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

For the judge's sake, here is the act: http://thomas.loc.gov...: ==== Intro ==== "As we enter the new millennium, the question is not whether we should fully reject or wholeheartedly embrace globalization. Instead the question is whether the disparate benefits and impacts of globalization can be reordered so that our trade agreements and labor law policies no longer serve to primarily benefit corporations at the expense of workers and communities in the U.S. and around the globe." It is because the Employee Free Choice Act can answer the question that Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University poses to us, that I affirm. It is important to note, that the best interest of the American people is that which not only ensures economic stability but also freely acknowledges their constitutional and human rights. As a result, I shall focus the debate: First: On how the EFCA eliminates unfair labor practices, creating a better working environment and improving upon the inadequacies of previous labor law. and Second: On how the EFCA promotes unionization, which strengthens the economy and increases global competitiveness. ==== Contention One: The EFCA promotes a better working environment by solving for the inadequacies of previous labor law. ==== Subpoint A: Current Labor Law is Broken. The current process for unionization is a fundamentally flawed procedure. With no effective punitive sanctions for employers, the attempt to unionize a company is an almost futile one. Employers have various techniques which are implemented solely to demoralize and intimidate pro-union advocates, and to scare away any workers who are on the border as to what they support. Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon writes, ""Because labor law lacks any punitive sanctions — no fines, no loss of license, no possibility of prison time — employers are free to break the law with near-total impunity. When an employer violates the law, the probability is that they won't get caught. If they do get caught, the worst sanction the NLRB can impose is for a second election. The employer wins the second election 96% of the time, so if you're an employer breaking the law – the odds to win are with you." As a result, law breaking procedures and other coercive techniques are widespread. Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University concludes that in 51% of unionization campaigns employers threaten to shut down part or all of a plants operations if the plant is unionized. Moreover, in 25% of campaigns employers illegally fire employees for supporting unionization. She furthers, "Union election win rates were significantly lower in units where plant closing threats occurred than in units without plant closing threats." It is apparent that these procedures are both widespread and serious. Lafer quantifies Bronfenbrenner's percentages, estimating that "In 2004, an estimated 15,400 employees were illegally fired, suspended, or otherwise financially penalized for supporting a union in an election context." At the point where over 15,000 individuals are severely penalized for exercising their autonomy, it is clear that the current system is broken. Subpoint B: The Employee Free Choice Act fixes inefficiencies with the current system. Quoting from the act itself, "Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice [will] be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation." Right now the only penalty for illegal firing or suspension is a back payment of less than 3,000 dollars, so it's easy for employers to break the law. By creating a penalty close to 7 times higher, the incentive to break the law diminishes greatly. That's just a civil penalty, the price of back pay also goes up. The act continues, "if the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee the Board in such order shall award the employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as liquidated damages." So they receive triple what they normally would, which helps to pay for the price incurred of losing their job, and the employer is penalized up to 20,000 dollars. Meaning that the price of breaking the law goes up a little over 10 times – from 2,750 dollars to 27,50 (ish… I don't want to do math) this is better for the employee, because there are less violations of law – and when there are, they receive adequate payment for the harm of breaking the law. The EFCA essentially eradicates unfair labor practices by the employer. ==== Contention Two: The EFCA promotes unionization, which strengthens the economy and increases global competitiveness. ==== Subpoint A: The EFCA promotes unionization. Most estimates agree that the EFCA will increase union density by a large amount. AFL-CIO economist Sheldon Friedman estimates an increase in union density of 5%, Andy Stern, president of the SEIU estimates that union density will increase by around 10% by 2018, and Carter and Lotke support these findings. Moreover, a study by Chris Riddell of Cornell University reports in countries such as Great Britain, switching from the electoral process to the card-check lead to immense gains in union density. Subpoint B: Unionization increases global competitiveness and strengthens the U.S. economy. Dr. Paula Voos of Rutgers University went before the senate just last month to argue in favor of the EFCA. She writes, ""Unions…reduce turnover and [as a result] firm specific skills are retained [increasing productivity]. Another benefit is that turnover costs are lowered for employers. Since unions increase compensation, firms are incentivized to invest in new technology further increasing productivity. Unionized employers also tend to shift to higher value-added goods and services in their product mix." As a result, unions actually increase productivity. James Medoff of Harvard University, in an extensive study, concluded, "When the characteristics of workers most frequently associated with productivity differentials are held constant, unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not." Unions have a 22% increase on productivity, which, balances out or even overcomes the cost of higher wages. Higher productivity leads to more money earned by the company, which benefits the stock, but also benefits the consumer because if the employer makes more money the price of goods drops. Economic Roundtable estimates that the wage increases caused by unions in Los Angeles ALONE has lead to the, "creation of 64,800 jobs and 51 billion in total sales." Because the price of goods is going down, more goods are being bought. When more goods are bought, employers can hire more employees – so instead of people losing jobs, more jobs are being created, more people can buy goods and they can buy them for a lower price. To summarize the benefits unions have on the economy: 1)Creation of more productive firms, which generate more income for the company. A more productive company can sell goods at a cheaper price. This helps the consumer. 2)Once a company starts selling cheaper goods more people tend to buy these goods, as a result the stock goes up – helping the stock market on the whole. 3)When a company generates more income (through being more productive and more customers) they can create more unionized positions, giving more people jobs. 4)The unionized employee receives more money, increasing the United States' overall GDP. It is because individual liberties within the workplace, and economic stability are both achieved through the EFCA that I urge you to affirm.