11:51 AM EDT on Monday, June 20, 2005

I write as an ex-member of three unions, in one of which I was grievance chairman. Private-sector unions, such as these, are different creatures from public-sector unions.

In the private sector, the complexity, churn and competition of capitalism -- as well as anti-trust, anti-corruption and other laws -- restrain companies and the unions that dwell with them. After all, companies rise and fall, as do whole industries, and they take their unions with them. But then unions themselves are businesses, selling labor.

Every so often, the government must step in with reforms to address scandals in the private sector. I'm a big fan of strong governmental oversight of corporations, knowing that we need it to prevent capitalism from consuming itself in greed and corruption. Further, I believe, some of our tax money must be used to redistribute income -- to prevent a permanent plutocracy from making a joke of "the land of opportunity." Call me a Truman Democrat.

I'm also a big fan of the right to organize private-sector unions, which can give many otherwise powerless workers a needed say and stake in our free-market system -- especially in dealing with huge, faceless firms.

And unions can discourage corporate abuses.

But public-sector unions are something else: They're virtually untrammeled monopolies. They control services to which the public has few alternatives. That politicians benefit financially and otherwise from public-sector unions, and vice versa, further strengthens the monopoly. Together, the two groups do pretty much what they want, whatever the citizenry's needs and desires.

Thus, to raise concerns about public-sector unions is not to be "anti-union." Nor is it to condemn civil-service protections for public employees. It is simply to face reality.

-- Robert Whitcomb