Labor Unions

My Case:Point 1: Labor Unions increase Unemployment and Inflation. [1]Unions raise wages for unionized employees. This means that they are paying a higher cost for labor. If revenue does not go up enough to match the wage price increase, the company will definitely be making less profit. Why? Because costs went up. This reduces profit. The graph above shows how unions forceibly raise wages for unionized employees. Laying off employees to a point increases profit back up. But of course, you can not fire unionized workers, so the people you are laying off to not reduce your costs as much as wanted. Let me make it simple for you. Costs=$100 and Revnue=$200. This means they are making a $100 profit. If wages are increased and revenue is not raised to match the increase (which is impossible in the short run), then costs will go up, lowering profit. If wages are raised high enough and costs increase above $200 in this instance, they are making a loss. "By mandating higher wages for current workers, they leave companies with less cash for new hiring."[2] "Unions hurt the company by "hurting" profitability --workers get more money, so obviously profits are being used to make that possible."[3] They take away money from companies that would have gone to hire more and in extreme cases are forced to lay off employees. But the other way to combat this is to increase the price of products. Firing decreases the costs and increasing prices of products increases revenue (to a point). This is just the other way to do it. Now how does it increase inflation? Well when the prices of products go up, it one, increases the Consumer Price Index, which is the measure of inflation, and two, it gives people less buying power as more of their money is spent on one product. "Such a victory can have the impact of negatively affecting consumers: costs are raised as a result. If prices aren't raised, then other, non-unionised workers in that company will be exploited further to keep the bosses running, or the company will go out of business!"[3]Point 2: Labor Unions encourage sloth. Wow. You simply just said my arguments and reversed them. Ok. How will they work harder if they are paid more and don't have a chance of getting fired? If you didn't have a chance at getting fired, no matter how little work you did, would you do less or more work? Simple. Less work. Why? Because you can get away with it. People like doing as little work they can. And labor unions encourage this by preventing firing. "The reason companies like Wal-Mart don’t want unions isn’t because they’re anti-union, but labor unions promote laziness and apathy. Laziness and apathy cause businesses to go bankrupt."[4] If too many of these unionized workers are in the company, the company can not operate to market capacity and therefore go out of business. Another way Labor Unions increase unemployment. Point 3: Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers. I explained this earlier, but I will repeat it here. When labor unions increase the price of unionized labor and therefore reduce companies's profit, they start laying off workers. And since they can't fire unionized workers, the only other workers are non-unionized workers. So they are the ones getting fired most of the time. Another way unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers is since they don't have to do as much work as non-unionized workers, there is a work imbalance where non-unionized workers are doing almost all the work, it is unfair to them that the unionized workers don't do as much work. Now it's not their fault that they are not unionized because they believe in hard work. People join unions for more money for little work. The non-unionized workers have a work ethic and don't want to join an organization that not only promotes laziness but at times bans hard work. Point 4: Labor Unions hurt the consumer. In addition to making consumers pay more money for products, they also make the consumer have a bad experience with the business, which in turn affects the companies's business as the costumers never come back. This reduces profit, and you guessed it, increases unemployment and inflation further, further hurting the company. "When labor unions establish job classes and prohibit workers from going the extra mile to help customers, it is the customer who is left with the bad experience and loses any desire to return to the place where he or she received poor customer service."[4] Point 5: Unions have laws that take away the power of bosses and executives that are needed to handle bad situations. There are many union laws that prevent the bosses and executives of a company from making the positions they are supposed to make. This includes firing. But on a more personal scale, things like crime can go unsolved. There are lots of instances of workplace rape that could have been have been handled swiftly and harshly by bosses and executives who want the rapist punished and who don't want the good name of the company to go bad, which would hurt the company's profits, and this, yet again, stops expansion which increases unemployment, and in extreme cases, actual laying off. But when handled by a union, there are so many union laws that protect the worker from even things like this that a lot of times these crimes go unpunished. This is another argument that unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers. Whereas a non-unionized worker would be prosecuted swiftly, a unionized worker wouldn't even be prosecuted. My Opponent's Case Rebuttals:Point 1: The company does not necessarily have to incur a loss to start firing. It could be a reduction in profit that forces them to stop expanding, which would be an opportunity cost for people to be employed. This increases the unemployment rate because it means those people can't find other jobs. You notice that states with right to work laws and low total employee union membership have lower unemployment rates than those states who don't. And what do you mean by "the scenario that they get laid off doesn't happen"? It will happen if labor unions are part of the company. This has no factual bearing. Point 2: Labor Unions encourage hard work. Yes, Labor Unions do increase the salary for unionized workers and that makes them better off financially. But you still haven't debunked my argument that since companies can not fire unionized workers, then there is no incentive for unionized workers to work because no matter how little work they do, they are still going to be paid a large sum of money every pay day. And on top of that, if you have to raise wages for unionized workers, you can, as another option, lower wages for non-unionized workers or lay them off, depending on the severity of the situation. So if what you are saying is true, than whatever greater amount of work the higher-paid unionized workers do is countered by the lower-paid non-unionized workers. Get it? A closing statement:" The day I started that job, two things became immediately apparent: (1) I was making more money than I had the day before as a non-union employee in the same facility's mailroom. (2) I was now working in an environment in which employees had an adversarial relationship with management."[5]A demand to my opponent:My opponent has asked on several occasions to cite and source my claims and to provide evidence, but he has done none of this. so far, he has provided no sources. If you are going to keep asking me for sources, you should provide them too. Sources: [1]:http://mises.org...[2]:http://www.smartmoney.com...[3]:http://www.marxists.org...[4]:http://www.broowaha.com...[5]:http://www.blueridgenow.com...;