If the trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa were alive today, he would probably represent civil servants. When Hoffa’s Teamsters were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. In 2009 the number of unionists in America’s public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of public-sector workers but only about 15% of private-sector ones are unionized.

    There are three reasons for the public-sector unions’ thriving. First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences. Second, they are mostly bright and well-educated. A quarter of America’s public-sector workers have a university degree. Third, they now dominate left-of-centre politics. Some of their ties go back a long way. Britain’s Labor Party, as its name implies, has long been associated with trade unionism. Its current leader, Ed Miliband, owes his position to votes from public-sector unions.

    At the state level their influence can be even more fearsome. Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California points out that much of the state’s budget is patrolled by unions. The teachers’ unions keep an eye on schools, the CCPOA on prisons and a variety of labor groups on health care.

    In many rich countries average wages in the state sector are higher than in the private one. But the real gains come in benefits and work practices. Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.

    Reform has been vigorously opposed, perhaps most notoriously in education, where charter schools, academies and merit pay all faced drawn-out battles. Even though there is plenty of evidence that the quality of the teachers is the most important variable, teachers’ unions have fought against getting rid of bad ones and promoting good ones.

    As the cost to everyone else has become clearer, politicians have begun to clamp down. In Wisconsin the unions have rallied thousands of supporters against Scott Walker, the hardline Republican governor. But many within the public sector suffer under the current system, too.

    John Donahue at Harvard’s Kennedy School points out that the norms of culture in Western civil services suit those who want to stay put but are bad for high achievers. The only American public-sector workers who earn well above $250,000 a year are university sports coaches and the president of the United States. Bankers’ fat pay packets have attracted much criticism, but a public-sector system that does not reward high achievers may be a much bigger problem for America.

答案精析：从第四段第二句可知，真正的收益在于profits and work practices（福利和工作体制），结合本段最后一句，薪资增长modest（适度），而不断增加假期和原本就已经很丰厚的pensions（养老金），可见收入的增长是间接的，故B选项为正确答案。

错项排除：A选项illegally和C选项的excessively在原文中并未体现，故错误。D选项中fairly与原文文意相悖，原文提到养老金already generous（本来就已经很丰厚了），因而继续增加是不合理的，故D选项错误。

长难句分析：Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals, keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous.

本句为复合句，句子主干是Politicians have repeatedly “backloaded” public-sector pay deals，是主谓宾结构，现在分词结构keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and…是伴随状语。that引导定语从句，修饰pensions。

句意为：政客们一再变相地提高公共部门的待遇——保持工资较低涨幅，但是假期不断增加，尤其是原本就已经很丰厚的养老金也在增长。