Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SPENDING: Disconnect of public sector employees

Letter by Dana Booth, Tacoma on Feb. 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm with 58 Comments »
February 28, 2012 2:32 pm

A  letter from a Washington Education Association member (TNT, 2-28) exemplifies the disconnect of many unionized civil servants.

There’s a reason that the private sector, including unionized workers, don’t receive the Cadillac benefits packages that government employees do: namely, their employers would go broke. No private company could provide those levels of benefits and stay in business.

So many government workers don’t seem to understand that, by design, they don’t sell their services or goods; they’re paid for by taxes and fees.

The WEA member that I referred to arrogantly proclaims that she feels no shame for taking what her union bargained for her, then felt the need to scold concerned taxpayers for having an opinion.

She seems to not realize, or care, that many of the people who are paying for her way of life are not nearly as well off, and when she’s comfortably retired, many of us who’ve lost value in our retirement funds will be working well into our golden years to pay for her golf outings.

I don’t begrudge government employees for taking what’s been negotiated, but to say it isn’t a fiscal problem is simply dishonest. In addition, by the government allowing such cushy packages to be negotiated, it deepens the divide between public and private sector workers. When hard-working taxpayers hear tenured government employees tell them to shut up and fork over, it just doesn’t go over too well.

Leave a comment Comments → 58
  1. Instead of a race to the bottom, why not have these benefits for everyone? There was a time when such “Cushy” packages were available to EVERYBODY. I remember working retail some 25 years ago and the benefit package that came with it was equivalent to that of a government worker.

  2. tree_guy says:

    Frida, you can actually start a retail business and provide precisely the benefits package that are so dear to your heart. What are you waiting for?

  3. tree_guy and you can provide all your own governmental services – roads,etc – and you won’t need government employees. What are you waiting for?

    The original letter cited, stipulated that said benefits were in lieu of salary increments and that the cut of said benefits was, in essence, a pay cut. This letter writer is ignoring that issue.

  4. I think of all the road crews that wasted their time doing the work that tree_guy could have done for himself during the storm last month.

  5. lylelaws says:


    Unions are, have always been, and will always be in the pocket of the Democrats. Why? Because it is far easier to spend other peoples’ money, and most Democratic candidates are always willing to support union demands in exchange for votes.

    Way back in 1980 when I supported Ronald Reagan, but the teachers’ unions endorsed Jimmy Carter, I was forced to pay dues against my will to support him.

    Is there really any question about why along with trial lawyers, unions are by far Barack Obama’s biggest reelection campaign contributors?

  6. sandblower says:

    “No private company could provide those levels of benefits and stay in business.”
    They used to do exactly the same thing for years and years. What has changed?

  7. sumyungboi says:

    What Frida is saying is that ppl who aren’t doing all that great because of a government system that favors some workers over others should just quit their whining and try harder. Hmm..

    Larry, really? Here’s the solution, then, public sector unions should negotiate higher wages while cutting out retirement funding altogether, and go with a percentage matching 401k up to about 5% gross, putting them in line with most private business. Oh, and start kicking in about half your medical insurance costs, as well. If it’s just a matter of having some things and not others, and in the end it’s a wash, then why not? Of course, we all really know, don’t we? ;)

  8. concernedtacoma7 says:

    What changed? It became unsustainable. Healthcare costs skyrocketed (thanks big govt and lawsuits). The benefit grew and grew until they killed the host.

  9. Frida- let’s be real. Those of us who work as teachers in the public school system can never be fired, unless we do something outrageous, competency does not come into the equation. We move up on the salary schedule with seniority, work 9 months a year and get paid for our professional development. Great Job. In the private sector, a person has to perform, often work weekends and late nights. The taxpayers give us incredible benefits that if they balk at we walk off the job. We have to stop trying to defend what we have and say “thank you”.

  10. Let me get this straight “No private company could provide those levels of benefits and stay in business” – You mean like Microsoft, Boeing, Franciscan Health, MultiCare, DOD, USAF, US Army, and etc… do I really need to continue.

    Also another statement got my interest: “I don’t begrudge government employees for taking what’s been negotiated….” The first thought that came to mind is, yes you do!

    Here is another quote that is probably better thought out:
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
    John Kenneth Galbraith

  11. sandblower says:

    afret, we love you.

  12. The people who are out of touch with reality are the zombies believe the lies and anti-union rants put out by conservacons.

    Unions support Dems because the Rpubs want to destroy the unions, the middle, and the working classes so the upper class can be richer.

    Is there any surprise that the major backers of the GOP are anti-American billionaires and big corporations?

    What changed is that the those at the top got greedy and wanted more, foolish because they thought they could get it by paying workers less, and un-American by sending American jobs overseas.

    Rosie – you sound like one of the teachers we need to get rid of.
    My mate is a teacher and works 60 to 80 hours a week in part to make up for incompetent teachers like you.

  13. Fibonacci says:

    I often wonder if people that complain about those “Cadillac”benefits even KNOW what benefits they are talking about. I used to bea public employee and am now a private employee and my medical is about the same. As far as retirement that was sort do understood in my younger days–public employees got a lower salary bit that was offset by a better retirement. I remember as a kid the benefits big companies like Ford and Boeing had-alike medical for life.

  14. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Afet, all of the ‘companies’ listed rely on the govt, minus MSFT. Thank you for defining the issue.

    Conservative- leave me and my money alone. I will solve my own problems. Constitution limits govt.

    Lib/left/progressive- give me their money. Big govt will solve all problems. Constitution is outdated and unnecessarily limits govt’s ability to manage individuals.

  15. scooter6139 says:

    Hmm, my wife’s benefit package isn’t very Cadillac. She’s a Tacoma school teacher. In fact, the medical part is quite stingy and the retirement is a joke. Most of our friends who have those private sector packages are at the same cost (or lower) with the same benefits.

    So sorry Dana but I don’t believe you have a single clue to what the heck you are talking about. Your arrogant diatribe without facts is offensive.

  16. scooter6139 says:

    concerned – nice deflection on afret’s post.

    But your definitions are sloppy and wrong. IF you want the essence of each, look at it this way:

    conservative – keep things the same, none or minimal change.

    progressive – make things change: reform

    In fact, your conservative is more a libertarian view.

    Your definitions fly in the face of history. The biggest the government has gotten in the last 50 years was under conservative control. Just goes to show that these labels don’t really apply to politicians.

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:

    I will agree I am slightly libertarian. But I not a Ron Paul fan, and his view of foreign policy and the Fed are way off, in my opinion.

    Progressives want to transform govt and society, not reform.

    I guess your govt growth comment referred to Bush. A) 9/11, B) he I not viewed as conservative. Definately not a fiscal conservative.

    Thank for the civil conversation, a nice change from the partisan madness.

    Back to the curren debate, only one side is calling for a smaller govt and less govt solutions to individual issues.

  18. Lyle – While you may have been displeased that the majority of Union members decided that supporting a President who was supportive of Unions was in their best interest (and Reagan’s term proved them correct – his “accomplishments” included attacking unions), I am sure you were more than happy to accept the benefits of collective bargaining. Folks like you who take all of the benefits of being in a union yet bitch about how you are “forced” to support a cause that the union sees as beneficial to their membership are worse than scabs.

  19. ct7 – in your post lauding civil discussion you end with a generalization about progressives that you might believe is true but is ultimately a negative framing of what “your opponents” think – which really doesn’t add to a civil discussion.

    The equivalent would be something like: “Conservatives don’t want to conserve our Constitutional institutions, they want to drown them in the bathtub”.

  20. “Unions are, have always been, and will always be in the pocket of the Democrats. Why? Because it is far easier to spend other peoples’ money, and most Democratic candidates are always willing to support union demands in exchange for votes.”

    Well, Lyle, you obviously were never a union member so you don’t realize that Democrats serve the interests of the working people, thus union members – aka working people – would vote for those that serve their interests.

    Look at how much money is being given to Scott Walker by the Kock Brothers. Like I said, “those that serve their interests”.

  21. GOP smaller limited government icut services and spending for poor, working , and middle class Americans while;

    Requiring doctors to perform unnecessary invasive procedures.

    Paying billions in subsides to supposedly profitable corporations.

    Supporting Unlimited government authority to spy on all Americans.

    Use excessive government regulations to bust USPS.

  22. commoncents says:

    said it before and I’ll say it again. My benefits in the private sector non-unionized environment are better than my spouse who is a teacher. I get a better retirement plan, a better healthcare plan, and better supplemental insurance. This has been the case for 3 out of my 4 employers…

    Certainly there are small businesses that can’t afford to pay the benefits at the same level as my employers have and do but then again the state, county, various school districts are not small businesses either. At the same time, I have to drive 60 miles each day to work, my boss’s boss has no clue who I am as I am one of 100k employees at my company, and I work in a field that is very specialized so if I were to ever be laid off I am somewhat limited in who can hire me, and my work has very little impact (if any) on the produc tthat the company produces. Grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the benefits package.

  23. sumyungboi says:

    Comically, the ppl defending public sector unions are using the exact condescension described in the letter.

    afret, you’ve listed a bunch of government entities! :)

    xring, nice hateful rant, I’m sure you’re winning the hearts and minds of those on the fence.

    larry, the Koch brothers are private citizens who force no one to contribute to their political ventures.

    Modern labor law and safety standards make private sector labor unions highly irrelevant these days, and many public sector unions don’t involve “labor” at all. Public school teachers, as an example, are, by definition, “professionals”. Labor unions originally protected the blue collar average guy against the evil, cigar smoking board members who would otherwise exploit them. In the public sector, there are no brutal overseers. They’re _all_ on one side, negotiating with a political appointee across the table whose best interests are served by giving away as much as is politically feasible; he’s not going to lose any money or go out of business by doing so.

    And back to Frida, who says instead of “racing to the bottom”, we should have these benefits for everyone. Okay, let’s take all working people who don’t have the high end benefits package that public union employees get, and without changing anything else, place their overall worth including wages/salaries, vacation days, sick days, tenure, retirement, and medical/dental coverage right there with the public sector. Do you think the economy will stay static, or will the cost of living rise accordingly?

    Also, I’m a bit confused. Some of you are saying that public sector union employees are worse off than their private sector counterparts. Others seem to think that private sector workers should strive to get the bennies that the public sector gets and quit the whining. Which is it?

  24. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    I think this is the future of many WA state cities. Tacoma included. Public secotor unions are the cause and the democrats in bed with them.

    Declare bankrupcy now is the right direction.


  25. lylelaws says:


    Anyone who has served in public education in the last fifty years knows that the teacher associations have made it virtually impossible to fire even the worst teachers. That is one of the main reasons why public schools are in such a mess, and kids are being short changed.

  26. PumainTacoma says:

    Great letter!!!!
    scooter6139 — if your wife’s benefits are so “stingy” why is it the state has better dental care than the biggest and best corporations in Seattle? If they are so “stingy” with my tax dollars why not do away with “worthless” benefits as you so want us to believe. It’s called bloated government with a gluttony of an appetite.

  27. “private sector, including unionized workers, don’t receive the Cadillac benefits packages that government employees do”

    Again and again: citation needed.

    It is not apparent, if even true. Here is a good overview that took me a minute to find and evaluate for reasonableness:


  28. “Anyone who has served in public education in the last fifty years knows that the teacher associations have made it virtually impossible to fire even the worst teachers.”

    My son is a principal and doesn’t complain about this. Maybe those that complain do not work in the system and know nothing about the real issues.

    Since there is no hard and fast way to determine the “quality” of teachers, the employment security clauses in labor contracts are there to protect employees from mid-management that would terminate, as opposed to manage employees.

  29. “Public secotor unions are the cause and the democrats in bed with them.”

    Union members tend to vote for and support Democratic candidates as they are responsive to labor needs. Republicans constantly seek to trash union members and eliminate their jobs or break their right to negotiate.

    If union labor is “in bed” with Democrats, it’s safe to say, based on present day examples in Wisconsin, that Republicans are in bed with corporate billionaires and their money.

  30. “larry, the Koch brothers are private citizens who force no one to contribute to their political ventures.”

    And the union members are private citizens who band together, via majority votes to contribute to political ventures. If a union member isn’t happy with the direction of the union, he is welcome to (1) get enough support to change the direction of the union, (2) run for union office and change the direction of the union or (3) leave that job and find a non-union job that suits him better.

  31. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Ah, Kard is back with his wallpapering.

    Your kid is probably a bleeding heart like you, and does not the sack required to even attempt to fire terrible teachers.

    The issue with unions and donations only applies to public sector unions. There is a reason they were not allowed to exist for most of this country’s existence. It is a scam. Vote for me and I will pay you more! Electing your own boss was and should be banned.

  32. Pacman33 says:

    “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”
    ~ F.D.R.

    ” Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for officials to bind the employer. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives”
    ~ F.D.R.

    “To understand the NEA – to understand the union – read Saul Alinsky. If you read “Rules for Radicals,” you will understand NEA more profoundly than reading anything else. Because the whole organization was modeled on that kind of behavior which was really begun when NEA used Saul Alinsky as a consultant to train their own staff.”
    ~ John Lloyd NEA UniServ director and the executive director of an NEA state affiliate.

  33. sumyungboi says:

    larry, where your comment regarding union members who “band together” fails is that many union member don’t want to band with anyone. You equated the Koch brothers, who’re free to use their own money to do with what they will, to unions, who use others’ money who may or may not want to be members. When I worked on the floor, I was union, and I can tell you from experience that many didn’t want to be, (this in private industry) but it was a condition of employment. I didn’t want to be lumped in with everyone else, and I’d rather do my own negotiating based on what I, as an individual, brought to the table. Now, you may pass this off as “one guy” who was an unwilling union member, but I think you know better. I’m an individual person, not a head of cattle who needed a protector, and there are tons of union members like that.

  34. alindasue says:


    Unless the employees at the place where you worked voted to join the union after you were hired, then you elected to join the union (and pay its dues) when you accepted the job. If you wanted a job where you personally could negotiate for yourself with the boss (good luck with that, by the way), then you should have applied for a job in a non-union shop.

    Personally, I’ve worked in both union and non-union jobs. In the union jobs, we were able to bargain our contracts as a group. In the non-union jobs, we just had no say in our pay or benefits. Unless you are working for a very small local shop (which usually can’t afford high pay or decent benefits) or you have a high level exec job, your pay is determined by some corporate boss, probably in another state, who wouldn’t know you from the next guy.

    So, as I said before, good luck with that “my own negotiating” thing.

  35. Pacman33 says:

    Public Unions have become political lobbyists and machines bent on self preservation. They exist even though most Americans see no need for their services, nor even desire their services. They are second to none, in regard to being in bed with politicians and corruption. They are a cancer to state and local government’s budgets and have perverted the electoral system.

    Politicians and subsequently the bureaucrats they appoint have no profit motive, and have no qualms about bilking taxpayers for even more money via taxation to give to unions that turn around and fill their campaign coffers. Rinse, repeat, etc. in perpetuity. There is no free market at work here as there is in the private sector. In the government sector, the taxpayers that are supposed to be the ultimate boss, are totally excluded from the process.

    The public unions have sold out the workers. Unions are only interested in getting a bigger piece of the pie for themselves, not for their members. The government is not for the people, by the people and of the people if they have become so large that they can’t see the harm that they are doing. And a company that only sees the bottom line and does not look out for the welfare of their customers and their workers will not last.

  36. alindasue says:


    Thank you for the link to that article. It really is a good balanced report on the public vs private pay and benefits issue. I like the way that it derives information from several studies on both sides of the issue.

    Everyone here would do well to scroll up to roussir’s link and read it.

  37. alindasue says:


    The unions are not paid anything from the politicians. All the money to run their negotiating efforts (what you call “Lobbying”) comes from the union’s members. It is their job to make sure their members’ work hours and pay are not cut at every budget turn – as they had been in the last couple hours.

    Any political influence that the unions have comes from reminding the politicians that their members do vote and pay attention to how each legislator votes in the sessions.

  38. sumyungboi says:

    alindasue, you’re correct, and I acknowledged as much, with regard to joining the union as a condition of employment. I did so willingly. I also willingly stood in SeaTac airport in a suit and tie under the employ of United Airlines making minimum wage as a security agent at one point. Not sure where you’re going with this. My point was that many union member would rather not be, and that didn’t change between then and now. ;)

  39. Pacman33 says:

    alindasue –
    These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their member’s employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees’ salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.

  40. Cardinous says:

    “My point was that many union member would rather not be”

    They can quit the union job they accepted when they wanted a job and accepted the terms at that time.

    I have never met a union member that didn’t want the wages and benefits attached to their employment. A few don’t want to pay dues, but that was part of the deal when they accepted the job.

    They should have taken that french fry cook position when they had the chance.

  41. Cardinous says:

    “concernedtacoma7 says:
    Feb. 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm Ah, Kard is back with his wallpapering.
    Your kid is probably a bleeding heart like you, and does not the sack required to even attempt to fire terrible teachers.”

    Nope, concerned. My son realizes that, as management, he has a duty to work with teachers to become better. He doesn’t just point the finger and blame.

    Sack? Accepting the responsibility of management requires more testical fortitude than being an employment bully.

    If you don’t like the number of posts in a row, take your fingers out of your nose and type something intelligent. That’s a double challenge.

    I put Cardinous back up for the learning impaired.

  42. sumyungboi says:

    Cardinous, you crack me up! An impatient customer this morning asked about his order, and I explained to him the lead time had not changed since we’d confirmed his order, how interrupting production costs far more than it would be worth to accept expedited orders, etc, etc… And then he said, “so is it ready?” Maybe that was you, and I didn’t even know it! You certainly didn’t seem to understand what I was saying in my comment. :)

    By the way, lots of you guys lament that public union employees don’t even do as well as their private sector counterparts. (and back at ya, they’re more than welcome to quit) Others want to speak to the virtues of having a union do your bidding. So, which is it?

    By the way, the topic here is “public sector” unions.

  43. “My point was that many union member would rather not be”

    “You certainly didn’t seem to understand what I was saying in my comment.”

    Maybe grammar would help. “Many” “member”

    Why do you find the need to stipulate the topic? I think everyone except ct7 knows the topic, unless you are trying to say that teachers are not public employees.

    I don’t care if the subject is public sector or private sector. The employee made a choice to take that job. If a teacher doesn’t like being in the WEA, they can take a job with a private school. The teachers voted by majority to be represented and if someone thinks they can walk in the door three or four decades later and get to pick and choose, they are sadly mistaken. Take that lower paying job with less benefits at a private school if you don’t want to join a union.

    As to union members not being paid as well as private counterparts, I do believed the exception would be in the teaching field. As to state employees doing administrative work, many cases where the private sector gets paid more. Of course, the union workers want representation. You don’t see them complaining about their representation do you?

  44. sumyungboi says:

    Well, larry, if all you have left is a grammar police comment, there was no sense in addressing my comment, since you began the rest of your rant by saying that you didn’t care what the topic was. I know it’s a tactic to hammer away at meaningless and off topic minutia for the purpose of diverting attention, but I’m not playing. Also, when people start pointing out typos and grammar in these forums, it’s simply an admission. ;)

  45. Pacman33 says:

    “They can quit the union job …’

    Ahh, the left and their hate for choices and freedom.

  46. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “they can walk in the door three or four decades later…”!

    The entire labor, political, and social make up of our country is different from a generation ago. The concerns of an employee in 1972 are not the same as one today.

    So how many monikers has TNT banned from the man known as Kard? Go back to thurston blog where presumably you have not been banned.

  47. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    All we need now is for Larry to tell Cardinous what a genius he is.

    Larry, you may be (temporally) fooling the new guy, sumyungboi (who I applaud for well-reasoned posts and pluck), but your use of multiple monikers is just as pathetic today as it was last week…. and the week before, and the month before, and the year before…

    I know it’s a tactic to hammer away at meaningless and off topic minutia for the purpose of diverting attention, but I’m not playing.

    Bulls-eye, nice shooting syg.

  48. sum….please explain how I’m off topic, responding to your comment about unionism.

    The true diversion is the Chicken Littlesque cry of “off topic” to divert the attention away from someone who has put you in a position you can’t squirm out of.

    WOW! I scrolled back up to the letter and…low and behold…it’s about the TEACHERS’ UNION!

    Imagine THAT!!!

  49. “but your use of multiple monikers is just as pathetic today as it was last week…. and the week before, and the month before, and the year before…”

    So sayeth the queen of….

  50. sumyungboi says:

    larry, you scrolled up to see what the topic was. And you still got it wrong. I’m guessing that you don’t remember what position you put me in that I “can’t squirm out of” either. :) It’s one of the pluses of telling the truth, I don’t have to remember what I said.

  51. My benefits in the private sector non-unionized environment are better than my spouse who is a teacher.

    Unless you are working as a teacher in a private sector non-unionized environment, your comparison is meaningless.

    Apples to Apples, not Apples to Cabbage.

  52. Declare bankrupcy now is the right direction.

    More evidence that Rightist think that “drown government in the bathtub” was not meant metaphorically.

  53. commoncents says:

    Beerboy – Actually what is meaningless is someone who works in a 50 person company or private school trying to compare their benefits to a public school teacher. In the case of employee benefits..size matters more than profession.

    If you want a true apples to apples comparison you need to find some other company that has 60,000 employees who are all professional college educated employees with approximately half of them having advanced degrees. My employers come far closer to matching that criteria than most of the commenters on this board.

    Keep in mind, it was the original poster asserted that no private sector employer could provide the same level of benefits that government workers do because they would go broke. Simply not true. What is true is that THEIR employer likely couldn’t pay the costs to provide such benefits because they can’t spread the costs out over 60,000 employees and THEY couldn’t demand lower pricing because of size of the business being brought to the table.

  54. scooter6139 says:

    Pumain – You should probably do some research before you post and look like an idiot. Even though considered state employees, Tacoma School District Employees do NOT have state benefits, they have their own. Their dental is one of the worst ones in the state.

  55. sumyungboi says:

    There is no apple to apple comparison to the private sector, and there shouldn’t be. Private busines exists for the purpose of making a profit, governments exists for the purpose of enforcing law and providing essential services. When a private company negotiates with a union or individual employees for wages, salaries, and benefits, they do so with their bottom line as the driving factor, not so with public sector union negotiations. The “size” of the government work force is a non-issue, if government appointed negotiators accept unfunded union demands, that’s a problem. Furthermore, and as a side note, the extreme size of most government work forces should be a red flag to taxpayers.

  56. “Lib/left/progressive- give me their money. Big govt will solve all problems. Constitution is outdated and unnecessarily limits govt’s ability to manage individuals”

    Ahh, another mind-reader. LOL

  57. I wrote the letter taking issue with the claim that public employees and unions are main contributors to government bankruptcies. Dana Booth is entitled to his opinion but the vitriol in his response exemplifies the hostility that concerns me. Thank you Dan Mills for your far more civil response. Let’s tone down the rage…it serves no one.

  58. Pacman33 says:

    Just look at cities like Detroit to see what unions can do to a region. Detroit is a wasteland full of abandoned houses and among the highest unemployment in the nation. Detroit has been run by corrupt Unionists for the past 50 years and we see the end result; poverty and misery with most of the people in Detroit dependent on government. Detroit was a hell hole 40 years ago. It is even worse today. It is just plain criminal.

    Even leftist President Franklin Roosevelt stated that collective bargaining was incapable with government employment. Collective bargaining is the basis for a vicious circle. All unions, but especially public employee unions like SEIU, contribute to leftist campaigns to help leftists stay in power. Leftists elected officials then make sure to pay back their buddies in the unions with extraordinary compensation and benefits. It is truly a vicious circle of corruption. Leftist apologist, defending a practice of Unionism which has led to the destruction of the infrastructure of not just Detroit. But soon to follow in Detroit’s footsteps, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Hartford Buffalo, Albany. All cities who are falling apart under the liberal policies of Democratic regimes.

    To their credit these public employee unions have done a great job securing compensation and benefits for their members; however it has been without any regard for the American taxpayer’s ability to pay for those benefits. All of this has to stop to prevent the bankruptcy of both our states and our country. It is time for WE THE PEOPLE to stand up and say NO MORE! And, in fact, we must roll back these unions completely. Collective Bargaining is simply incompatible with public service.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0