That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people.

My partner and I negate, "Resolved: That the employee free choice act of 2009 is in the best interest of the American people. It is necessary first, to define just what American interests are. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the % of unionized workers in America was just 16.1 million Americans in 2008. When evaluating this debate, it is important to note that benefits for these select few employees do not offset the economic harms incurred by all 310 million Americans. For every dollar lost in the American Economy, NINETEEN dollars must be earned by workers in order for the economic impacts even out. It is for this reason that my partner and I choose solely to structure our debate on the economic ramifications of the act. We observe the following economic disadvantages to passing the Employee Free Choice Act: First: The EFCA will harm business productivity. , restrictive agreements negotiated through employers and employees strangle the employers grip on working hours, and production quotas. As unions acquire less hours for their members, on the whole the business suffers. These practices chokehold employers into exponentially high costs, simply due to unionization; the employer has to shell out extra money to pay for higher wages, while at the same time the employer saves less money in production costs. Robert LaLonde of the Association for the Development of Economic Research finds, "labor productivity falls by 10 percent by the second year after unionization, and by an even larger amount in our sample of plants with at least ten years of continuous data." Unionized firms are, a result, drastically less competitive than other nonunionized firms. Second: The EFCA will skyrocket unemployment rates. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago writes, ""Wage increases have harmful economic effects. The union markup of wages causes firms to lower employment and output, thereby harming economic efficiency."" Economist Robert LaLonde of the Association for the Development of Economic Research concluded that, "employment fell by 18 percentage points in firms in which the union won the certification election compared to firms in which the union lost." It is important to note that Robert LaLonde and Epstein are both discussing the unemployment affect EMPIRICALLY in the UNITED STATES. Statistics from other countries (especially global organizations like the OECD, which average out data even in countries like Britain / France / Germany where unions don't have to bargain for healthcare, so the cost to employers is much lower.) As a result, data on the impact of unionization must be drawn from U.S. evidence - which is empirically shown to harm the economy. Third: The EFCA will hurt the American consumer, by raising the price of goods. To help offset the costs of higher wages and the impact of diminished productivity, unionized companies are forced to charge higher prices for their goods. Harvard economist James Medoff reports that unionized firms sell, on average, goods that are 22% higher in price than their nonunionized counterparts – even though the quality of those goods remains relatively static. Fourth: The EFCA will lead to diminished innovation. Economist Paula Voos of Rutgers university concluded that innovation was one of the most important factors in ensuring U.S. competitiveness globally. Unfortunately, unions stifle innovation. Economists Julian Betts and Michael Wilson of the University of California conclude that, "in an industry that increases 1% in union density, research and development falls by .8%." In a global economy, newer and more efficient products are necessary to ensure economic stability. By stifling R&D through higher costs incurred, U.S. companies will fail to remain competitive on a global scale. Heightened costs of unionization have no economic benefits. The EFCA ensures that all levels of the economy – consumers, workers and businesses – are economically harmed. Productivity losses, inflation and unemployment skyrocket under the act's jurisdiction, and it is for this reason that we urge you to negate. As to my opponents case: === CONTENTION ONE === A: LABOR LAW IS BROKEN - My opponent cites a study by Kate Bronfenbrenner, which offers clear methodological flaws. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago writes, ""In the Bronfenbrenner study she examines a random sample of elections that rests exclusively on the evaluations of the "lead organizers" of these campaigns without any cross check to official or employer records. Her collection method of the survey data is in itself sufficient reason to discredit her results in their entirety." - Studies by the Center of Union Facts, which use NLRB data (i.e. unbiased and complete data) find that employers only fire employees THREE percent of the time. Obviously the problem is NOT widespread if it occurs in only three percent of circumstances. - The same problem with Bronfenbrenner applies to the Lafer study, which, again, does not rely on NLRB data. John-Paul Ferguson, MIT Graduate and labor law analyst concludes, " "ULP charges are an awkward measure of illegal activity by employers because union organizers can file them for strategic reasons even when no illegal activity has taken place. One indication of legitimacy is whether the NLRB found the charge meritorious. It only did so in approximately 7% of elections." As a result, we see the impact of Subpoint A being minimal. It only affects 7% of unions, approximately 1million people, while hurting 310 million americans. Subpoint B: ELIMINATION OF COERCION - This subpoint is irrelevant, as it only eliminates illegal tactics in SEVEN percent of elections. ==== Contention Two: Economic Benefits ==== - He cites a study by Harvard Economist James Medoff, however at the back of that study, Medoff runs his economic model and finds that PRODUCTIVITY could also be switched with a PRICE INCREASE and the economic model will still produce the same results. It is much likelier that price increases account for the results of the model, insofar as empirical examples prove it. 1/2 of the cost of every car GM creates is accounted for through union pension plans. - The only remaining economic evidence is in sales and jobs, but this data relies on the price of goods going down - which it doesn't. Moreover, that study DOES NOT account for the jobs LOST because of unions, or sales diminished because of unions, just their impact. As is empirically shown, while higher wages may lead to an increase in jobs in some companies, the unionized company's sales and employment rates drop DRAMATICALLY (18% decreased employment according to LaLonde, and with the price of goods skyrocketing 22% - we can see a gigantic amount of sales being lost. - Three of the impacts are empirically negated (Productivity, more jobs, and cheaper goods.) The only benefit of unions is the increase in GDP, which is clearly offset by a loss of jobs, productivity, competitiveness and increases in prices. To summarize the impacts: POLITICS: The political impacts are not a big deal, insofar as they only affect 1/310th of all Americans. Instead, this debate is purely economic. ECONOMICS: The Con gives you empirical data proving the following impacts of unionization: 1) Reduced Productivity 2) Reduced Employment 3) Higher Prices 4) Reduced Innovation All four of these impacts combine to outline a dramatic decrease in unionized firm competitiveness. This decrease can be attributed to the recent decline in unionization. Henry Farber of Princeton University writes, "The decline in union membership rates was due primarily to changes in the economic environment that made union representation of less value to workers and more costly to employers." So it is because unions help 1/310 of Americans, but hurt all 310million, that I urge you to negate.