Public sector unions are inherently problematic.

The argument for a union is that they keep a company in check and the two balance each other at the negotiating table.

Public sector unions negotiate against voters and tax payers. There is really no opposite force to resist against their negotiating power and the only hard line is the state budget.

Teachers don’t have state granted rights to commit violence. They also don’t have qualified immunity. The Supreme Court hasn’t decided they have no duty to protect.

You’re talking apples and donkeys.

Teachers aren't a paramilitary force employed by the state.

Generally I'd say public sector unions (especially in essential services) are of very questionable benefit and need limits, but robust private sector unions are much more obviously beneficial to society.

-----

In the private sector the incentives are mostly aligned for producing reasonable deals, because both sides rely on the business being healthy and making a profit and the jobs fundamentally rely on that.

In the public sector they aren't aligned. The politician is most incentivized to avoid immediate political turmoil. Voters are not market analysts who recognize and have a problem with deals that produce massive costs in the long-run (ex: exceptionally young or exceptionally generous retirement). The union is often aware it can extort the public with the threat of causing chaos. Government can raise taxes/take on heavier debt, which further weakens it's negotiating position - in all but the most extreme cases it won't be going into bankruptcy or ceasing to exist, taxpayers in 30 years will just be on the hook for paying a bad deal made by a previous generation.

A better comparison is, on a sliding scale, tsa or firefighters, emts. All can invade your privacy and take / destroy your things to a varying degree. You don't get to chose which fire gets you out of your car or which EMT does cpr on you.

That logic does apply to most/all state employee unions. Teachers, fire & rescue, etc.

But as others have pointed out, police unions are even worse in that the police uniquely are allowed to wield the power of the state with lethal force (military too, but until recently, we were supposed to be protected by Posse comitatus).

> Why wouldn’t this logic apply to all unions?

For public sector unions, it absolutely does.

it should apply to all public sector unions, they're a disaster. That's the real problem. Should never have been allowed.

are you seriously arguing that Teacher unions are just as bad? Teachers don't have the power to weild state sanctioned violence on you.

I mean, maybe you could argue about Fire Department Unions, (they can shut down events, force you from entering your home, etc) but then again, nobody has written a song called "Fuck the Fire Department"

Straw man argument. Teachers are important but don’t have impunity to use deadly force.

Good point. I accept your terms.

Teachers don’t have guns, and the ability to tie you up in the courts or worse.

Dude. If it weren't for unions, you would be working 70 hours each week for a shit pay and would even have less employee rights than you have not (assuming you live in the US, based on your dismissive comment against unions)

Unions are bad, period. Teachers Union is one of the worst.

This logic absolutely should apply to all unions, including both police and teachers unions. You can find equally disgusting anecdotes of bad teachers who are protected by their unions, with students paying the price. You can tell a lot about whether someone has impartial judgement by seeing whether they consistently support/oppose both