Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best intrests of the American people

Ok then. I will first rebut my opponent's arguments and then support my own. "Contention One: The EFCA restores workplace democracy. " Oh really. :) Ok first of all you talk about taking away the secret ballot because according to you employer pressure will what. .. .. sway their vote? O. o And what the solution to this is taking this away and replacing it with the majority card checks? Let me ask you this, how would the employers be able to fire people if they don't know who voted (with the secret ballot of course)? You see with the secret ballot people are protected from coercion and intimidation because when it's all said and done the employers won't know who voted. Also, the card checking system actually puts employees at the mercy of not the employers, but the unions. Card checking would leave employees open to union harrasment, coercion, and intimidation. What's worse is that with card checks, no one can vote AGAINST the union. That if anything is not democracy. Also, how would we be able to protect employees who are harrassed into signing a card, and their only defense against the union recognition is through a secret ballot? :) We couldn't. They would be doomed as they would have no power to stop the union. "Giving employees the option to vote as they wish is clearly the first step to establishing workplace democracy. " - What if they want to vote against the union? Wait. .. they can't "Contention Two: The EFCA replenishes the American Economy" ^o^ This is like my favorite thing to rebut. "1) Unionized firms compensate their workers more than nonunionized firms, meaning that workers have more money to put back into the economy. As a result, unionization has a positive impact on GDP development. " Well. .. . even though they have more money that's less money for the company (the people who pay the workers). You mess with the companies you mess with the jobs. Higher employee wages might seem good at first, but in the long run will hurt the company and eventually lead to job cuts and firm closings. "2) Higher wages generate higher tax revenue. According to Economic Roundtable, a non-profit research institute for Los Angeles, higher wages from LA unions alone have generated 7 billion dollars in tax revenue on all levels of government. " The resolution concerns the american people. How exactly does this directly tie in to benefiting the american people because for what I know thats 7 billion dollars taken out of the pockets of the American people "3) Higher wages benefit small businesses, as union workers have more money to spend – increasing the profit of regional businesses. In fact, Economic Roundtable estimates that in Los Angeles alone higher wages can account for 51 billion dollars of sales. " ^o^ If anything, a union would HURT a small business, because that would obviously mean less money for the small business owners. Also, just because union workers have more money to spend doesn't serve as empirical proof suggesting that they will spend money on products from small businesses. Although there were 51 billion dollars in sales, there could've been $0 in sales concerning products of small business. :) Now to defend my case "Let's address the CON case: His C1: - He argues for an increase in coercion. This is empirically untrue, look to my first contention, where i give you a study by Adrienne Eaton. To give you the actual numbers of that study, he finds that in the Card check election opposed to the secret ballot: Employer coercion fell 50% Employee coercion fell 4% Union organizer coercion fell 6%" What? ! Correct me if I'm wrong this bill hasn't passed, so there's no way that there is empirical proof that can compare this card check system to the current law as it stands. There haven't been ANY majority card check elections. Next. "His only real analysis here, is that union reps get lots of signatures, but this can easily be explained. union organizers know that the coercive techniques and flat out threats the employers make will cause some to be scared into voting against unionization. This point is just a reflection of the full extent employer coercion has on employees. " Really? He's trying to say that people that vote against the union are just scared into doing so. Yet he fails to realize that this argument works both ways; unions have many coercive techniques and threats that can cause some to vote FOR unionization. Getting more cards would make this more likely. Also, given my AFL-CIO statistic, the 25% that sign cards but vote against the union is empirical proof that not everyone who signs a card wants to join a union. They could've easily been bullied into signing a card and the secret ballot gave them the ability to defend themselves. Alright then. "He argues that arbitrators will be unknowledgable. " No, I'm just arguing that the arbiter has too much power. This arbiter guy is in total control of the business' wages now. "- Moreover, if it's a bad agreement both sides can sign that they don't agree with it. .. so his second point here is false" Well. .. . that's sort of incorrect. If you read the bill properly it says that an agreement will be made and can only be AMENDED if both sides sign for it. Also keep in mind that this contract keeps the union in for 2 years. .. .. Oh, and that the EMPLOYEES (aka the american people) cannot hold a vote to terminate the contract if it's damaging to them. Also a "poor" decision could just be one that heavily favors one side. :) What I don't see is why mandatory binding arbitration is necessary. As far as I'm concerned, the system is fine as it is. If it ain't broke don't fix it. "- All his economic analysis is taken from the UAW, which makes (on average) 300% higher wages than the average nonunionized private sector employee. Using data from the Bureau of Labor statistics, we find that unionized private sector workers earn, on average, 22% more than the average nonunionized worker. His economic analysis is off by about 278% :)" Well, you just proved the potential of abuse of collective bargaining. This bill would only make that worse and make it easier for unions to screw up wages like that. Now let me sum this baby up. What my opponent's case is built on is putting more money in the pockets of workers. However what he fails to realize is that this is not always suitable in every situation, and definitely shouldn't be done by force. He fails to realize that forcing higher wages can ultimately lead to job cuts. His argument only reaps short term effects. It'tl be all fun and games until suddenly the business goes bankrupt which I believe Chrysler is doing. Given this recession, if we value anything it ought to be the salvation of businesses as well as the creation of jobs.