Right to work laws.

I'd like to distinguish the parameters of my argument. I contend that right to work laws are beneficial to tax payers, workers, and state economies. The pros of such laws far outweigh any cons there may be. I would also ask my opponent to stop discrediting my statements with backhanded responses. It is both unreasonable and disrespectful; I hope we can have a friendlier atmosphere. In regards to my civil rights argument, I ask that you do not encourage voters to vote against my conduct, as you have so done. This claim is perfectly valid and is commonly advocated by RTW proponents. I ask that con allows me to defend my arguments before he heedlessly throws them out the window. 1) This point was not intended to be a pro-RTW statement. I was simply defending its legality in the event that my opponent challenged it. 2) Your point about unions being a democracy is valid, but limited. Very few issues directly affecting the members of a union are voted on. Obviously, bargaining agreements negotiated with the employer are voted upon by the rank and file, but all other decisions that will directly affect a union member are made at the discretion of union leadership. In many unions, decisions regarding strike benefits, promotions, grievance representation, and job assignments are at the sole discretion of union management. Unions, like any other political organization, are rife with cronyism, conflict of interest, nepotism, and outright corruption. To say that unions are a democracy is no more accurate than saying IBM is a democracy because their board of directors was elected by corporate shareholders. 3) Closed shops (unions that require immediate membership as a condition of employment) are, in fact, illegal in all states under the Taft-Hartley Act. Union shops (unions that require membership after a set period of employment) are illegal in 22 states with right to work laws. Obviously, many states are of the opinion that an individual's right to work is indeed a right. It can be argued that states without right to work laws are not adequately protecting an individual's right to work, creating an opportunity for union shops to infringe upon an individual's right to work. http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com... 4)A) Your assertion that a state's poverty level is related to its right to work laws is unsubstantiated and conjecture at best. Other factors such as education, industry, culture, and natural resources (to name a few) also play a significant role in determining poverty level. B) Local workers in my state and many other states that have no RTW laws, where union shops flourish, have the same problem. Your assertion that public workers cannot live in cities where they work is somehow due to right to work states is invalid as it is equally prevalent in both RTW and non-RTW states. C) Based on the mass migration of non-RTW state inhabitants to RTW states that this country is currently experiencing, I find your comment regarding quality of life to be unsupported by the empirical evidence. I have personally witnessed and know of many friends and neighbors who have left my state (NY) and moved to RTW states in pursuit of better quality of life. D) Lack of collective bargaining reduces cost, improves efficiency, stimulates the economy, and improves competitiveness. It also allows the individual to be compensated based on his fair market value. Thereby promoting creativity, proficiency, hard-work, and the opportunity to be all you can be. E) Yes it is true that taxes are lower in RTW states. But it isn't lower because they earn lower salaries, it's lower because government costs less. Again, the population of the US is quickly migrating to RTW states. Apparently low taxes are not a problem for the new residents. F) . One important fact to note is that the poverty threshold is set by the federal government and not by the states themselves. This creates some inaccuracies when contrasting poverty rates between states; this is because, naturally, states have different financial situations. It is cheaper to live in RTW states, thus, they do not need to make as much money as people living in non-RTW states. 5) Unions are businesses, albeit, non-profit businesses. As this issue is incidental to my point regarding representation, we can agree to disagree. Whether a union is a democracy or not is irrelevant to the point, the issue is that once and individual joins a union, he forfeits his right to negotiate on his behalf. To the extent, an individual is forced to join a union, then he is forced to forfeit his right to negotiate on his own behalf. The effectiveness of collective bargaining is not in question; witness the exorbitant pay and benefits enjoyed by unions in non-RTW states, the point again, is an individual's right to negotiate on his own behalf. An individual negotiating on his own behalf may negotiate better terms or worse terms compared to the collective bargaining agreement. The point is that the individual should have a choice; union shops eliminate that choice and that right. 6) I always thought this was common knowledge. These sorts of contributions happen all the time. Go online and look up illegal union contributions and you'll find a large number of lawsuits regarding the issue. Also, if you know anybody that does work in a union, you'll most likely hear this from them as well. Every once and a while, they get caught. It happens; labeling it false doesn't mean it's untrue. Examples: http://www.atg.wa.gov... http://www.nj.com... I would like to apologize to my opponent for not completing my second argument. I have been very busy these past few days and did not have ample free time to respond fully. I will be sure to respond to the remainder of your rebuttals and points made in round 1 at the cost of space in my remaining rounds.