BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector

The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.[I1]  In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.[1] Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.[2] [1] Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insura... [2] “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u. http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-marketfailure-positive-externalities.html
Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process

Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work. Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.[1] [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion

Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work. Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.[1] [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion

Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result. Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public. Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.[1] [1] Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390
Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies

The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way. Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.[1] [1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentr
Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies

The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way. Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.[1] [1] “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College. http://northcentralcollege.edu/documents/student_life/Teacher%20Skills_Skills%20Assessment.pdf
Collective Bargaining is a Right.

As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.[1] [1] Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all
Collective Bargaining is Not a Right

Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process. Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.[1]  The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system. Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.[2] [1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011, http://www.detnews.com/article/20111130/AUTO01/111300437/GM-Ford-warn-rail-strike-could-cripple-auto-industry [2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011 http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/02/guess-what-there-is-no-right-to-collective-bargaining/
Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector

The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.[1]  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily. Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector. [1] Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/25/why-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-is-right-about-collective-bargaining
Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process

The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public. Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers.  As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.[1] [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion

The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public. Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers.  As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.[1] [1] “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011 http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=234947
There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council.

There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman has politely opposed the endorsement (India’s candidacy in the UNSC), saying it will complicate the process of expanding the UN Security Council and increasing the number of its permanent members. He has referred, as has been done on several past occasions, to India’s bad record on human rights, unsatisfactory relations with its neighbours etc.” [1] Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese. [1] 'A permanent UN SC seat for India?', 9/11/2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/74621/a-permanent-un-sc-seat-for-india/ improve this
The bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations.

By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. There are also the rebels in the Arab countries. There are a lot of concerns and the developed countries should give the developing ones the opportunity to participate in the process of their discussion and solution. improve this
The Security council needs to be more democratic.

At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1] [1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010,  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11023.doc.htm improve this
There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council.

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1] [1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003' http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Reform.doc improve this
By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate.

This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security council resolutions due to the deadlocked nature of the council. In the 20 years since there have been over 1300 resolutions.1 The negotiation process would also be significantly longer. As a result the peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step. 1 Wikipedia, United Nations Security Council resolution,
The bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations.

As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations, both because they are the main contributors to the budget1 and because the Security Council members pay more towards peacekeeping2 they should have the main role in deciding on action. Developing countries already have a voice in the Council but should not have a veto power over decisions that they do not finance. Developed countries would not agree to pay for something they are not happy with. In the contemporary world economy and business are fundamental and they are the ones who drive the world. 1 Contributions to the United Nations budget 2 United Nations, 'Financing Peacekeeping', improve this
The current Security Council doesn't reflect the economic reality of the 21st century.

Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution and wouldn’t, for that matter, be a equitable distribution either. Japan in particular is not as deserving as has been suggested; although it is rich Japan has been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. The Japanese economy has been recently hit by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster “Before Japan's 2011 earthquake, its economy was just starting to emerge from its deepest recession since the 1970s(…)Japan's economy is still challenged by rising commodity prices -- the country imports most of its food and oil -- and a shrinking labor pool, as its population ages. Japan's worst challenge is a national debt that is twice as big as its annual economic output.” [1] Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. Germany spends only 1.27% of its GDP on military defence, in comparison to 2.32% for UK and France. [2] This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions. [1] Amadeo, Kimberly. 'Japan's Economy', 26/08/2011 http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/Japan_Recession.htm [2] 'Military of the European Union' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union improve this
The EU is one of the world's largest trade blocs, has the world's largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people.

In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power. improve this
A UNSC reform is very hard to achieve due to the many different interests and demands.

It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It maybe hard to achieve consensus on what exactly to be the change in the UNSC, but the new international environment requests that. This is supported by a lot of leading politicians and leaders in a global aspect. "The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform" 1"The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization." 1 (Dmitry Medvedev) 1 "The reform of the United Nations Security Council: What role for the European Union?" Bureau of Public Affairs (USA) , June 20, 2005,  2 Address to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly 23/09/2009, improve this