Why Is It Ethical To Avoid Air Traffic Controllers To Strike?

Thirty-six years ago, on August 3, 1981, more than 12,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked out, releasing multiple events that has since redefined labor unions. In rejoinder to the walkout, President Ronald Reagan delivered one of the crucial statements of his term. He said the striking air-traffic controllers were in desecration of the law; if they did not report to work within 48 hours, they would be fired. Long after Reagan’s presidency, tensions have stayed high between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the union that eventually emerged to replace PATCO, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCO and the FAA cannot agree on a new contract, so the FAA plans to impose its own contract, which includes major wage concessions. Was it ethically acceptable for the air traffic controllers to strike? Was it ethically
Air traffic has amplified 20% since 1978, while the number of regulators and the level of regulator fortification gear has persisted equally. When traffic heaps up at an airport, a controller tower manager will often request that the controllers “get more tin [planes] on the ground” and then turn his back. The silent command is that the workers are theoretically to interrupt federal security guidelines by permitting planes to land too close together. If this fallouts in an accident, it is the workers, not the managers, who are held accountable (“The Economics of the Air Controllers’ Strike”).
It was ethically adequate for Reagan to fire the striking air traffic controllers. The dismissal of the workers was ethical because the workers new what the job was and they were well paid, but they started a strike anyways. The PATCO also denied the contract of cooperation by the FAA and went ahead to strike. Firing them was ethically suitable because they failed to notice to the presidents' stipulation of 48 hours of returning to