Originally Posted by Jesse

Sure, thanks for asking. It's an analogy of trying to compare a union in the private sector to one in the public sector.

Put another way, for the comparision to work commerical airline travel would have to be run by the government, say part of the Dept of Transportation and when we negotiated for our pay and benefits the recepients of our PAC money and union dues were the ones who approved the final agreement. Well, we'd have some pretty good top cover with that situation. We and our famalies would be very grateful for a contract we liked so much. Grateful enough to re-elect those who gave it to us. And if the contract was part of the reason for a deficit we wouldn't want anything to change when it came to our situation; afterall, everybody spends more than they make and racks up debt, right? Granted there are a lot of differences between public and private sector unions, but that's why the two aren't a fair and reasonable comparison.

Doing so neglects to consider: 1) Private sector unions negotiate with the company for pay and benefits. Those negotiating on behalf of the company are not beholden to the union for being re-elected to their positions and are not being given monetary contributions from those across the negotiating table (not the case in the public sector). 2) Public sector unions have in most cases a virtual monopoly in their profession. 3) Those negotiating on behalf of a company have a vested interest in the outcome of the agreement; when public sector workers negotiate increased pay and benefits the negotiators on the other side are not as vested as it often benefits them by garnering union support. Those negotiating on behalf of government are not as responsible for the costs incurred from the agreed contract (the taxpayer is).