Public sector union Open Thread

I just got back from a fascinating talk by Daniel DiSalvo, author of Government against Itself: Public Union Power and Its Consequences. Both as a speaker and a writer, Daniel DiSalvo is a lucid, well-organized communicator who manages to take a somewhat opaque subject and make it very accessible.

The bottom lines, of course, are something we all know: Private and public sector unions are very different animals. In private sector unions, both parties to the negotiation (labor and management) have a vested interested in the corporation’s long-term survival. In public sector unions, both parties to the negotiation (labor representative and government employee) assume that the taxpayer — the person funding the negotiation, but conspicuously absent from the table — is always good for more money. Public sector unions are also the largest money contributors in American politics, and almost 100% of their contributions go to the Democrat party.

DiSalvo demonstrates, though, that Democrat party members also suffer because of the union/politician cabal. It is, after all, Democrats who look to the government to get everything done. The more money that finds its way into union pockets and then back into politicians’ politics, in an endless and increasingly costly spiral, the less money is available for all the other programs Democrat voters love.

I think that last is a smart argument. You cannot shift Democrat voters away from public sector unions by complaining about the burdens they place on state and local economies. Democrats don’t care, because they believe that they’re getting value for their money, in the form of a quiescent federal work force (no strikes; or symbolic ritualistic strikes) and in people getting paid what liberal guilt feels they ought to get paid. Making them aware of the damage to social programs they love, though, gets them where their hearts are.

Gotta run. Back at you later!