The reason that unions first started was that corporations were far more powerful than individuals – there were no wages and hours laws nor any equal compensation or any of the rest of it. It’s no different than the outcry over the recent Supreme Court decision which lets business – with their huge fianncial resources – be regarded as equal to any individual in terms of election contributions.

I am not saying that some action is not needed. I am saying that some care has to be taken to be fair to people who kept their end of the contract – whether they are uniion members or not.

- As your note sort of acknowledges, comparing *average* compensation in public vs. private employment is relatively meaningless. It’s not so different from saying “The average salary at Goldman Sachs is dramatically more than the average salary at Wal-Mart.” Of course it is — the work is different and the structures we have compensate it differently (not saying that’s good or bad, just noting it). I suspect the same is true of the public and private sectors — that is, the work is different so the averages are different — though of course the difference is not so dramatic.

- Many online references seem to support this by saying some form of “everyone says public sector compensation is greater than in the private sector but when you compare similar jobs the two sectors generally show comparable compensation”. However, I could not find any current reference that looked at this dispassionately.

- Many other online references claim public sector compensation is much higher, but 100% of the sites I could find which made this claim were run by or connected to politically conservative activists or bloggers, and most seemed to cite each other and/or cite the same few sources (including CATO institute and USA Today as were cited here). (This happens in other areas. In general this kind of thing — a few folks with a shared view all citing each other — has the effect of creating the appearance of much more “data” and a much greater consensus than actually exists.)

So the way this looks to me is, (a) as usual, the reality is way more complex than the rhetoric and news coverage makes it look, (b) there seems to be no useful, current, dispassionate look at that reality that breaks the comparison down by job type / skill level, and (c) all or virtually all of the claims about the supposed huge and growing differential in public sector compensation seem to come originally from a relatively small group of politically conservative interpreters of the data, who have succeeded at the PR task of presenting their views as accepted fact when really they are a specific interpretation written to support a specific political viewpoint.

This does not negate the fact that municipal health care costs are a critical issue, nor that union flexibility is important. I’d agree on both points. But I keep seeing the debate about what’s behind the problem as based much more in rhetoric than in clear facts.

The restrictions / coverage limits I face compared to what I had from the private sector are not onerous — i.e. I’m not complaining — I’m just using my own experience as an example. It really bothers me to hear this constant drumbeat of how well we public employees are doing. I do not know a single person who receives these much-maligned high-end benefits, yet to read coverage in the paper and some of the comments here you’d think they were the norm.

My guess would be that most municipalities do not offer “cadillac” plans, incredibly low co-pays, lifetime coverage, etc., but rather that these are relatively rare practices that are convenient to attack but are not representative. Does anyone have data on how many cities and towns offer such high benefits for union employees? How about the number that offer them to elected officials?

Bottom line: Public sector employees may or may not make more than private sector employees with the same skill levels, but they definitely make more than the average taxpayer.

The problem is Unions have too much influence with Politicians. Businesses also have influence and they share the blame as they outsource jobs overseas helping to depress private sector wages

Point being is the private sector can’t subsidize the public sector anywhere near these levels so either you reign in benefits which the Union would never agree to at the level needed or you cut staff. If you have a better solution I am all ears.

If people have kept their end of the deal, then a way must be found to be equitable. Abrogating contracts does not strike me as a good way to do it.