C. Newman,
The problem with your analysis is that public sector workers *are* the government. That means two things. First, it means that, in a democracy, their wages are, to a large extent, set by the voting public. Public sector wages are, arguably, wages set by the proletariat for the proletariat. I think the modest but still healthy working-class wage rates found among public sector employees reflects this. Public sector strikes may inspire the rest of the working class, but unless they are strikes in sympathy with private sector strikes, it's not clear that public sector strikes are a blow against capitalist ownership at all.
Second, public sector strikes can be used to enforce capitalist norms. The most obvious example of this would be police strikes. Police unions, like all unions, define "working conditions" in such a way as to increase their power. The problem is that such work rules make police departments less accountable to the public. While they may have competing aims with other sectors of government, public sector unions are definitely organs of state power, whether for good or ill. The co-opting of public sector unions by power brokers of a thoroughly capitalist stripe is a time-honored political method.
Whether the NYC transit strike is a move for or against working people is probably indicated by the extra-mural activity of the union. Simply opposing Giuliani is not enough. That's just horse trading. Did they send a delegation to the WTO protest? Do they have a position on trade, taxes, etc? Did they oppose workfare before it affected them? Do they speak out in support of private sector union struggles? How loudly? How sincerely? Is it pro-forma union-mogul boilerplate or does it reflect a real commitment to worker rights?
Clearly, public sector unions can be a potent ally in the struggle for economic and political justice. Are they?
peace