156-4-705
Another battleground will be the unions’ legal privileges. It is not that long since politicians of all persuasions were uncomfortable with the idea of government workers joining unions. (Franklin Roosevelt opposed this on the grounds that public servants had “special relations” and “special obligations” to the government and the rest of the public.) It would be perverse to ban public-sector unions outright at a time when governments are trying to make public services more like private ones. But their right to strike should be more tightly limited and the rules governing political donations and even unionisation itself should be changed to “opt-in” ones, in which a member decides whether to give or join.

The productivity imperative

Fixing the public sector must not be allowed to degenerate into demonising it. Its health is vital to the health of society as a whole, not least because of its impact on economic growth. Bad teachers mean a lousy talent-pool for employers. Allowing a subway driver to retire at 50 on an artificially inflated pension means less to spend on infrastructure: just look at America’s highways and railways. Even if many public services are monopolies, private capital is mobile: it goes to places where government works. With ageing populations needing ever more state help, the left should have as much interest as the right in an efficient state sector (perhaps more so, as it thinks government is the way to right society’s ills).
Private-sector productivity has soared in the West over the past quarter-century, even in old industries such as steel and carmaking. Companies have achieved this because they have the freedom to manage—to experiment, to expand successful innovations, to close down bad ones, to promote talented people (see article). Across the public sector, unions have fought all this, most cruelly in education (see article). It can be harder to restructure government than business, but even small productivity gains can bring big savings.
The coming battle should be about delivering better services, not about cutting resources. Focusing on productivity should help politicians redefine the debate. The imminent retirement of the baby-boomers is a chance to hire a new generation of workers with different contracts. Politicians face a choice: push ahead, reform and create jobs in the long term or give in again, and cut more services and raise more taxes.

어휘
persuasions 신조, 종파, 계급, 설득. legal 법적인.
privileges 특권. obligations 의무, 책임. perverse 부당한, 심술궂은, 완고한.
ban 금지하다. public-sector unions 공공분야 노조.
outright 완전히, 철저하게. political donations 정치헌금.
opt-in 事前同意(사전동의). imperative 긴요한, 명령적인.
degenerate 퇴보하다, 타락하다. demonize 악마로 만들다.
vital 절대로 필요한, 지극히 중요한, 활력의. impact 영향력, 충격.
lousy 더러운, 비열한. pool 공동관리 요원. talent-pool 人才(인재) 풀, 인적 자원.
artificially inflated pension 인위적으로 부풀어 놓은 연금.
infrastructure 하부구조, 기간시설. monopolies 독점기업.
the left 좌파. the right 우파. right 바르게 고치다.
soar 날아오르다. quarter-century 4반세기. innovations 혁신.
close down 폐쇄하다. deliver 배달하다. redefine 다시 定議(정의)하다.
imminent 임박한.