Unionized government workers present a case for a softer kind of slavery. For one thing, the unionized beneficiaries of the sweat of the tax payer's brow do not usually live in plantation houses, and they are not allowed to flog their chattel. Also, the slaves normally live in the same neighborhoods and shop in the same stores as their masters. The real disparity, as always with slavery, concerns work.
The master must put in his time of work, short though it may be, before he can achieve his "slave owner" status of sitting on the front porch sipping tea. But to be sure, the master has already achieved an elite-ish status even while accomplishing his "time in service" as can be seen by the fact that he doesn't have to worry about about the same things his slave counterparts worry about; like loosing customers due to bad performance. This helps to take the edge off of putting in the work years required before porch sitting, fishing and tea sipping.
Secondly, as with the old slave-master, this master doesn't have to concern himself wtih pesky little annoyances like the risk of being fired, or recessionions. His boss, the government, can simply take, borrow or print what it needs to ensure that the union worker never has to suffer along side his slave neighbors. His high level bosses remain secure as well in knowing that a sizable portion of the plunder handed out will end up right back in their campaign coffers.
The slave on the other hand deals with a completely different reality. He is under the pressure of performance. And even if his performance is top notch, he is continually confronted with the weaknesses of the rest of his team. Recessions are really difficult because he must continue to perform now, not only for himself but also to make up for the losses of his master's lost revenues . (less tax revenues) This can clearly be seen in this New York Post article where it states that:So the next time you see a government union member at a tea-party rally keeping an eye on their "boys", hearken back to the old south and remember this: some things never change, especially with Democrats. more here
"Taxpayers' share of [the New York City] pension costs has skyrocketed more than 900 percent in the last decade from $703.1 million in 2000 to $6.5 billion in 2009, according to the city comptroller's annual reports. The cost is expected to hit $7.6 billion this fiscal year and $8.7 billion next year. 'Its a double-whammy for taxpayers, ' said E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 'If they're privately employed, they shoulder the risks of saving for their own retirement. At the same time, they have to pay a steadily mounting cost of guaranteed pensions for government workers.'"