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

My partner and I affirm, "Resolved: That the employee free choice act of 2009 is in the best interest of the American people." Contention One: The EFCA restores workplace democracy. Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University writes, "51% of all employers illegally threaten employees during a campaign for union certification. Moreover, one in four employers illegally fires a union representative in an attempt to stifle union activity." The current system of unionization is broken, it is lined with illegal activity by employers who put down tremendous pressure on employees, by threatening them in the majority of circumstances, or in some cases – even firing them. Because of these practices, the effort to unionize becomes a fruitless task – no sane individual would vote in a manner that would cost them their job. In fact, Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon conducted an exit-poll of individuals after an election to unionize, and the main reason employees voted against unionization was because of employer pressure. The EFCA eliminates these unfair practices in two ways: First: Current labor law is insufficient in punishing these employer violations. In fact, there are 0 punitive sanctions imposed for breaking a federal labor law during an election campaign. The EFCA places a high price on breaking the law – up to 29,000 dollars per violation. These strong penalties will discourage employers from their future violations of labor law. Second: The Employee Free Choice Act diminishes both employer and employee coercion through without a secret ballot there will be undue influence upon employees to vote a specific way in unionization, but the facts don't support this. A 2009 survey by Adrienne Eaton of Cornell University finds that employees felt less pressure from all sources and reported that they "felt freer" to vote as they wished in the card-check campaign compared to a secret ballot election. Giving employees the option to vote as they wish is clearly the first step to establishing workplace democracy. Contention Two: The EFCA replenishes the American Economy. Opponents of the EFCA argue that higher wages lead to less unionized positions – but this isn't true. In fact, in 1997 the OECD – an unbiased global organization of over 100 countries worldwide – determined that "union density has a positive relationship with employment rates." Additionally, Dr. Paula Voos of Rutgers University writes, "Unions…reduce turnover and [as a result] firm specific skills are retained. Since unions increase compensation, firms are incentivized to invest in new technology further increasing productivity." With less people quitting as a result of unionization, and with firms innovating into new technology productivity skyrockets. Harvard Economist James Medoff concluded that, "unionized firms are 22% more productive because of lower turnover rates and innovated workplace strategies." On the whole, this means that while workers are receiving more compensation their work, the employer is also generating more income. The benefits of unionization can be listed as follows: 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. 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. 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. So it because unions restore democracy in the workplace by eliminating illegal activity and establishing a coercion free environment, while at the same time increasing GDP, helping small businesses and generating revenue – that I urge you to affirm. 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% Empirically, he has testimony from one union organizer - this is data compiled from over 400 NLRB elections. 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. His C2: - He argues that arbitrators will be unknowledgable. This point is just blatantly false. The FMCS, the organization that would administer an arbitrator, lists the following on their recruitment bulletin: "an applicant must have substantial full-time experience (acquired over a period of several years) in the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements in a leadership/spokesperson role or a similar role in agreement administration within his/her organization. experience will generally encompass utilization of varied bargaining processes, substantial knowledge of contract language, familiarity with a broad scope of subjects, experience in numerous and diverse bargaining circumstances, and knowledge of joint processes to improve labor-management relationships. Such experience must have been obtained within the most recent ten years. The bulletin also outlines 9 different areas of expertise relating to collective bargaining, including: "Advanced knowledge of collective bargaining practices gained through progressively responsible and successful experience in the negotiation and/or administration of collective bargaining agreements and the resolution of labor management conflict" and "Knowledge of economic, management and labor trends, and of current developments and problems in the field of business." - 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. Finally, his third contention: - 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% :) Instead, look to the empirical data from across the U.S. I give you - it is clearly shown, in my 3rd contention, that the economy benefits under the EFCA.