Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.
> A public employee union is not the government.
I'm not suggesting it is, as such. It is, however, made up of the people who operate the "machinery" of government, and it's the government witholding the dues from the paycheck that funds this union, so, again, of Constitutional significance.
> There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions.
And I say there should. There's my assertion :)
> Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.
They may be extreme, but that doesn't make them invalid on their face. I don't have a vested interest here, either.
Here's my vision of public employee unions not circumventing the normal political process:
Instead of "negotiating" with the power to strike, they can just go to the voters (and elected representatives) and campaign for their share of the tax dollars (or working conditions or whatever other legislation), just like every other special interest.
Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s objectively correct.
It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective.
I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to any of those explanations, especially not how someone reasonable might reach a less extreme conclusion.
> Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees.
No disagreement there, but that's never been at issue. What's at issue is money, and money that's being forcibly taken. Alternatively, it's workers being forced to "band together".
What I'm saying is really going on is that they're able to "band together" to influence government appropriations in a way other than the normal political process (without saying normal process if fair/effective or not, since that's another topic).
> Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited.
Why not? What happened to the notion of public service? No amount of wishing will ever turn it into the same kind of relationship as an employee has to a private employer.
> There are exceptions. Like for the military.
And why the inconsistency with respect to the military? To me, drawing a bright line there (instead of, say, at either, carrying a gun or "critical" public services) approaches a position of extremity.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. The word you're looking for is "unpopular".
> Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process.
You keep saying "unions", but I allege that this remains a verbal trick on the part of public employee unions, to lump themselves in with other unions.
I'm sure your statement is true on its face, but I'm not so sure it's true when applied only to public employee unions.
I'm much less sure of its truth when applied specifically to local groups of voters. Try asking some of the ones living in bankrupted municipalities.
> The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law
This makes your argument/opinion very hard to follow, since you string together "should" statements with "is". Is that by design?