‘Puter’s been thinking about public sector unions for years now. As a result, he’s got a number of half-formed ideas banging around in his head, just trying to get out. Here’s one that’s been trying to cohere for some time now, jiggered out of ‘Puter’s small mind by his review of this paper, On the Freedom to Associate or Not to Associate With Others by Prof. Thomas Kleven of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law.

‘Puter has a constitutional right, as a citizen of the United States, to be free from government compulsion to associate with (i.e., involuntarily fund through taxation and pass through) public sector unions.

‘Puter states first that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional concept of “freedom of association” within the First Amendment, though such a concept is not expressly stated. It derives from the First Amendment’s plainly stated freedom of speech clause. Commensurate with the right to associate must be a right not to associate, as the recognition of one implies the existence of the other.

In some instances, the government will have the ability to limit individual freedom of association in order to advance the common good, broadly defined. Common good is a malleable concept generally agreed to mean a substantial benefit for most if not all people. For example, government provided national defense is a common good, as is regulation of commerce. These two governmental powers benefit all Americans by keeping us free and making our quasi-capitalist/free market economy thrive. Permitting the government to force unwanted association of a taxpayer citizen with a government program the taxpayer citizen believes is wrong is just, as such forced association prevents the free rider problem. For example, well-meaning pacifisits believe that all war is wrong, but they can be required to fund national defense nonetheless because our military directly benefits them as well. Similarly, New Yorkers without need for cars fund the federal highway system because the system directly benefits them as well (i.e., bringing in supplies so they can get Chinese food at 3:00 a.m., unlike those nekulturny Bostonians. Heathens.).

‘Puter must now apply the above basic freedom of association analysis to the scourge of public sector unions.

Are public sector unions a common good, such that taxpayers ought be forced to fund them? More directly, do public sector unions benefit the public at large in such measure as to justify compulsory association? The answer must be no. While arguably government employees provide benefits and services associated with the common good (e.g., education, police protection, bank regulation), public sector unions are not required to provide these services. That is, the services provided by government employees can just as easily be provided by non-unionized government employees. Requiring taxpayers to fund public sector unions is not necessary to provide a common good, and therefore taxpayers cannot be forced to so subsidize these unions.

But ‘Puter, what about the right of government workers to associate into unions? Why aren’t they afforded the same rights you claim? In ordinary circumstances such as in the private sector, workers should be and are free to associate with labor unions, regardless of what ‘Puter thinks. But public sector unions are different. If ‘Puter hates GM because he thinks the UAW are a bunch of greedy bastards, ‘Puter is free to buy a Honda. If ‘Puter thinks his kids’ teachers and schools stink, he can’t take his money elsewhere. Sure, he can send his kids to private schools, but ‘Puter still must subsidize the teachers’ unions through his mandatory property taxes. Competition forces private sector unions to be minimally reasonable or risk killing their hosts. Public sector unions are under no such restriction, as their host has no competition. Government is a monopoly. It is this monopoly hold, coupled with compulsory funding, that makes public sector unions particularly loathsome.

Another objection put forth to ‘Puter’s view is that government workers should be free to spend a portion of their salary to fund the unions if they want; it’s their money, after all. Wrong. Every public sector unionized employee is paid with dollars involuntarily taken from taxpayers. Many unionized public sector workers (see, e.g., New York state teachers) are in closed shops. That is, you can’ take a job unless you’re either a member of the union or agree to pay union dues to cover collective bargaining. Essentially, closed shop equals mandatory union membership. Hence, the transaction is doubly involuntary as to both the taxpayer and the employee.

Most egregiously, public sector union members can vote themselves raises. That is, the outsized influence of public sector unions and their campaign contributions lead directly to gold plated pensions and benefits, as well as out of whack salaries versus the private sector. Taxpayers through closed shop rules, and mandatory union dues paycheck deductions, fund the very forces that drive taxes ever higher and inevitably lead to catastrophe. You don’t thing so? Try living in New York with ‘Puter. Or California. Or New Jersey.

Public sector union proponents are correct that union members have the right to associate with whomever they want. They just don’t have the right to force ‘Puter, and other taxpayers, to pay for their exercise of that right. Similarly, ‘Puter doesn’t have the right to force unions to buy him guns so that he can exercise his Second Amendment rights. Nor do women have the right to force ‘Puter to pay for their abortions. If you want to exercise a right, do it on your own danged dime.

Thanks for reading through to the end of ‘Puter’s most recent rant on public sector unions. Hopefully, some reader out there is sitting on a federal bench or in a taxpayers’ rights organization. Take ‘Puter’s half-baked idea for free. Just make sure you credit ‘Puter when you’re sticking your thumb in the public sector unions’ eyes.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.