Labor Unions should be abolished.

I remind Pro that he has the Burden of Proof (BoP). I will say that I do find it unfortunate that Pro's arguments seem so clearly based in a bias against labor unions unrelated to evidence. Pro first thinks that labor unions lead to higher prices for consumers. While this may be the case in many instances, it is not necessarily so, nor does he offer any evidence of this. Companies make as much profit as they think they possibly can--they aren't not raising prices just to be nice. Companies maximize profits. That's what they do. They're limited by what their costs are, and what the market will bear. While their costs will rise if they accede to union demands, that will not affect the market's willingness to pay. Further, even accepting Pro's argument does not address the main point, which is whether companies should be paying a wage appropriate to the work being done. CEO wages have exploded in the last 30 years, growing at a rate 127 times that of worker pay. [1] Between 1978 and 2011 CEO pay went up over 700%, while worker pay rose just 5.7% [2]. This is the general trend for the last 50 years [3]. The argument that workers should not be paid higher wages, in the absence of an argument for addressing CEO pay, is hypocritical. CEO pay is a much begger problem than that of paying workers a wage that reflects their work and contribution to corporate success. Fundamentally, slave labor would get the lowest possible price for consumers. I assume Pro is not advocating for slave labor. This, of course, does not address what might be unreasonable wage demands. But considering the growth of CEO pay vs. average worker pay, it is clear that it is not labor unions making unreasonable wage demands. Pro then goes on to claim that unions prevent the firing of "clearly incompetent workers". He gives no sources for this, either, nor is it necessarily so. In general, what unions fight for is the "just cause" concept[4], where the company must actually do their due diligence in ensuring that they have actual cause for firing someone before they do so. [5] If the leadership of a company is too incompetent to meet that (rather low) standard, it is not the labor union's fault. Pro moves on to the argument that unions lead to job losses. While he presents a hypothetical, he presents no evidence. I can present a hypothetical too: without labor unions, an asteroid might hit the earth, wiping out all life. That does not have bearing on reality, however, and I urge Pro to find actual sources to back hims arguments with real facts, rather than constructing hypotheticals based on his biases. Pro's final claim, unnumbered, is that "Without labor unions, workers are still protected because there are laws that protect them in their workplace. " This is, of course, flatly untrue. Perhaps Pro is unfamiliar with the concept of "At-will employment"? [6] Pro closes by claiming: "Let us think of the Economy! Let us promote competitiveness among workers! Let us not succumb to violent demands! " The most laughable part of that is that labor unions help the economy, particularly as "The distribution of wealth has been much more even during times of powerful unions than during times of weak ones, like today" [7], Pro has done nothing to actually demonstrate that competitiveness among workers is affected by unions, and Pro has made no attempt at a case whatsoever for "violent demands". To be clear: I could easily agree that the state of unions could certainly stand improvement. But Pro has the Burden of Proof to demonstrate sound reasoning why Labor Unions should be abolished. He has not given any real evidence-based reason to do so. Unions occupy the position they occupy because the government stepped in when labor was clashing with business. Rather than allowing the potential for multiple bargaining units, the government declared that only 1 unit could represent any given class or appropriate bargaining unit. This not only stabilized the concept, it also helped strengthen worker rights and power. But unions suffered a decline beginning in the late 60's, and as they've declined, so too has the middle class [9]. A lot of this has been due to legislative solutions specifically designed to limit the power of unions, often based on the arguments Pro presents here--demonstrably to the country, the economy, the employees's, and the people's detriment. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.epi.org... [3] . http://www.theatlantic.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://scfl.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://worthyposts.com...