Public Sector Unions vs. Taxpayers

It seems to me that the very existence of public employee unions should be banned, because:

1) Government is a monopoly, and strikes by public employee unions mean a total suspension of vital services such as the military, police, 911, firefighters, emergency medical care, jails, courts of law, public defenders, parole officers, bridges, public highways, government health services, and public schools. We cannot tolerate suspension of vital services.

2) Since we cannot tolerate suspension of vital services due to public employee union strikes, then public employee unions are deprived of their major power. Once public employee unions are deprived of their major power, their very reason for existence is absent.

Therefore the very existence of public employee unions should be banned.

Les,

In many cases where strikes by public employee unions are prohibited, binding third party arbitration is the result. This actually is a worse result.

If the employer-government entity & union reach an impass (not often), the arbiter looks to other nearby contracts that cover the same work and chooses the proposal that most closely matches the others. This greatly limits any government entity's ability to make drastic changes or cuts or even curtail wage & benefit growth below other areas.

Of couse when it's time for bargain in those jurisdictions, they look to the first one's contract and others. So the circular justification goes...

Andrew, thanks for your comment. But note that you assume an impasse between a government agency and a public employee union. I will gladly stipulate that you are correct about arbitration of an impasse between a government agency and a public employee union.

And that adds yet more force to my argument that no public employee unions should even be allowed to exist.