The Public Employee Union Scam

Capitol Confidential ^ | 8/14/2010 | Jarrett Skorup

[MichCapCon]

Unlike private sector unions, the sheer number of workers represented is not the linchpin of the public sector unions influence. Private sector unions have a natural adversary in the owners of the companies with whom they negotiate. But public sector unions have no such natural counterweight. They are a classic case of "client politics," where an interest group's concentrated efforts to secure rewards impose diffused costs on the mass of unorganized taxpayers.

A conflict of interest would be as follows: First, government union elects politician by funding their campaign and organizing a massive get-out-the-vote drive; second, politician supports employee pay increases, generous pensions and condition of employment; third, union takes dues (read: taxpayer money) and starts the cycle all over again for selected politician.

At both the state and national level, public-sector union support for many Democrats has been well documented. One of the largest public sector unions in the country, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has given over $40 million to politicians since 1990; with more than 98 percent of that going to Democrats. The SEIU, AFL-CIO and United Steel Workers have all promised big help in the coming election. In return, the Democratic Party has voted nearly lockstep with these union's demands...

[Atlas Sneezed]

Public employee unions should be criminalized.

[jnsun]

Unlike private sector unions, the sheer number of workers represented is not the linchpin of the public sector unions influence. Private sector unions have a natural adversary in the owners of the companies with whom they negotiate. But public sector unions have no such natural counterweight. They are a classic case of "client politics," where

We read the article. The above quote is by Profs Siegal and DiSalvo on the economic/tax complication of public sector unions.

We certainly sympathize with their expose. But the above paragraph does not do their analysis justice.

First of all, we're not sure if "client politics" is the generally accepted term for what they mean, but there should certainly be such a term, to mean: "an interest group's concentrated efforts to secure rewards by imposing diffused costs on the mass of unorganized taxpayers."

That concept (and let's concede "client politics") certainly applies to public sector unions, but it also applies to unions across the board. Does it not? That is it simply comes down to what side, the "union" side, or the paying side, is more organized and concentrated, whether in the public or private sector. No?

And incidentally this is the very strategy that politics uses across the board to pass private agenda's, i.e. putting on a concentrated effort to impose diffused costs on unorganized taxpayers. Like maybe ObamaCare? Federal Bailouts? any socialistic scheme?

Secondly and related, public sector unions do indeed have a natural adversary, we voting taxpayers. Ask yourself, why is "the company" a natural adversary to its union members, after all the directors (management) will still pay themselves salary. But of course it is to keep costs down so "the company" can survive and stay profitable against competition; therefore the directors become the "organized" adversary. Similarly the voting taxpayer wants to survive and stay profitable against the competition of the tax financed bureaucracy; and therefore the directors, we taxpayers, need to be the "organized" adversary. Which of course is what the Tea Party is all about.

And that scares the bejesus out of the organized and concentrated LEFT, the federal government across the board (and for God knows what reason, the Media).

Johnny Suntrade