As when former Illinois governor James Thompson had his personnel office review job and promotion applications in attempt to ensure that folks had voted Republican and/or contributed money or work to the party. Courts threw practice out in *Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois* (1990).
Of course, civil service origins were part of late-19th/early 20th century 'progressive reforms' intended to eliminate 'patronage' upon which many a working-person (particularly European ethnics) received public employment in era of machine politics.
In 1970s, neo-conservatives such as Irving Kristol characterized public sector middle-strata (protected by civil service rules) as 'new class' of anti-business liberal/radical professionals, responsible for rise of 'egalitarianism' and 'adversarial culture.'
Contemporary free-market/privatizing critics charge that civil service rules make personnel management difficult (Richard Eling found that fewer than 2% of state and local workers are dismissed each year). They also complain that public employees on average have higher incomes than do private sector workers (Eling found that lower-paid public workers do receive higher pay than private sector counterparts, but mid-level, professional, and upper-level people do better in private sector).
Significantly, cuts in social service programs are not only attacks on poor but also on minorities and women who comprise a larger share of 'middle-strata' employment in public sector than in private.
As for unions, 45% of all government workers are represented with collective bargaining highest among firefighters, sanitations workers, and teachers (most are prohibited from striking.
Provision of collective bargaining that most conflicts with civil service is the seniority provision. Michael Hoover