Public Labor Unions Are Beneficial to Society

I shall now attempt, as demanded by the rules, to offer my rebuttal to his original arguments. A point-by-point analysis of my opponent's round 2 shall thus be offered. I. EconomicsI. a. UnemploymentIn this argument my opponent attempts to explain how labour unions increase unemployment. My opponent first says that unions forcibly raise wages for employees, which supposedly causes losses for the company and forces it to raise prices. The problem is that my opponent failed to look outside the pure capitalistic sphere of labour; yes, in theory my opponent may be right, but in reality, the wages offered to the workers are a repayment for their labour, proportional to its quality. The greater the quality of labour, the greater the wage demanded - that is true. However, the greater the quality of labour, the greater the effectivity and productivity. As for the reduction of the amount of employment, unions themselves fight against it; and there is no reason to change the quantity of workers if it is productive, which I have now, and in round , proven to be true. My opponent's logic falls apart the moment it leaves the sphere of profit, because he fails to consider the human factor. Despite a large body of positive psychological research into the relationship between happiness and productivity, happiness at work has traditionally been seen as a potential by-product of positive outcomes at work, rather than a pathway to success in business. However a growing number of scholars, Boehm and Lyubomirsky included, state that it should be viewed as one of the major sources of positive outcomes in the workplace. [1]. My opponent then claims that unions reduce labour supply, but they do exactly the opposite. They motivate workers to work through the offering of solid work conditions. If cooperated with properly, unions can definitely increase labour supply. What my opponent is trying to say is that there will be more workers demanding a certain wage than employers offering it. However, employers are aware that costs can be repayed through productive work and they are aware that productive work is achieved through happiness. He then again talks about limiting development through enforcing higher wages, to which I've already offered my rebuttal. I. ii InflationMy opponent uses a possible inflation of prices as his next argument. It is true that unions might cause prices to rise, there is no denying that. But, as I've said in round 2, labour unions strengthen the domestic market, making it the only true source of goods (eliminating or restricting imports). Thus, the spending in the domestic market increases, because the citizens must buy goods somewhere; increasing the capital in the domestic market and forming the basis r a strong economy. I thus argue that a certain rise in prices may not be negative as my opponent suggests. As for the claim about the price of labour, I have alreay explained that the price of labour is proportional to its quality. II. WorkingMy oponent claims unions increase sloth because they protect their employees' jobs and discourage firing. On the other hand, however, it has already been pointed out in round 2 that unhappy workers are lazy workers; they have no motivation for work and they are certainly not productive. Sloth is encouraged by employee disengagement, which is caused by unhappiness. Unions serve to combat that. Yes, perhaps unionized workers are more protected. But, if they are motivated to work and aware that they will be offered good conditions and a fair reward for their labour, I see no problem in that. One must always look to achiev productivity, and I have proven how unions succeed at doing just that. III. Other WorkersMy opponent's final argument is based on how unionized workers increae wages for themselves etc. That is most logical; who else would they increase wages for? There is no discrimination or inequality between workers. Workers have the choice to join a union or not to; no one is forcing them to do anything. Workers that join a union will push for an improvement to their conditions. This is all about choice and I do not see the relevance in this argument. Back to my opponent. Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...