Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)

I would like to add some material on the early 70s "sick out". I remember a little (my dad was one of the original organizers) -- I am looking for some old notes. Paulmeisel 00:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did the article get the figures of 38% of striking workers returning? The linked reference indicates around 20% of controllers returned.

Legacy section NPOV tag
I've inserted an tag in the ''Legacy section.


 * The graph in the section comes from a study titled "Dropping the Ax: Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns, 1951-2007", and is not specific to PATCO. The data graphed is from Table 1, headed, "Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns, 1951-2007"; again, not specific to PATCO. The image is Figure 2, titled, "Probability that a Pro-Union Worker is Fired During a Union Election Campaign, 1951-2007"
 * The source cited in support of the image caption is not the source of the image. Rather, it is a Business Week article titled, "WHY AMERICA NEEDS UNIONS BUT NOT THE IIND [ [sic]: read "KIND"] IT HAS NOW"
 * The Greenspan quote is unbalanced, omitting the immediately following paragraph:

Needs a major re-work
I cleaned up some biased wording. Also, there are hardly any sources for the information on this page. Perhaps this page should be re-worked from the ground up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorty701s (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to improve lead and reduce erroneous edits
I noticed that this article's history shows a pattern where editors will change a single word in the first sentence, which is immediately reverted by another editor. Specifically, where the article states that PATCO was decertified following an "illegal strike". Personally, I was not especially familiar with labor laws of this kind. So, the tone struck me as odd because I wasn't aware that there are indeed laws in the US which make striking illegal under some circumstances. Of course, upon reading more about this, I learned that this sentence was, in fact, accurate. However, given my own initial experience reading the sentence as well as the observed pattern of edits involving this sentence, I believe that it can be improved upon. Given the edit history, I thought it would be wise to propose the change here first. I'm also pretty new to editing wikipedia, so I would appreciate more detailed explanations if something I'm proposing is not consistent with policy.

Here's a few problems I think exist now, but can be improved:

1. The specific wording "illegal strike" is accurate (based on my layperson's understanding of the law), but the way it is presented seems to facilitate a misunderstanding that it is a characterization rather than a statement of fact about US law. I think it makes sense to include that detail, as it explains why PATCO was decertified succinctly, but it may make more sense to use a formulation that doesn't give people such a knee-jerk reaction.

2. The reference provided for the phrase does indeed use the specific phrasing 'illegal strike', but it's written by a history professor as opposed to a legal expert. It has the benefit of being published by an organization that appears to be pro-labor, which in this case I think strengthens the 'illegal' wording because even an organization that one could imagine wouldn't appreciate a negative characterization uses that wording itself. However, in order to make it more clear that this is a statement of fact about the US laws as opposed to editorializing or a reporting of this one authors opinion. Therefore, I would also suggest we add a reference to the actual FLRA decision which concludes that the strike was not legal and provides additional context.

3. Based on that FLRA document, it's actually possible to make a STRONGER statement than what's in the lead now since they bring up in their conclusion that PATCO had engaged in illegal strikes on multiple occasions (as is detailed in the wiki article with respect to the 1970 strike) as well as the fact that it was not within FLRA's discretion to even decline to decertify PATCO, but instead that the law "plainly requires revocation" of PATCOs certification.

4. Lastly, the final part of the sentence about the Reagan administration's breaking of the strike, I feel should either be expanded upon or removed. Specifically because, as written, it doesn't really inform the reader about the reality of that situation which was much more impactful that merely breaking a strike (which is a bit of a vague term) but rather involved terminating the employment of thousands of skilled federal employees and significantly impacting staffing levels at airport for nearly a decade.

Here would be my suggestion for the altered text for the sake of discussion:

"The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization or PATCO was a United States trade union for air traffic controllers employed by the FAA that was founded in 1968. The organization was dissolved in 1981 after the Federal Labor Relations Authority concluded that PETCO had engaged in unlawful striking activity on multiple occasions, which required it's decertification under federal law. The 1981 strike organized by PATCO concluded when President Ronald Reagan ordered the firing of 11,359 of the striking Air Traffic Controllers via executive action that also banned the strikers from employment at the FAA for life. These events had significant long-term consequences on commercial air travel, FAA staffing shortages and US labor relations."

What are your thoughts?

--OakM (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a useful contribution to discussion of the issue. Here is my edited version that incorporates your ideas:
 * The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization or PATCO was a union founded in 1968 for air traffic controllers employed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The union was decertified by the government in 1981 after it went on strike in violation of federal law. President Ronald Reagan ordered the firing of more than 11,000 striking controllers and banned them from employment at the FAA for life, a prohibition lifted in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The strike and firings had significant long-term consequences on commercial air travel, FAA staffing shortages and U.S. labor relations.
 * I have not seen specifically where "multiple occasions" of strikes has been cited as among the reasons for union decertification. In browsing the FLRA decision and in numerous media reports I've read, the sole reason appears to be the Aug '81 strike. However, if reliable citable sourcing talks about "multiple" occasions contributing to the government's justification, that information could be added to the article in the Body or perhaps in the Introduction. I somewhat fudged the number of fired controllers, because various numbers in that range have been published by different news outlets. Details about the FLRA decision can be included in the body of the article. Comments? DonFB (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've seen a source that says this had "long-term consequences" for commercial air travel or "FAA staffing shortages". I guess it depends on what one means by "long-term". Certainly many have made the argument that it affected labor relations for the long-haul.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rja13ww33 The history.com article says the firings slowed air travel for months. The staffing shortages part I summarized from the body of the article where it said it took nearly 10 years to reach full staffing again.
 * --OakM (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I support the phrasing by DonFB, but with the last sentence as "The strike and firings had a significant long-term impact on U.S. labor relations."
 * 2) The Federal Labor Relations Authority link you provided would be called a PRIMARY WP:PRIMARY source in Wikipedia terms; we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources like a law expert's review of the decision, so that us Wikipedia editors don't draw wrong conclusions from such sources. --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all those who have chimed in so far to help improve on my suggestion, I think it's already looking much better than what's there currently.


 * Thanks for your clarification about the sourcing policy. I think I failed to explain well why I proposed adding that source. My intent was to support the use of the specific phrase "unlawful strike" over "illegal strike" in case anyone had concerns that my proposed change would result in language that downplayed the magnitude of the violation. I dont personally feel that this is the case, but anticipated that others might disagree and felt that I should have a reasonable justification for the alternative language. My reasoning was that by using an alternative phrasing taken specifically from that FLRA decision I would not be interpreting or analyzing the source material myself, but instead making a statement of fact about what it said. Based on my understanding of WP:PRIMARY, this would be an acceptable use of a primary source. Have I not understood the policy, or was there some other concern you had about the use? Specifically, under the section "Summary of Determination" it states "MOREOVER, AS FURTHER NOTED BY THE CHIEF ALJ, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT PATCO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY ENGAGING IN AN UNLAWFUL STRIKE." (sorry for the all caps, that's how it appears on their page). Additionally, in response to, this passage is where I saw that they had referenced prior striking activity that PATCO had engaged in. I think after reading WP:PRIMARY more carefully this may be analysis or interpretation on my part that's not going to be plainly obvious to all readers, so perhaps it doesn't make sense to include that the FLRA also considered the actions of PATCO's 1970 sick-out.


 * I see that there has been some disagreement about the last sentence and the validity of those specific statements about the effects of the strike/firings. I think it's still well justified to include and wraps up the paragraph nicely, so I found some extra sources to back up those statements. This article supports the wording about FAA staffing when it says "The strike also caused an enduring shortage of air traffic controllers that extended into the George H. W. Bush administration...". As I stated in my other reply above, the History.com article was he source for my statement about slowing down air travel, though there's room for argument about whether "months" of slowed air travel is as "long-term" of an effect as the staffing shortages and effects on labor relations. I looked around for some sources that make more specific claims about the slow-downs and didn't find any that specifically discussed slowdowns after the strike, only during the strike, so maybe that wording should be omitted for both not elevating it's "long-term" status to the same level as the other statements as well as for it being poorly covered in other sources and not especially well dissected in the one I provided.


 * Lastly, I was thinking of trying to find an image or two of the actual strikers that I could add to the article. Would any of you be able to point me towards some guidance on how to properly source and add images to wikipedia? I tried to find this myself but didn't see any pages that looked relevant to my needs.
 * --OakM (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention, the uta.edu source that I provided above also stated that when PATCO was decertified "It became the first federal union to ever be decertified." which is a pretty neat fact that I think should be included as well. --OakM (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * --I put a Welcome message and some additional links about image policy/copyright, etc. on your Talk page. Regarding the article: I think the last sentence in the proposed Lede revision is basically accurate, but good references should be included for support, and you seem to be making progress tracking them down. Do you have any comment on my suggested wording: "went on strike in violation of federal law"? DonFB (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the suggested wording "went on strike in violation of federal law", supported by the FLRA source; we can use the quote parameter in the reference to include the quote that OakM noted in caps., thank you for explaining your reasoning on using that source, I agree that it is acceptable for that usage.--- Avatar317 (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the additional links on my talk page, I appreciate it. If/when I get around to adding an image, I'd appreciate an extra set of eyes to make sure that I've sourced and attributed it correctly. Would that warrant an additional thread here first or should I just take a crack at it after reviewing the resources you mentioned? Regarding the wording you asked about, I preferred something closer to "unlawful strike" simply because it's the wording the FLRA used in that quote but upon reflection on it, I think it should be plainly obvious to anyone fluent in english that something which is "unlawful" must necessarily "violate the law", so I would support your wording there because it flows much better than what I had written originally and may be more consistent with the policy on primary sources not to reference the other strikes without a secondary source to support my interpretation. you originally expressed a preference for a simplified version of the last sentence. Given the additional source I mentioned in my last post, would you support this wording: "The strike and firings had a significant long-term impact on staffing shortages at the FAA as well as U.S. labor relations in general." Additionally, how would you both feel about changing the second sentence in 's proposed version to read: "PATCO became the first union in US history to be decertified by the government in 1981 after it organized a strike in violation of federal law." This could also reference the uta.edu article I provided earlier. --OakM (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer: "The strike and firings had a significant long-term impact on staffing shortages at the FAA as well as U.S. labor relations in general." (I think it is obvious the staffing issue was shortages; that it didn't motivate lots of people to train to become ATCs.) For your second question, I prefer DonFB's version.  Your version: "...the first union in US history to be decertified ..." IMPLIES that there were others, and that this decertification may now be common; but to my knowledge neither of those are true. (I don't know of any other federal unions that have been decertified.) --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Any update on this discussion? Editoronthewiki (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)