Right to work laws.

Since my opponent forfeited the last round, I will take this opportunity to make new contentions in support of my position. A) "Right to Work" states are falsely named; employment is no better in "right to work" states -- in fact (Michigan being an exception), "right to work" states tend to have higher levels of unemployment. Further, with no union protection for workers, employers fire employees frequently without just cause by relying on the fact that without a union to provide legal representation for workers, workers are unlikely to be able to get legal representation of their own in abusive, unjust firing. B) Without unions continuously struggling to improve workplace conditions, "right to work" states have 52.9% higher rates of fatal workplace accidents -- more than half again the workplace fatality rate in union states, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. C) Most union members get 28% more pay than workers in "Right To Work" anti-union states; the disparity is even higher for Hispanics who get half again more pay than Hispanic workers in "Right To Work" anti-union states. D) Higher wages aside, nearly four out of five private sector union shop jobs provide health insurance versus only about half no-union workers. About three-quarters of private sector union shop jobs also provide a guaranteed retirement plan, compared with only one in five non-union jobs. With lower pay, non-union members are unlikely to be able to afford to get these benefits on their own. E) In 1980, when unions were stronger, executive pay averaged 42 times worker pay. As unions have been busted by Republicans over the years under the excuse that companies cannot afford union pay for workers, executive pay in 2009 was 263 times worker pay. Clearly, the "companies can't afford union wages" argument is completely bogus, as without a union to represent workers, those in power in a company will concentrate the pay in the upper management. Union shops are the only way workers can reduce the obscene inequities that get worse year after year, leaving workers with sub-poverty wages (so bad that full-time workers at mega-companies like Wal-Mart qualify for public assistance). F) Given E, it is little wonder that "right-to-work" states pay less in federal taxes and drain more of federal public assistance. Workers in union shops making better pay with useful benefits contribute more to taxes and are less of a strain on public assistance, so union shops help balance the budget while "right to work" poverty-wage jobs. If reducing the federal and state deficits is something of value, "right to work" is definitely the wrong way to go. G) Furthering the deficit argument, the concentration of wealth noted in E) is a double-whammy for the deficit -- in addition to workers making too little to contribute to government income in non-union states, a recent article by Stephen Ohlemacher of The Associated Press http://letters.salon.com... notes that thanks to loopholes and a paltry 15% capital gains tax (something only the very wealthy have), the 400 wealthiest Americans pay an average of only 17% in tax. With workers in their companies not earning enough to pay much tax, and the wealthy company executives paying very little thanks to all the loopholes, non-union shops do not pay their fair share in taxes; by contrast, union workers -- with their decent pay -- pay more of federal tax (more of their income than the wealthy). With the concentration of wealth so bad in "right to work states" and that wealth concentration so minimally taxed, that is a significant contribution to the deficit. The above facts and points further the conclusion that "right to work" anti-union laws not only harm workers through lower pay and lack of benefits such as health insurance, but they contribute to the budget deficit, and if you agree that having a budget deficit is a bad thing, than so is "right to work." Its bad for workers, its bad for the nation.