Firing decisions based on union status should be outlawed - NEW

To clarify what this debate is about, the resolution asks whether the actual decision to fire based on Union status should be outlawed. There are three scenarios to this: 1) The employee signs a contract which does not allow him to join a Union2) The employee signs a contract which allows him to join a Union3) The employee is employed at will, either signed no contract or the contract makes no mention of UnionsThis debate is of course best suited for category 3 and neither I nor my opponent will be considering either of the other 2 cases as agreed upon in the comments. I will summarize 5 major points here. 1) "Right" to a jobMy opponent says that there is no such thing as a right to a job. There certainly isn't. The resolution does not guarantee this. Outlawing firing based on Union status does not give employees a guaranteed right to a job and certainly does not concede the resolution. All it does is protect the employee from unjust dismissal. In a similar way, it is illegal to fire employees based on their race, sex etc. Would my opponent consider this as an employee's right to a job? It isn't. It just prohibits discrimination. Now my opponent may argue that joining a Union is something that the employee can choose to do but race, sex etc can't be chosen. However, I already established that joining a Union may be necessary for some employees, a point my opponent does not argue against (he just says necessity is irrelevant but concedes that it may be necessary for laborers to join a Union). This makes the concept of "choice" invalid as the employee might theoretically have a choice but realistically has no choice due to the fact that they may not get fair wages or working conditions if they don't join a Union.2) "Persuation" is ForceMy opponent makes the mistake of saying that employees being asked to leave a Union "may be persuasive but is not force". "Persuation" by the employer amounts to force because of the vast difference in bargaining power. It may not be physical force, but if the alternative to the employee is to be unemployed and not be able to provide for themselves, there is no real choice here. Employees cannot "walk out" of a job the same way a buyer walks out on a car dealer. "Walking out" is not a realistic option due to the difference in bargaining power. Yes, they can get an another job, but until they do, they would be unemployed. Employees are fighting for their lives while employers are fighting to fill one position.3) Firing in bad faithMy opponent says that Kmart vs Ponsock was decided unjustly! With that, he contends that employers should be able to fire employees just before they retire in order to avoid paying the pension and concedes that it was an accurate analogy with firing based on Union status.Now the reason it is unjust is that it is an act of bad faith. Employers should not be allowed to abuse the defintion of at-will employment to suit their needs. Since the employee in question (Ponsock) had been working at Kmart for over a decade, there was an implicit expectation that he would be allowed to retire and get a pension as long as his performance was up to Kmart's standards. When Kmart allowed him to work for such a long time, it made an implicit contract with him. Con might say that written contracts are the only ones that are valid. However, courts have long recognized that it is not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law that is important. Firing him with no cause just before retirement is an abuse of implicit contract as well as an act of bad faith. Con concedes that this is an acceptable analogy to firing over Union status so firing based on Union status is an act of bad faith as well.4) Proof that dismissal wasn't unjustCon says that having to show that dismissal was unjust puts the Burden of proof on the accused. That is not the case. Cases relating to unjust dismissal are decided on preponderance of the evidence. It goes to whichever side proves that their proposition is more likely than not [1]. Having to show that dismissal was not an act of bad faith is a safeguard against abuse. Considering the difference in bargaining power, these safeguards more than justify the fact that employers need to explain themselves if they dismiss someone unjustly.As mentioned before, the rights of both employers as well as employees must be considred when decided what is fair and just in a workplace. While employers may own the workplace, employees spend their entire day there and their livelihood depends on it.5) Freedom of contractMy opponent says that freedom doesn't require power, it only requires the ability to walk away. The question we have to ask is: Does the employee actually have the ability to walk away? Except for the employees who have already started a job search and actually have an offer on the table, most employees do not have the ability to "walk away". ConclusionEmployers frequently have structural and economic advantanges when negotiating with potential and current employees. This gives rise to a huge difference in bargaining power. Due to this, it may be necessary for some workers to join a Union as it may be the only way for them to secure fair wages and working conditions. To fire an employee just because he is doing something that is necessary for him in order to profit from it is an act of bad faith. To prevent such acts from employers, employers should not be allowed to fire employees based on Union status.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;