The number of government workers in Maryland who belong to a union is growing. High rates of unionization among government workers may be good for those workers, but is it a good thing for the state’s taxpayers?

According to a recent study, around 60% of the state’s unionized workers are government employees. That should not come as a big surprise. Private sector unionization has been in decline since the 1950s. Maryland, a union-friendly state with a large number of government workers, is an attractive place for government employees to unionize.

This high rate of unionization may not be so good for those us who pay their salaries with our tax dollars. As the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards points out, “Unionized public sector workers have much higher average wages and benefits than nonunionized public sector workers. Bureau of Labor Statistics data … show that union members have a 31-percent advantage in wages and a 68-percent advantage in benefits.”

In another study, Edwards finds “… that public sector unions push up the costs of the public sector workforce in the United States by about 8 percent, on average, but the increase would be more in states with highly unionized public sectors such as California.” Presumably Maryland, with a highly unionized public sector, would also see higher labor costs for government employees than 8%. Considering the state’s ongoing structural deficit problems, this amount of money is significant.

There are other problems with government unions, says Edwards: “Unions tend to protect poorly performing workers, they often push for larger staffing levels than required, and they discourage the use of volunteers in government activities. Further, they tend to resist the introduction of new technologies and they create a more rule-laden workplace.”

These unions also wield considerable power in Annapolis, fighting to preserve and expand the benefits their members receive (paid for by tax dollars, of course). For instance, the Maryland State Education Association’s PAC gave $1.9 million to state candidates in the 2010 election cycle.

As Daniel DiSalvo writes in an excellent article on public sector unions in National Affairs, this electoral activity distorts the system:

Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers' unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."

What’s the solution? Obviously, banning public sector unions isn’t feasible nor is it perhaps even desirable. But reducing their power is in the interests of both taxpayers and government workers themselves. As DiSalvo points out:

It is true that ending government workers' ability to organize is politically inconceivable today in the states where it exists. But if states' and cities' fiscal ills grow painful enough, the unthinkable could someday become political necessity. For all Americans — including public-sector employees — it would of course be better if the situation did not reach that point of catastrophe. We can all hope that a robust economic revival will take the pressure off of states and cities and give policymakers more room to maneuver. If such a rapid recovery is not forthcoming, though, the most appealing solution will be for everyone to re-enter the real world — if only public officials and public-sector unions can be sensible enough to try.

In a state like Maryland, where politicians are unable or unwilling to control spending, the day of reckoning that DiSalvo speaks about will come sooner than in other states. When this time comes, it will be government workers who will suffer from large reductions in pay and benefits. It’s better to deal with these issues now instead of when they become an inescapable problem. Doing this means that the large number of Marylanders who belong to public sector unions need to demand real reforms now.