however is that cargo was a much smaller piece of the aviation pie than it is today. Only 10% of the controller workforce didn't participate in the strike and the government took military controllers from their posts and moved them to the FAA to help curtail the impact felt from the loss of controllers. The FAA felt extremely confident that the impacts would be mitigated after only about two years but real time data shows that staffing levels didn't recover until a full decade after the firings of the controllers. The FAA also claimed that they were able to maintain 50% of the regular flight schedule.
https://preview.redd.it/blpgik7f7vzc1.png?width=1547&format=png&auto=webp&s=7aca206f6e9cddf61ec98320754f5acc2d097e93
A quick look at this graph shows the precipitous crash of passenger flights throughout the early 1980s but the most important takeaway from this graph is the tremendous harm to the contribution of the GDP of the United States that air travel represents for the next five years afterwards. Fast forward to today and aviation is even more intrinsically tied to the GDP. Statistics show that aviation supports 4.1% of the worldwide GDP, and in America that figure represents 5% of the GDP to the tune of 1.4 trillion dollars. Recently released FAA figures indicate that there are approximately 14,000 controllers. Mathematically that means that each controller from the lowliest tower to the busiest facility helps to facilitate $100,000,000 of economic stimulation every year. Over the course of a career that means that each air traffic controller has helped to ensure billions of dollars are moved safely in our great nation. We are very valuable, that much goes without say. This year however the Fed estimates that the GDP growth will slow down to 1.8%, down from an estimated 6% growth. Any adverse action against air traffic control will invariably lead to a years long recession in a country where inflation is growing rampantly. That's the power that we hold collectively and that's why the strikes are so successful in other countries. An air traffic strike in this day and age however would likely be a battle of public opinion as it would affect other powerful unions (pilots, flight attendants) and mega corporations (UPS, Amazon), who would likely overwhelmingly prefer we be compensated and go back to the boards rather than risk the economic damages that having to retrain an entire generation of controllers would ensue. A generation that has been critically understaffed, and who are having trouble attracting and keeping qualified candidates as is. The only thing stopping us is that pesky title 5. This is where things get deeper though as currently the FLRA that enforces such actions only has 2 of 3 appointees, basically ensuring a 50/50 toss up between the Republican appointee and the Democratic appointee. Interestingly the Democratic appointee is someone by the name of Susan Grundmann, who previously acted as the counsel to our very own National Air Traffic Controllers Association. What this means is that if we were to ever entertain the idea of a strike she would likely have to recuse herself leaving Trump's appointee Colleen Kiko as the only person to decide our fates, obviously ensuring that we would lose any and all litigation. The only way to feasibly strike would be to try to sue for our ability to do so, something which PATCO tried to do unsuccessfully in the 80s. This is why being fiscally responsible and ensuring we have a war chest is extremely important. Instead of frivolously spending our dues on nonsense like open bar tabs and extravagant conventions NATCA should be pursuing any and all avenues to try to reinvigorate our workforce and give us the power to truly exercise our rights as workers.

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — but has not concluded that a drone flew over the home of the U.S. 7th Fleet, a base spokesman said.
Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-05-10/drone-footage-ronald-reagan-yokosuka-13813098.html Source - Stars and Stripes

Who else remembers when Republicans were outraged when Obama wore a tan suit?