Public Service Unions: Why do you even exist?!

[Edie Lindsey]

The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers interests, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation.
This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."  Government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize.
In 2006, 10,000 public employees staged a rally outside the New Jersey State House to protest the mere discussion of a cut to their gold-plated salaries and benefits. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine leapt onto the stage shouting: "We will fight for a fair contract!"
It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president idolized by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees.
On his first day in office, the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, signed an executive order denying public sector employees the right to bargain collectively -- something that had been granted, naturally, by a Democratic governor. As a result, many Indiana government employees instantly got to take home an extra thousand dollars that no longer went to union dues -- and good employees started getting raises, while bad employees got the pink.
For decades now, the Democrats have had a good system in buying the votes of government workers with outrageous salaries, benefits and work rules -- and then sticking productive earners with the bill. But, now, we're out of money, no matter how long Wisconsin Democrats hide out in Illinois.

[XLFD]

Good points, Edie.  Many of the news outlets are failing to distinguish between the differences of the two types of unions, public and private, and why this exodus of Democratic lawmakers is their own way of 'striking' as they are on the same page as the public unions.  When the public unions get benefits and raises, so do the lawmakers.  The quid pro quo continues at election time.

[Dave]

Many in the unions are just thugs. In watching Fox for a little bit they were just talking about how their reporter on scene was threatened with one of the union people threatening to break the reporters neck. The same reporter was also punched a few times in the arm. While the reporter shrugged off the punching incident as nothing (the punches didn't leave bruises or anything.. they apparently hit like girls... no offense to the ladies out there of course.. lol), that would still be considered simple assault if the reporter did want to press the issue legally. We all know that if it had been say a Tea Party member that punched a reporter from say MSNBC, it would be big news. Of course there are no indications at all that Tea Party members are a violent group as is so often reported in the news.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Yeah I noted that also... But I bet those stories are not being covered by the liberal press now like the isolated tea party incidents were now are they?