jockgymboy saidHe doesn't call it slavery, but it's not much different.
I think you're greatly exaggerating. SB is right about the federal workers not having collective bargaining capability.
Here's how I look at it, trying to be fairly objective. Unions have benefitted workers. There is a stronger need for unions in the private sector, but still some role in the public sector. The problem is the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of union bosses getting much power and having a very close relationship with politicians who influenced worker benefits. Yes, many groups lobby and seek rewards, but when one group becomes too powerful, and the problem is aggravated by the deficits, then remedies are needed.
Granting wage and benefit concessions at the state level was not sufficient for two reasons: 1) The issue would come up again in the future, and with collective bargaining, the union would keep their power to influence as they have done in the past, and 2) Would not help the state and local governments.
Is it possible that without collective bargaining the workers, who now have very generous benefits, could be at a disadvantage in the future? The answer is yes. There are at least a couple of options. 1) Making corrections in the future. Remember, the voters are fair and don't want the workers hurt. and 2) Some type of arbitration process could be put in place.
Bottom line, the current system of union bosses influencing politicians and via collective bargaining, strong-arming the taxpayer needed to stop.