By: Jože Biščak
Mirko and Slavko are career bank robbers. Mirko is the mastermind, while Slavko is his assistant. One day, when they run out of money, they set off on another robbery spree. They break into a bank, take employees and customers hostage, and empty the safe. Then things go wrong. In front of everyone, they start arguing about how to divide the loot. Slavko is unhappy that Mirko is taking the lion’s share. Mirko insists that he is the boss and has big expenses. Then he gets an idea: he takes the wallets of everyone in the bank and gives them to his assistant. When one of the victims protests, Slavko pulls out a gun and shoots, saying there is no room for objections. Then the two happily walk away.
Does this story sound familiar? Just change the names, and you will see a picture of the situation in “democratic” states. Imagine that Slavko is the government, Mirko is a public sector trade unionist, and the hostages are net taxpayers. The first two argue about money that does not belong to them and divide it among themselves. If anyone resists, the government, which has a monopoly on coercion, has every means to silence them. That is why few protest, even though the damage done is immense. This is exactly what happened when the government and public sector unions signed an agreement to raise salaries just over a month before New Year’s Eve: higher wages for the public sector, higher taxes for net taxpayers, and consequently lower net salaries this year.
Every argument between the executive power and unions over money that is not theirs is not only perverse and incompatible with the spirit of democracy but also contradicts all principles of a free society and economic freedom. Extortion and threats of strikes, which eventually force the government to give in, threaten prosperity. Today, the public sector dictates wages, working conditions, and working hours to the state. This jeopardises essential services needed for the safety and protection of citizens (private individuals) and reduces the prosperity of real net taxpayers. In other words, the public sector holds the power to halt the functioning of the state if its demands are not met. Public sector unionists speak with forked tongues and control the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This is no longer a joke. That is why strikes and unionisation should be banned for state and public employees.
The unionisation of state and public employees leads to inefficiency, making administrative processes and service delivery to citizens slower. The public administration suddenly divides into “ours” and “theirs”, while ordinary people – supposedly the sovereign power according to the constitution – are pushed to third place, behind the government and the unions. Even worse, the poor performance of the authorities becomes protected by unions. It is nearly impossible to fire a public servant because unions immediately go on the defensive. This attitude increases the cost of running the state, which keeps demanding more and more from net taxpayers.
Working for the state and public administration is desirable. The average salary in the private sector (economy) is significantly lower, while a public sector job is secure, providing almost complete social protection. This makes the government an ideal employer, fostering employee loyalty with benefits, even if they are obtained through blackmail. Public employees will undoubtedly vote for the political party that continues to allow them to threaten with strikes and ensure “negotiations” with union representatives. Net taxpayers are entirely excluded from the process, even though they are the only ones who fund everything. While public servants were once honourably bound to net taxpayers, this relationship has evolved into an “us versus them” dynamic. The question is how much of this can still be corrected and whether the ethical decline of the public sector can be stopped. No government (left or right) is willing to risk a war with an army of potential voters (well over 200,000 people). Therefore, the final thought – although it may sound heretical to some: public sector employees should have their voting rights limited. The same should apply to everyone who does not earn their livelihood through work but is primarily dependent on the state.