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

To begin, there is one thing that my opponent and I fundamentally agree on, and that is the fact that is the EFCA were to be passed it would severely increase the depth of U.S. labor unions. With that said, there is one thing that we fundamentally disagree on as well, and that is the impact that the increase of that depth would have on the American people. This will be important to understand throughout the debate, for the question is not whether or not the act will increase unionization, but rather what impact that unionization will have. I negate that the increase in depth will be in the best interests of the American people, and here's why: 1.) The EFCA will result in astronomical job-loss 2.) American union membership has declined dramatically since the 1950's, showing that it's clearly not what the American people want. Contention 1: The EFCA will result in astronomical uncompensated job-loss. Subpoint A: collective bargaining one thing specifically mandated by EFCA is an easier access to bargaining agreements for employees to employers. bargaining agreements are basically where employees have a representative try and negotiate with the employer for better pay, conditions, ect. if they fail to come to an agreement, the EFCA mandates that an arbitrator from the union settle the matters regardless of the wishes of the employer. Although this seems like it might be advantageous for the American worker, the results are opposite. An OECD study published in 1997 using data from 1980-1994 finds that a 1 percentage point increase in bargaining coverage unambiguously increases unemployment rates by 7.5 percentage(1) as the statistics show, the more that bargain coverage is integrated and allowed within the United States through unions, the higher the unemployment rates in the united states. so sure, people may have better wages, at the expense of millions of jobs lost. Subpoint B: Union membership to Job-loss Ratio in her study AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS. noted economist Anne Layne-Farrar elaborates on the effects of unionization the U.S. economy concluding through her analysis that: " for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration, the following year's unemployment rate is predicted to increase by 1 percentage point and job creation is predicted to fall by around 1.5 million jobs." she continues by concluding "...if EFCA passed today and resulted in an increase in unionization from the current rate of about 12% to 15%, then unionized workers would increase from 15.5 to 19.6 million while unemployment a year from now would rise by 1.5 million, to 10.4 million. If EFCA were to increase the percentage of private sector union membership by between 5 and 10 percentage points, as some have suggested, my analysis indicates that unemployment would increase by 2.3 to 5.4 million in the following year and the unemployment rate would increase by 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points in the following year."(2) Logically by her empirical analysis, we can successfully conclude what kind of impact this EFCA would have on the economy; unprecedented job loss. CONTENTION 2:American union membership has declined dramatically since the 1950's because of declining employment in unionized industries , showing that it's clearly not what the American people want. according to the data and graphs given given by Hirsch in 2008(3), union membership in the U.S. went from an all time high in 1957 of 35%, to an all time low of about 9% in 2006, the last year for which data was recorded. It is plain to see that when Union memberships have decreased almost 27 percent in the past 50 years, that the American people see them as non-advantageous. This is due to the high declines in employment in heavily unionized industries. Logically, the only way that unions can get better wages and conditions for these workers is through decreasing their supply of people who need to be employed. This is because insofar as businesses were paying more people to do less work, they are now paying less people higher wagers to do more work to keep competitive. Noted economist Anne Layne-Farrar elaborates that"... EFCA supporters (my opponent included) contend that the unions' steady decline in the US is the result of employer misconduct that has been improperly permitted under US labor law. YET, the levels of unionized workers have declined everywhere in developed economies,regardless of the labor law regime in effect. For example, Visser analyzed data from 14 developed countries and concludes that private sector unionization across all countries has been strongly declining since the 1970s. A key factor in this trend has been the declining employment in heavily unionized industries – e.g., the US auto industry – which obviously has contributed to enormous decreases in union membership."(4) At the point where people who are members of the Unions realize the that concept is flawed, is the same point at which we must negate. I will conclude with this quote from Layne-Farrar's analysis. " EFCA is unlikely to achieve its main goal of improving social welfare, which should take into account possible consequences not only for union members but for all other individuals, because the proposed rules would likely have detrimental effects on the unemployment rate and job creation. These are two adverse effects that America can ill afford at any time, but especially at this time of recession." The proposed plan might have some good results for the small population of union workers, but insofar as we are debating about the acts impact on the American people, we must address the impacts on the American society as a whole. Because of the ridiculous unemployment rates that will result from this act, because of America's increased dislike of Labor Unions, and because of the overall inadequacy that Labor Unions provide for the America, we must negate. SOURCES: all data taken from this article http://papers.ssrn.com... (1)41OECD, EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK 1997 at 76; Nickell and Layard, supra note 38; Richard Jackman, Mass Unemployment: International Experience and Lessons for Policy, (London School of Economics, Center for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No. 152, 1993). (2)Stefano Scarpetta, Assessing the Role of Labor Market Policies and Institutional Settings on Unemployment: A Cross-Country Study, 26 OECD ECON. STUD. 43 (1996); Stephen Nickell and R. Layard, Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance, in HANDBOOK OF LABOR ECONOMICS (O. Ashenfelter and S. Card, eds. 1999). (3)Source: Hirsch (2008), Data Appendix. (4)Jelle Visser, Union Membership Statistics in 24 Countries, MONTHLY LAB. REV., Jan. 2006, at 38.