> Bah Humbug! Then why am I - as the consumer - should want to foster the growth and strengthening of unions?
You're welcome to do whatever you like. The way you continue to phrase things is a little odd, though. If you define yourself purely by your role as a consumer an awful lot of stuff in life is going to look pretty odd because it's a limited point of view.
> As a consumer, I am supposed to help create more unions and enable this kind of behavior?
This is such an odd question. I don't think anyone in the world believes it's your job to create unions. In fact, that's what we all decided at the last meeting. "It is absolutely not wozniacki's job, in his role as a consumer or otherwise, to create unions." We didn't tell you because we were worried you might be offended.
> Looking at states like California, it is not a stretch to extrapolate that unions - once they reach a critical mass - tend to indulge in a cycle of voracious self-fattening with their growing influence, election cycle after election cycle.
Are you claiming that union participation among primary school educators correlates strongly with lack of achievement among students? I'm pretty sure the top achieving states in this regard - Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, New York, and so on - have teacher unions.
I lived in California for years and I'm sympathetic to the fact that government there is completely insane. I think an explanation like "it's because of the unions!" is reductionist and too simple.