Seems to me that unions came about to protect workers from overbearing employers that forced 23-hour days with no lunch break and 25 lashes if a worker needed to pee.
Doesn't it stand to reason that a government employee would never have an overbearing employer, and if several of them had such an employer, the public good would be better served by punishing the employer? If private sector workers become unionized so they are protected FROM the actions of an unjust employer, wouldn't that mean that government workers are also working for an unjust employer?
Is it a good message that the government is an unjust employer, and that governmentn workers need to band together to prevent themselves from being treated poorly? The basic premise that government is abusive to its rank and file employees is offensive to me. And since I, as a tax payer, are bound to provide the remedy for the abuse that workers face at the hands of their employer, it seems better to me that the abuse of workers by government employers is better handled through the firing of the abusive employer rather than paying workers fat salaries and pensions so they take such abuse that they deserve a fat salary and a pension.
I find the entire notion of unionized government workers to be patently offensive because the premise is that government employment is abusive enough that workers would unionize.