Back in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to let public employees unionize. The unions spent the next half-century productively, generating lavish benefits for their members. By the time Walker took office in 2011, the overwhelming majority of state and local government workers paid nothing toward the annual contributions to their pension accounts, which equaled roughly 10 percent of their salaries per year. The average employee also used just 6.2 percent of his salary on his health-insurance premium. Among Walker’s reforms, therefore, was requiring employees to start paying 5.8 percent of their salaries, on average, toward their pensions and to double their health-insurance payments to 12.4 percent of their salaries. These two changes, Walker estimated, would save local governments $724 million annually, letting him cut state aid to localities and reduce Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion biennial deficit.
These measures angered unions, but Walker’s other moves were even more controversial. One was to allow government employees to bargain collectively only when negotiating wages; in other areas, collective bargaining would no longer be part of the contract-making process. The unions screamed bloody murder, decrying the loss of what they called their “right” to collective bargaining.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html
Even many Democrats around the country are admitting that Union government pensions are a problem, and many Democrats are wanting to do what Walker did. Democrats in San Diego proposed a 401K pension plan for city employees, and it passed last night.
Why are non Union Democrats so willing to bend over backwards for unions? The California unions have been wanting to raise my property taxes. The unions benefit, but I don't since I don't belong to one. So what's in it for me? What's in it for non-union Democrats who are homeowners, and who do have to make sacrifices within their private-sector, non-union jobs?

