On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United states

As I stated in my opening argument, it is unfair to answer this question in relation to the present day without considering past impacts that unionization has had on America and analyzing unionization as a whole. Since this debate appears to be focusing on governmental unions as opposed to unions which exist in the private sector I will post my argument in the same vein. I will demonstrate in this section that most criticisms which my opponent has used in the previous post are merely effects of a sluggish economy. Many people in recent past have demonized unions and attributed unionization as the reasoning behind this decline however there are many factors that must be considered and unionization is nowhere near the top of that list. When addressing the idea of pensions we must ask ourselves whether or not these wages are 'fair'. By fair I mean that two independent parties agreed upon and set terms for employment which are now binding. These parties would be unable to cause any harm to the other and thus each would agree to the contract on their own accord. I contend that while the idea of government employees earning large salaries after they have retired may seem to be excessive, these contracts were agreed to by the employers and thus are valid. I also will demonstrate that private sector jobs have much more income potential than public positions have ever had. Governmental Unions negotiate with elected representatives and establish contracts. These contracts are drafted on a mass level and applied to all members of that union in order to increase productivity and efficiency with regards to contract renewal, hiring, promotions, etc. .. Since the unions negotiate with elected officials the American people have indirect control over the hiring of these workers. A union which pushes too far in negotiations will be met with a public backlash which will make it even harder for the union to achieve it's goals. Due to these constraints in contract negotiations we must agree that the pensions being earned are being awarded in a fair manner. Any discrepancy in this matter would surely cause disturbance in the voting population which would influence the actions of the administration. I'll address the general idea of the unions causing an economic deficit in this section rather than isolating each of the above arguments. While I agree that my opponent has defined situations in which unionized labour does create a drain on government resources, it seems foolhardy to make unions the sacrificial lamb for government deficit. The United States is currently undertaking two foreign wars, bailing out automakers and bankers (All private sector workers) and dealing with a housing market collapse. To contend that unionized labour has caused the present situation seems to be slightly out of touch with the current situation both foreign and domestic. I would in fact contend that unions were responsible for the generation of the wealth that we enjoy today. As we witness sweatshop labour in third world countries we must analyze our own past and consider the industrial revolution where employers looked for any opportunity to cut costs even at the expense of worker safety. In an isolated state and employee is much less likely to fight for what they believe is a fair wage, nor will they feel comfortable refusing to undertake an assignment which endangers their physical well being. During the 1930s unions were able to create safe standards for workplaces and created a better distribution of wealth by ensuring that no employees were taken advantage of. This ideal of increasing living conditions for the masses led to the automation of assembly lines and the manufacturing of affordable goods. Furthermore, by levelling the playing field the 'american dream' was realized in that all workers had the potential to compete under fair and even standards. This new distribution of wealth created a society of consumers which further spurred economic growth. Entering into the 1950s and 60s we can see that the unionization of workers created a cycle launching the United States as the strongest economy of the world. Without unionization it is arguable that workers would have remained oppressed by their employees and the economy would have run stagnant as it now exists in third world nations. Finally, in regards to governmental corruption I must stand strong upon my previous argument that the labour union does not contribute nearly as much money as private interests into governmental campaigns. Oil companies, Auto makers, Investment firms and many other industries have strong lobbies in Washington with much more influence. If a union is to be effective and eventually accomplish it's goals it must effect change in legislation which protects employee's rights, and we have demonstrated that worker's rights generate economic growth by creating a larger base of potential consumers. This influence in Washington is a positive force in the United States and should be encouraged, even if only to drown out the deafening bellows of private lobby groups. I'm quite enjoying this exchange of ideas and I enjoy hearing your point of view. I look forward to being able to conclude this and put it forward to voting. Please read both sides and consider them well!