Government Workers Should NEVER Be Allowed a Union

What are the best jobs on average in California? Apparently being a government worker. Infuriatingly, government workers live far better, have higher salaries, retire earlier and have better benefits than most in the private sector even though, like leeches, these same government workers live off the taxpayer.

The worst of all worlds for the taxpayer is a government union. Government unions do nothing whatever for the very people paying the bills. They do not improve services, they don’t professionalize workers, and they wildly grow the waste of tax dollars. Worse, government unions give public servants higher salaries, richer benefits, and earlier retirement dates than the taxpayers footing the bills.

Even the patron Saint of the liberal left, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was adamant that government workers should never be allowed to unionize. FDR thought it was “unthinkable and intolerable” to have a government workers union.

It’s for good reason, too. Government workers do not create the profits that might help enrich benefits. Whenever government unions get raises it simply means that taxpayers have to pay more to make up the difference.

But the bigger outrage about government unions is that they cut out the voter from having any say at all in what their own tax dollars go to pay for. When government unions negotiate they do so with other members of government, never the very people forced to pay the bills. Government unions have the power to give themselves allotments from the public treasury at the expense of the taxpayer yet gives those taxpayers no say at all in the matter.

Government unions could not be less democratic or less American.

Thomas Lifson recently described some of these un-democratic riches that government workers in California have afforded themselves and the results are outrageous.

“The average full-time compensation for employees of 55 North Bay cities was $130,172 in 2013, with thousands earning more than $200,000 a year and hundreds more earning more than $50,000 in overtime alone,” Lifson wrote. “Such compensation is significantly higher than that of peers in the private sector.”

Lifson also found that statewide the average pay for a municipal worker was over $120,000 a year.

Tell me, dear reader. Do you make $120,000 a year?

There once was a basic assumption about choosing a career in the public sector. You may never get rich because compensation is lower than in the private sector, the assumption went, but it was a bit more likely that you would have job security because government workers don’t often lose their jobs.

But now you get a government job and you make far more than the private sector, have better benefits, and can never get fired no matter how bad you are at your job or no matter how needless you job is.

This is intolerable.

The whole idea of a government union is an illegitimate notion. Government unions should never have existed in the first place and they should be eliminated going forward–yes even for cops and teachers.

Due entirely to the corruption that is government unionism, for instance, California has a massive short fall in its government pension obligations that just in education alone soaks up 85 percent of the operating budget (and that is money stolen for kids’ education).

Democrats must be bored because ...
The Real World of Journalism is Worse Than 'Scandal'
  • Paul Hooson

    Police, firemen, teachers and others would beg to differ in opinion here, where they appreciate protections against wrongful termination, and enjoy the retirement benefits. Some of these things are expensive for the taxpayer, but these workers like these perks…

    • jim_m

      Employment law already provides protection against wrongful termination. You can always sue your employer.

      The reason states and cities are going bankrupt are those union pensions. Sure they like them. We cannot afford them. What cannot be paid, won’t.

      • Paul Hooson

        Like I said above, government workers, such as police, firemen and teachers like their unions and the protections and retirement benefits, but the public, not always so much. Some police and others have sometimes been defended from some highly questionable on the job actions by their unions.

        Sometimes, mayors and city councils have wanted individual police or others fired for their actions, but the unions have often succeeded to keep their jobs.

        • Brett Buck

          It doesn’t matter, if the money is not there, it is not there, They can like it all they want, but they aren’t all going to get their benefits.

        • Jwb10001

          Protections from who exactly? I mean government workers need protection from the government that is the protector of private sector unions? That’s nuts. They don’t need protection from their employer, their employer is the final arbitrator or work place fairness.

  • GarandFan

    The problem isn’t the “union” per se, it’s the Political Action Committees (PACS) – that’s where the power and money come from. From personal experience, many cops disliked MOST of what certain LIBERAL pols stood for, but the sugar was the increased pay and retirement benefits. I can recall a lot of heated discussions about the particulars of various candidates.

    Allow the unions for bargaining purposes, just like any other union. Just prohibit public employees from having PACS. If they want to contribute to a specific candidate………they can do it out of their own individual pockets.

    Walker in Wisconsin has already shown what will happen.

    • Paul Hooson

      Main Street is a union supported PAC that has given millions in donations to centrist Republicans. Not all union support is for liberals or for Democrats. Unions consider many centrist Republicans to be important members of Congress, where their seniority or other factors make them worthy of union support.

    • Commander_Chico

      Another “repeal the First Amendment ” idea. What about freedom of speech and assembly?

      The problem is not government wages and benefits. It is that private sector wages have remained flat or declined.

      • Retired military

        “The problem is not government wages and benefits. It is that private sector wages have remained flat or declined.”
        Thanks to Obama

      • Jwb10001

        How do you propose to improve government worker wages if tax payer wages stay flat or decline? Sorry the problem right now is that government workers are the problem until the problems of private sector improve.

  • Vagabond661

    I remember my sis-in-law bitching because she would actually have to pay part of her health insurance. She worked for the police department. Her and her husband, who worked there too, have both retired with full benefits. Do the math. It is not sustainable.