Public Employee Unions, One Man’s Opinion

Anyone care to guess who said this:

“… 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 …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Click through and see for yourself.  Once you do, ask yourself, if this man could see the dangers of a public employee union, how can it be a partisan issue today? Or click here for a clue.

6 replies
  1. BEA
    BEA says:

    This whole thing is confusing to me. Collective bargaining (actually unions in general) just seems like a bully tactic used to force the employers/gov't (aka "we the people") into doing what the employees and union reps want…or else they'll strike…a big fat tantrum. And besides, isn't the public servant and his union rep a "we the people" too? Doesn't that make it a conflict of interest? My head spins round and round!!!

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Isn't a tantrum tantamount to a strike, and thus illegal by the terms of their contract?


    It seems the lack of respect for their contracts comes from the unions themselves…

  3. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    Am I missing something? 

    Since when did a state or the federal ever treat their employees so badly that a union was even necessary?

    Public unionized folks had better notice that their union has priced them out of the market.

    Taxpayers are waking up to the fact that these folks are getting a sweetheart deal on the taxpayers back.

    While the teachers may need to contribute to retirement and health care, in CT, the focus should be on cutting the Education Dept from the top.  Stop using the teachers and students as human shields.

  4. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    Dims – I am in a union and I can tell you that there are companies that are just as bad at keeping to their word.  And the terms of the contract ARE fought for right down to the definition of "is".

    –    By the way, I have no sympathy for the public union members.  My raise is just that, a raise.  Without a separate cost of living adjustment.  And the term "raise" is getting to be a misnomer.

    When the public 'servant' is living higher on the hog than the taxpayer, there is a problem – that would be the unions.

Comments are closed.