Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for August 3.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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.

[edit] Anti-Union POV

PATCO didn't "think" it could sabotage air transport, causing it to grind to a halt. It intended to reduce the number of air traffic controllers to a minimum, where it "knew" that these controllers would be replaced by trained managers, and planes would be grounded in some cases. This wasn't sabotage, merely PATCO's effort to bring the problems of controller stress, out of date equipment, and pressure by airlines to increase takeoffs and landings to the public attention.

This was no different from the airlines raising prices or reducing service. In fact, PATCO's strike, even if it had continued, would have caused far less inconvenience than the slow-motion brutalization of coach class passengers by airlines in pursuit of profit.

The issue was represented almost exclusively from the POV of the frequently flying public.

As a result of Reagan's grandstanding, which had more to do with proving his anti-union "toughness", controllers today continue to struggle with stress and outdated equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.35.205 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updating current PATCO unions

Based on a conversation at User talk:Bookandcoffee#PATCO Again Again I'm going to further split this article. This article will remain as the article on the defunct PATCO union that was disbanded by Reagan in 1981. There are two current PATCO trade unions today:

At this writing the second of these two unions does not have a separate article, but is included in with the 1968 - 1981. I am going to start an article for that union, and provide a link from this article to both of the other articles.

The following is a portion of the conversation about this issue:

I think both sides of this issue can stipulate to the following:

-Prior to 1981 PATCO was the sole representative of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-Following the August 3, 1981 strike, PATCO was decertified in the fall of 1981.

- July 1987 the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was certified as the sole representatives of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-About 1993 the FAA privatized a number of air traffic control towers.

-PATCO/FPD was established circa 1996 to represent the privatized air traffic controllers.

-Ron Taylor was an active member of PATCO/FPD from inception to some time in 2003 when he separated himself from PATCO/FPD.

-March 29, 2004 Mr. Taylor applied for (and was granted) the PATCO logo trademark.

--Bookandcoffee 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's a start to it. The new article is started, and there is a section in this article that leads into both other articles.--Bookandcoffee 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger_proposal

I've also added this merger proposal here. There's not enough material in either of the spin-off unions to warrant three separate pages, and none of the three pages even indicates why there's three separate unions. Please work out your differences and keep this down to one article. Torc2 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are three different pages because there are three different unions. The first union named Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) was formed in 1968 and was shut down in 1981 following the well known strike. The second union Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (AFSCME) was formed, as the note above mentions, in 1996. It is not the same union. A third union, Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003) was apparently formed around 2003 when there was a split between members of the AFSCME union. Both current unions are distinct legally registered unions, so it makes very little sense to lump them together. They are indeed stub articles for the moment, however, give them a bit of time.--Bookandcoffee 08:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Additional detail concerning the creation of the two current unions has recently be added to the Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003) page.--Bookandcoffee 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's still not sufficient to warrant three separate articles. You've got three unions all sharing the same name and serving essentially the same purpose. The distinction between the three is minor enough that people looking for information about PATCO will benefit much more from a single page that clearly explains and contextualizes the relationship between each sect rather than from having to navigate through three articles and figuring out why each exists. Both current unions claim some line of legitimacy from the original union, so why separate them from the original? It will be far more beneficial to Wiki users to have this all covered in one article. Torc2 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that people have chosen to use the same name several times as it does confuse matters - however these are not sects in any sense of the word. I agree that there is a need to explain the relationship between the three, as the "Current PATCO labor unions" attempts to do. However, to say that the distinction is minor is untrue. The 1968 PATCO labor union no longer exists. It is an historical entity. I'm unsure how both separate active unions can be categorized as a minor distinction from a union with which they were never affiliated (claims to the contrary notwithstanding :). To hope that the history and ongoing information of two separate entities can be easily combined in one article seems very problematic to me.--Bookandcoffee 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Although the original union was decertified after the strike, the group of workers it represented didn't vanish. I think if you asked the members of the two new organizations, they'd each consider themselves as the true heirs of the original union --(at least, they keep editing all three articles as such)-- and I think to a degree, both have some legitimate claim as such, so it seems kind of inaccurate to say they're three totally distinct entities. If they really were totally separate unions representing different people, there wouldn't be such animosity.
I guess I just don't see any benefit to separating these off, and see no harm in keeping them together. The bulk of the information in the two newer articles will be the details of why the split occurred, which will need to be repeated in all three articles anyway. Torc2 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As one who was actually researching this union, I can honestly say I could have saved a lot of click time had they been one article, since it seems evident to me that all three originate, in one way or another, with the 1968 creation of the PATCO union.[flatbroke4ever] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatbroke4ever (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Registered PATCO trademark Logo should be used as the legal standard for establishing this matter. It is very clear that PATCO is an independent union established in 96, and not affiliated with anyone. The logo as shown on your AFSCME page is not the one used by the strikers in 81 and has no history attached to it. Most strikers still belong to the PATCO Registered union. Lets not change history just because someone is using the same name. You need a basis to establish history of the PATCO from old to now, and the Logo shows that without question.

my two cents --PBI158 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The registration of a logo proves nothing. Cases can be, and are, made for both groups claiming the name and the heritage. All the logo registration shows is that somebody was quick enough to claim the logo before anyone else did. --Orange Mike 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing quick about all of this. The PATCO Logo was bought by the co founder of PATCO (Jack Maher) back in 1982 when PATCO was in bankruptcy. It was registered by the same person (owner) with the Patent office later. The Co founder of PATCO is a member of the independent union. There were two Co Founders of PATCO Mr Maher and Mike Rock. Mr Rock passed away a few years ago. That is the beginning and true history of PATCO from 68-now. If you need additional proof or facts on the history of PATCO and orthese two individuals please advise. Not changing history,just protecting the facts as happened in history. --PBI158 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the next year qualifies as "quick". As you say, the guy bought it; management or some random stranger could have bought it. The mere purchase of an asset in bankruptcy shows nothing about heritage. Nobody is denying that some of the folks involved in the independent group were members of the original. So were some of the people in the other, AFSCME-affiliated group. We are merely discussing whether one or three articles would be better for this reference work. This is not a venue for arguing over who is the "true heir" to the brave strikers of '81. --Orange Mike 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I’m not arguing over the heir of anything just adding discussion as requested on the front page of the site. If the History of PATCO is to be done then all the facts should be included such as;

PATCO was charted in 1996 as an independent autonomous organization. PATCO affiliated with FPD/AHPE,NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL_CIO, and disafilliated from them in 2003. This fact cannot be overlooked or pushed aside to favor the AFL-CIO. Disaffiliations between unions happen all the time, and if memory serves me correct even AFSCME pulled away from AFGE years ago, NATCA with MEBA, and Teamsters with AFL-CIO.

My point is that PATCO is a stand alone independent labor union that flies the same colors that your site shows on the main site for the beginning of PATCO. Since you have shown respect to the logo on the front page, the same courtesy should continue as PATCO moves forward as an independent.

Follow the roots and facts of PATCO .....

--PBI158 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly pushing a strong POV here, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic project. Our job is to impartially report the positions of the two groups, both of which derive from the original group. --Orange Mike 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Presenting facts that can be backed up,documented and "verifiable" are not POV's. You don't have to take anyones word for anything, but to remain neutral you must verify from all sources available. The old saying "Trust but Verify" applies to many situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.221.186 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)