Public and private sector unions are funded by the same source: their members.
Public sector unions are PAID by people who are supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and it's naive to expect them to do that well when their campaigns are being paid for by unions.
And how, exactly, is that different than the myriad of industries that largely exist because of government contracts?
That's just one of the issues. Another problem is the nature of their job. They have a monopoly on the services they perform. If they choose to do a sick out or go on a "no extras at all until we get the contract we want" virtual strike and, for an example which happened here in Wisconsin, refuse to write references for students who are filling out college applications until they get their way, there's no place for those kids to turn.
The problems are not theoretical. They are on the record for everyone to see. Too many unsustainable promises made to the public unions without the natural checks and balances which exist for public sector unions.
Tons of unsustainable promises were made to private sector unions as well. It's interesting that conservatives are very much about "responsibility", unless responsibility requires people in positions of power, be they CEOs or politicians, actually following through. Then outright theft becomes okay, because, hey, those rubes in the union shouldn't really have expected the rules to apply to people in positions of power.
The MASSIVE difference is that the people that receive that service are LEGALLY bound to purchase it. Let’s take schools as a good example. If the teachers want to strike, their customers (the people) have no options. The money that they pay the school cannot be taken back and used somewhere else. They can’t take their business to another company. They cannot put that school out of business. In that regard, the customers are beholden to the service provider. There is no balancing power against that strike. If the teachers push to far, who cares? They will get their pay anyway and they are going to get a better contract. As I already pointed out, the politician who is ‘representing’ the people never actually has to pay for that. The people don’t even see the results until it is too late and the politician is likely sipping margaritas at his retirement home. OTOH, the fact that children are not able to go to school AND the people are still paying for that is VERY visible.
Now, compare that to a company. If the workers push to far, the company goes out of business or they replace the workers. That is simply not an option that is generally afforded to governmental agencies that use union employees. Companies have to balance this also with the real costs of doing business as a bad union deal can put them under where a bad deal with the government doesÂ… wellÂ… nothing at all to the parties involved.
So you ask how they are different. The easier question would be how are they the same? One does not resemble the other in any shape or form.