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

Alright, we'll start on the NEG - then we'll reinforce the Pro. CONTENTION ONE: Job-Loss Subpoint A: Collective Bargaining - Alright, it's important to note that "being covered by collective bargaining" and being unionized are the same thing. You can't be covered unless you're unionized. As a result, union density = collective bargaining coverage. That said, let's look to my opponent's source: The OECD from 1980-1994 finds that union density -> unemployment. Let's look to a more recent source, "The OECD concluded in 2006 , ""The impact of union density on unemployment is statistically insignificant." (1) A more recent source by my opponent's same organization is obviously preferable to his data. - In order to prevent this point from becoming a wash, I'll provide a secondary study enforcing my argument. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Labor Law expert of Cornell University writes, ""Of the original campaigns, in 1 percent the employer shut down all or part of the plant after the election was won. In the another 1%, the employer shut down all or part of the plant after the election was lost." (2) Simply put, whether the union won or lost the election had ZERO impact on job-loss. The same amount of firms were forced into layoffs by market forces where there was NO union. Subpoint B: Anne Layne-Farrar Study - It's important to note methodological flaws with Layne-Farrar's study. First: Her analysis of Canadian labor unions, while Bronfenbrenners is of unions in the U.S. this is the first reason you prefer the Cornell study. Second: She only used data from THREE provinces, one of which, Newfoundland has historically high unemployment rates REGARDLESS of union density. Three: She was commissioned by an Anti-Union organization to conduct her study, while Bronfenbrenner worked independently to publish her study in a labor journal. You have no reason to accept a biased, flawed and irrelevant study over a relevant, relatively unbiased and effective one. CONTENTION TWO: Unions have declined because of industry changes so people don't want them. OK - it's important to note that the reasoning behind why unions have declined is insufficient to prove the second part of his contention, which is where he says "showing that's clearly not what the American people want." Reasons why unions have declined do not prove the American people don't want unions. In fact, the only real way to see what the American people want is to ask them. Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted a survey, which concluded that, "Americans are strongly in favor of labor unions." Moreover, Americans strongly support the EFCA itself, with "73% saying they favor the legislation." (3) - Next, let's look to the individual impact of employer coercion on unionization. While I agree to some extent that market forces can account for some of the decline of unionization, it is apparent that employers must shoulder some of the blame. He talks about how unions have declined in all markets, but that doesn't explain why unions have declined at a much faster rate in the United States than in other industrialized nations. (4) In the years my opponent gives, union density has shrunk 27% in the past 50 years - but in that same period, employer violations of labor law have increased 600%. (5) - Finally, the impact of employer coercion on an election outcome is very clear. Kate Bronfenbrenner expounds, "Union election win rates were significantly lower in units where threats occurred than in units without threats." (2) SUMMARY: The points in the debate can be broken down into two main areas: 1st - The political impacts of EFCA. It is important to note that my opponent offers no real analysis into workplace politics, instead he ignore the political arguments and goes straight for the economic ones, while I provide you with reasoned political AND economic arguments. It is important to note that in this round, if economics becomes a wash (i.e. no clear way to vote) then one should vote PRO because this is the only side with political impacts. To summarize the political impacts of the PRO: - The NLRA is insufficient in protecting workers. 51% of unionization campaigns employers illegally threaten employees in a campaign for unionization. Moreover, in 25% of campaigns employers illegally fire employees for supporting unionization. These numbers quantified result in an average of 30,000 unfair labor practices each year, and over 15,000 employees illegally punished for supporting a union. - The EFCA is the only way to correct these flaws. My increasing the price of breaking the law 10 times, employers are largely disincentivized to commit these crimes. As a result, employer coercion is directly attacked and stopped with the EFCA. 2nd - Economic impacts. - Observe, the only economic impact coming from the CON case is that of unemployment, but the PRO gives you three clear reasons to prefer the Cornell study to the clearly flawed Layne-Farrar study. Additionally, the OECD study presented by the CON is outdated, and is clearly refuted by it's modern counterpart, which concludes that the findings of the previous study are not applicable today. - The PRO, on the other hand, is giving you several impacts: 1) Higher productivity. Unionized companies save 22% more money than nonunionized firms, counterbalancing the cost of higher wages, or, as it is in most cases, overcoming that cost. Higher productivity counteracting higher costs means that employers are NOT impacted by the passage of EFCA. 2) For the companies that earn excess money, the effects are clear. Employers can lower prices of goods, attracting more customers and benefiting the average american consumer. 3) All unionized firms which have any economic impact are firms which pay higher wages - higher wages means more money spent in the economy. Higher wages means higher GDP development. 4) More income means more taxes. Economic Roundtable estimates that LA unions generate over 7 billion in tax revenue on all levels of governments. 5) Those companies that benefit from unionization can employ more people - an example is the LA unions, where 65,000 jobs have been created. 6) As more people buy from companies, the stock of those companies will rise. This benefits the stock market on the whole, affecting all those who were hit hard by the credit crisis. When voting in this round, it becomes clear: The PRO gives you an uncontested political impact, and 6 economic impacts that the CON does not counteract. Instead, the CON provides a shoddy and biased unemployment argument, which does not hold up to cross-reference and further inspection. I, like my opponent, end with a quote. Chief Justice Hughes once said: "to safeguard the right of employees to self-organization and to select representatives of their own choosing for collective bargaining or other mutual protection without restraint or coercion by their employer. That is a fundamental right. Long ago we stated the reason for labor organizations. We said that they were organized out of the necessities of the situation; that a single employee was helpless in dealing with an employer; that he was dependent ordinarily on his daily wage for the maintenance of himself and family; that, if the employer refused to pay him the wages that he thought fair, he was nevertheless unable to leave the employ and resist arbitrary and unfair treatment; that union was essential to give laborers opportunity to deal on an equality with their employer." My studies got cut off, here's citation: 1: http://www.oecd.org... 2: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu... 3:http://www.sharedprosperity.org... 4: http://www.law.harvard.edu... 5: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...