Right to work laws.

I thank the debate instigator for finally attempting to establish the parameters of this debate, and I hope for future debates, the instigator will remember to specify what the debate is about at the outset. Arguing on a point by point basis is necessary element of achieving reason debate, and Pro's derision of my addressing each of his points using facts, logic or reason as 'backhanded,' 'unreasonable' and 'disrespectful' unfortunately means my opponent is intolerant to debate or discussion on his claims. In a debate, an argument is made, and the opposition generally counterargues against points or claims made and attempting to make their own arguments. This is how debate is supposed to work in every venue I have debated in. I regret Pro seems unfamiliar with this and is even expressing hostility. Despite this, I feel compelled to continue pointing out flaws in select claims/points made by Pro points in addition to attempting to make pointsof my own. 2) Unions represent workers, and despite replete union opposition claims, are more productive, safer, and use their influence to encourage people to buy union products, effectively making them a source of free 'grassroots' advertising paid for out of the workers' pockets. Unions do not prosper on cronyism, given their limited power and resources, every position within a union must be functional. It is ludicrous to accuse unions of putting cronies in positions when those positions demand sharp skills, such as accounting contract law experts to negotiate labor contracts with the employer. Pro's argument also completely ignores the fact that non-union shops are rich with cronyism, employers having nothing to answer for to their employees since employers are not elected by the employees. 3) Many states still have laws on the books requiring a person be a practicing Christian before taking public office. That does not mean those laws are right. Furthermore, the fact corporate interests such as the Koch brothers have destroyed laws allowing workers to unionize in several states is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not outlawing union shops is a good or bad thing. 4) A) All of Pro's arguments, except the binary 'true/false' of what the laws are in some states, are unsubstantiated and unsupported. It is a fact that 'RTW' states take more in federal funding than the people of those states pay in federal taxes. It is a fact, and Pro even boasted about it, that the pay for workers in those states is substantially lower than in states that still allow workers in shops to vote to become union shops, and it is a fact that without unions to negotiate wages, employers deflate wages to below poverty levels; Wal-Mart being a huge example. In many states, full-time Wal-Mart workers qualify for public assistance. The UC Berkley Labor Study, in a 2004 study, in fact, found that in 2004, "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance." (source: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...) Wal-Mart is the biggest example because of their number of stores and overall size. The Walton family and Wal-Mart's upper management give themselves massive raises every single year, exploiting workers at sub-poverty wages and -- despite their massive wealth -- creating significant strains on state and federal public assistance programs as a substitute for paying fair wages and allowing union representation. By this argument alone -- non-union shops pay wages so low that full-time workers are dependent on public assistance -- union-busting 'RTW' laws are bad, costing taxpayers a lot of money and contributing to the debt crises in not only the U.S. federal budget, but many state budgets. B) is baseless and C) is false as my state -- Washington -- has had a huge influx of people moving from non-union states to work at places like Boeing, which is a union shop. D) Lack of union bargaining does not reduce cost, it depresses wages and benefits, it increases reliance by full-time workers on public assistance (PROVEN above -with- referece)) which increases strain on taxpayers as well as lowering the quality of life for most of the people in the U.S., while the gap between rich and poor continues grows wider and wider. The destruction of unions leading sub-poverty wages so many American workers now get paid despite double-digit % increases year after year for the already wealthy corporate heads is a major gaping wound in the U.S. economy. It prevents even those with full-time jobs from being able to make their mortgage payments or rent and unable to buy goods such as cars while CEOs who completely crash their massive corporations so badly that the government has to bail out those corporations take huge 'golden parachute' bonuses whilst the workers get squat. E) False and unreasonable. F) I proved this false in the above example of Wal-Mart. 5) Unions are organizations and are no more businesses than the Humane Society or a Presbyterian church. That you fail to distinguish a business that makes CEOs wealthy by exploiting its workers from a union that only thrives when its workers thrive is a logic, reason and comprehension flaw on your part. That you claim an individual has or even believes they have a capacity to successfully negotiate a contract with an employer that favors them is beyond the pale in falseness and unreasonableness. In legal court, a person representing themselves (aside from 'small claims' courts) is highly unlikely to succeed; similarly, a worker alone is unlikely to negotiate a good deal for themselves without collective bargaining power. Unions have the power because they can choose from their ranks the best negotiator to negotiate AND because if management refuses to bargain, the union has power that individuals lack to organize a strike. One individual with no union representing them can quit, but are quickly replaced ... losing the entire team of experienced workers is one of the very few means workers have of not being forced to accept sub-par contracts. 6) It is a common complaint made by corporate fatcats that outspend unions while representing a far smaller number of people, but that does not make it true. I have worked union jobs, sir, so if you want to ask a union worker, you are speaking to one right now. The fact that corporate interests have all but destroyed the unions' rights to try to balance out the massive unchecked political contributions made by the likes of the Waltons and the Koch brothers -- with absolutely no say at all from any of the workers in their corporations -- have managed to buy Congress and give themselves power and actually outlaw any effort by counterbalancing organizations like unions is beside the point. I must also apologize to my opponent for the slowness of my own response, as I have had to deal with a family emergency. I have virtually consumed my response buffer, so will end my argument for this round here with a request that Pro at least attempt to address the points I made at the end of my argument in Round 1 after I had counter-argued the points made by Pro in his opening argument.