It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective.

I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to any of those explanations, especially not how someone reasonable might reach a less extreme conclusion.

> Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees.

No disagreement there, but that's never been at issue. What's at issue is money, and money that's being forcibly taken. Alternatively, it's workers being forced to "band together".

What I'm saying is really going on is that they're able to "band together" to influence government appropriations in a way other than the normal political process (without saying normal process if fair/effective or not, since that's another topic).

> Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited.

Why not? What happened to the notion of public service? No amount of wishing will ever turn it into the same kind of relationship as an employee has to a private employer.

> There are exceptions. Like for the military.

And why the inconsistency with respect to the military? To me, drawing a bright line there (instead of, say, at either, carrying a gun or "critical" public services) approaches a position of extremity.