Public-sector unions vs. private-sector unions

Cato:

Why has public-sector unionism thrived while private sector unionism has shriveled? One reason is that public agencies tend to be static—once a union has organized a group of workers they tend to stay organized. By contrast, the private sector is dynamic, with businesses going bankrupt and new businesses arising all the time. Since all new businesses start out nonunion, greater organizing efforts are needed to sustain private-sector unions.

Another factor is that many government services are legal monopolies, such as police and fire. The result is that consumers don’t have the option of abandoning unionized public services if they become too inefficient, as they can with unionized services in the private sector.

Finally, public-sector unions push for higher pay and higher government spending with little restraint. They don’t care if the cost of government services goes up because the burden is borne by someone else. By contrast, private-sector unions are aware that higher costs for employers may result in lost sales and fewer union jobs.

[...]Some of the most pro-union states also allow public-sector strikes and some have mandatory arbitration, which usually works in favor of the unions. Note that union rules can vary within states for different types of public-sector worker. For example, teachers are more likely to be allowed to strike than police or fire department workers.

[...]Bureau of Labor Statistics data in Table 2 show that union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.

[...]A final type of inefficiency created by public-sector unions is the cost of strikes. In November, for example, transit workers in Philadelphia went on a six-day strike over disagreements regarding pay.12 The strike created chaos for the 800,000 residents of the city who rely on government subway and bus services, and it likely caused substantial damage to the local economy.