To the editor:
Why should government workers, federal, state, and local, be allowed to be unionized when they already enjoy job protection by having relatively stable regulated guaranteed employment and, generally speaking, with very liberal expensive retirement packages and, again, with higher wages than the same work performed in the private sector.?
It isn't fair to all the other non-union worker taxpayers.
After all, with all else being equal, what is so special about the humanity of union workers as opposed to non-union workers, anyway, to allow union workers some special privilege of having preferential treatment?
That's why President FDR wouldn't allow it while he was president before the time when President JFK, for political reasons, started it to allow unions, to get more votes.
In recent years many city and state governments in the U.S.A., and even in Europe, have become bankrupt for lack of funds to finance outlandish government union benefits and retirements which, in many cases, were forced on governments to accept by some corrupt union bosses.
In America, labor unions have a legitimate place in the private work sector for the mutual benefits to be gained between labor and management regarding pay, safety, working conditions, and grievances, etc.
However, all these activities should stay within the boundaries of each of the 50 states with no overlapping legal lawful influence into any other state's employer-worker contracts.
Any misunderstandings and/or impasse stalemates in negotiations between labor and management in each state should be monitored and refereed by a form of state labor relations council procedures to an amiable and satisfactory conclusion within a reasonable time.
Workers in dangerous life-threatening jobs should be compensated with higher pay only while they are employed on the job and not in retirement.