back

by robtherobber·5y ago·view on hn ↗
If you don't mind the ideological aspect, this article from 2006 is rather relevant to this historic event: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/08/patc-a03.html

"The smashing of PATCO marked a turning point in class relations both in the US and internationally. It signaled the definitive end of the policies of liberal reformism and relative class compromise that had predominated in the post-World War II period and the onset of a ruthless capitalist offensive against the working class that continues to this day.

It also foreshadowed the collapse of the American trade unions and all of the old, bureaucratized labor organizations and parties internationally, which were based on nationalism and class compromise. Reagan’s assault on the PATCO strikers—an attack without precedent in modern US history—provoked massive opposition among working people both in the US and around the world. One month after Reagan fired the PATCO strikers, more than 500,000 workers converged on Washington, DC, in a “Solidarity Day” demonstration—the largest protest ever in the US—to express their outrage and opposition to the Reagan administration."

1 comments
But as I already noted, Reagan was re-elected in 1984 and a lot if his supporters were union members. IIRC, the leadership did endorse the Dem. candidate, who I do not even remember who he was.
I don't disagree with this, just like I don't disagree with the fact that many people who stood to lose from Brexit voted for Brexit.

I think the conclusion here could be that these are both true at the same time: Reagan's actions did had a largely negative effect on workers' rights and that many people who were to be affected (or were already affected) by his actions voted for him.

Mondale.