Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start

I agree. Or for the purposes of further clarification it is only a risk to those employers who seek to break employment law.

Employers who act within the law and honour their obligations have nothing to fear from workers' representation. No reputable employer need fear it because any employee guilty of gross misconduct can still be instantly dismissed. If I were to be caught stealing cash out of a till, or were to do something as foolish as to slap a female colleague's backside, or were to punch a colleague in the face, or threaten a customer with violence, no amount of union representation would make the slightest difference. I would be out. Instant dismissal. Unions only fight an employee's corner if there are apparent grounds for a justified grievance either under law or the company's own stated employment policies.

Why anyone would view the removal of such protections as a positive just because they see themselves as their employers tends to suggest that as an employer they would  have little respect for the rights of their employees. I have worked for employers like that before. It tends not to end well for the employers in the long run.

But unions cover all the legal costs so unionised workers can always afford due process. Many non-unionised workers who have to pay for it themselves effectively have no redress for wrong doing by an employer because they cannot afford it. And bad employers tend to exploit that. And just because the state acts as an employer in my name, this does not mean I want to remove such employees legal rights and the ability of unions to protect them, nor do I want to exclude them from the democratic process.

And on the latter point, are you really trying to argue that patriotic soldiers prepared to fight and die for king and country should not have the vote because our taxes pay for them? Really?

We all pay for everyone's wages regardless of whether they work in the public or private sectors. Who do you think pays my wages for working in a supermarket? Customers who shop there do in the final analysis. Should that mean supermarket workers should be denied a vote because the rest of the voting population is paying our wages? It really is a rather risible idea when you break it down.

I don't feel such an organisation is morally supportable when your employer, who may not himself be able to afford legal representation for himself, is legally compelled to employ you.

Imagine if you were legally compelled to employ a plumber and that plumber got to dip into 'plumber type legal funding' as a means to increase your bill and reduce his service to you. I think the pay or conditions for public employees should be pretty simple - take what you get or leave it - your choice

Perhaps if taxpayers had a union and a legal basis to challenge the burdens place on them by public employees, the situation might be a bit more even sided.

It is a false argument. No one is legally compelled to employ anyone. They employ them if and when they need their labour. Once employed their employees have certain employment rights, and more once they have been an employee for two years or more. This is the same for all employees and employers. If an employer decides they need less labour there are legal ways to do this, either through natural wastage, ie not replacing employees who leave, or through some sort of redundancy process. No employer, state or private, is legally compelled to employ anyone. The need which requires state employment is not a legal one but a political one involving political choices. The public expects certain things - the fire brigade to show up when our house is on fire, a GP when we want or need one, a functioning hospital full of competent doctors and nurses, schools with competent teachers educating our kids, roads to be adequately maintained, and so on. A government could decide to stop paying for all of this in theory and make the entire public sector redundant. What stops them is not the law but the obvious fact that this would be utterly disastrous politically and probably economically and socially, and they would never win an election again. It is we the people who insist on the employment of sufficient people to do the jobs we expect of them, not the law. 

Yet regardless of who employs who, employees should have the right to unionise to protect themselves from abuse or bad treatment. I don't expect them to have to just put up with it because I theoretically employ them, and neither should you. Your desire to limit workers ability to enforce their rights and even deny them a vote just because you employ them is at its core the desire of an employer to be able to treat their employees however the hell they like. We need employment protection laws for the very reason that there are employers who think like you do out there

If you are attempting to argue that taxpayers aren't the employer, the next question has be, why then are they compelled to pay the employees wages?

The mismatch here, between control and liability, is what I'm highlighting