9spaceking (PRO)1. Labor unions are ineffective.
sources:
- http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/labour_unions_0
-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16493801
2. Labor unions can be corrupt, and demolish the economy.
Sources:
-http://www.unionfacts.com/article/crime-and-corruption/
-http://dailysignal.com/2012/11/27/union-corruption-2012-big-labors-federal-rap-sheet/
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/how-_b_913311.html
3. Labor unions are bad for business, as explained by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relentless-conservative/how-_b_913311.html, unions are found to be in a study (see: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy), functioning as labor cartel, and with higher wages, they " bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else." This shows how bad labor unions are. In addition the top-skilled people will be excluded because labor unions try to have equality, but end up putting a cap on the wage, so the skilled workers won't work any more, as shown to be true from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn9.
4. Labor unions reduce jobs. As shown in the below picture while labor unions slowly but surely has failed over the years. In contrast the non-union population is doing quite well and overall increasing (12.5 to 13.3 millions).
Again, to stress this, when comparing the Private Construction Employment, the union largely fails to increase and stays static, while the non-union vastly increase, opening new jobs.
To strengthen this further, unions are also found to have much less job growth than non-unions, as found in http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn30. In fact, there is actually direct evidence that unions can cause loss of jobs, as shown in http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy#_ftn32.
In conclusion the labor unions simply do not work. Their wage-raise may be a lot, but they have a lot of loss of profit as well with the loss of profit and cutting return on investments. And as my sources suggest, the labor-union companies go quickly out of business and even go into concession to avoid bankruptcy. There is no point allowing labor unions. They are useless and should be banned.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-02 11:27:00
| Speak Round
Blackflag (CON)Regretfully I must forfeit this round.
Only posting so it does not end the debate.
Sorry :(
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-05 09:57:22
| Speak Round9spaceking (PRO)extending.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-05 12:50:31
| Speak RoundBlackflag (CON)Unfortunately I ran out of time again, damn it. Let's see what I can refute shortly.
Counter Arguments will come next round.
1/2. Ineffective and Corrupt
In formal debates, sources, citations, and data are only used as supporting evidence.
You must make arguments of your own, not simply paste a link and expect us to accept it.
Next round, please make some fresh arguments. Don't worry, you'll improve in time.
I assert that there is no argument here, therefore, nothing to negate.
3. Heritage Foundation
This is literally the most trash filled ultra-conservative group in America. Yes, those rednecks who support bombing half the world, and abolishing government for economic anarchy. I assert that all evidence founded by this extremely biased and politically motivated group be rejected. There data also comes from two scientists, who are members of HF. The judges should not accept this data.
4. Labor Unions Hurt The Economy
Since this conclusion was reached through a biased and politically motivated conservative think-tank, I assert that the end foundation is faulty and shouldn't be accepted by the judges.
5. Labor Unions Reduce Jobs
The evidence provided comes from the heritage foundation, who actually has been found to lie or even purposefully falsify data to further the Koch brothers political motives. The premise should not be accepted.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-08 12:47:05
| Speak RoundBlackflag (CON)Since my opponment is keen on using examples of the United States, I will base my argument on that. The US constitution grants the abillity for people to freely assemble. The traditional argument was quite simple.
[P1] If people can not assemble, then their voices are extinguished
[P2] If the people's voices are extinguished, then tyranny can develop
[C1] Banning assembly will result in tyranny from rulers
Argument Two: Banning Labor Unions would be ineffective
As history has shown, assembly of people's can't be prevented. Even if it was banned. The traitors of France still assembled, even though they were told not too. The colonists holed up in Barlow's Tavern when the British marched to Concord, but there assembly was banned. As was the continental congress. The point is clear. Whether you ban labor unions or not, people will still assemble and organize to improve working conditions and standards.
I contend that a ban would be useless, and result in a popularity fall with political leaders. I also contend that since labor unions are voluntary, they are harming no one.
Argument Three: Times when labor Unions were used well + Counter Argument
Most labor unions throughout history have been created for legitimate purposes. Such as the old Industrial Alliance, that split from the more mainstream APA union. Throughout history, African Americans, Children, Minorities, and different religions have had their rights protected against discrimination and pay gaps. Labor Unions are not only a sign of fear to employers, but without them, conditions would be far worse.
You see, the only one who can protect workers without unions, is the government. Meaning if a employer breaks the law with his employee, the only way the employee can receive compensation is through the courts. But usually the employer doesn't have the money to compete with the lawyers of big corporations and fat cats, but if everybody pools money into unions, employees are guaranteed a safety net if they ever fall into legal trouble with their company.
You see, the only one who can protect workers without unions, is the government. Meaning if a employer breaks the law with his employee, the only way the employee can receive compensation is through the courts. But usually the employer doesn't have the money to compete with the lawyers of big corporations and fat cats, but if everybody pools money into unions, employees are guaranteed a safety net if they ever fall into legal trouble with their company.
I do agree that labor unions have become corrupt, which is why my counter proposal is to simply ban legal protection of unions.
People still receive the benefits of voluntary unions, without having the government supporting corrupt political machines.
People still receive the benefits of voluntary unions, without having the government supporting corrupt political machines.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 12:39:37
| Speak Round9spaceking (PRO)My arguments were based on how labor unions were shown to be ineffective in earning wages, sorry for not clarifying that earlier.
"Whether you ban labor unions or not, people will still assemble and organize to improve working conditions and standards." Exactly, so even without labor unions people can still speak up. This counters your own tyranny argument, since banning labor unions won't stop people from standing up, showing how useless the argument about being assembled being prevented by the ban.
And even if labor unions' ban won't be that helpful, it can at least prevent the corruption and reduce the negative effects that I pointed out in my sources. In addition, the corruption of labor unions is worse than the corruption of politicians, no research from my opponent shows that politicians are capable in any way of demolishing the economy.
As for my sources from Heritage Foundation being terrible, here are a few more sources that show the same idea of the heritage foundation, only not from the HF.
http://fortune.com/2012/04/30/americans-labor-unions-may-end-up-worse-off/
In addition the labor unions don't grant that much more benefits than non-labors, in fact, the source below clarifies what I've been trying to say this debate: the cultures are separated by unions, drives companies out (CORRUPTION) and re-highlights my point about ignorance of highly skilled workers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/we-may-need-labor-unions-after-all-2012-12
My arguments still stand.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-11 13:14:42
| Speak Round
Judge: admin
Judge: Pinkie
Judge: cooldudebro
Ohhhhh, I'll get my revenge!!Posted 2014-09-13 23:42:08
*shrugs
work of satire maybe?Posted 2014-09-13 00:21:45
Your source says "we may need labor unions after all"Posted 2014-09-12 13:45:36
I'll post my argument in the next 7 hoursPosted 2014-09-10 07:07:57
wait...unlimited characters? Wow lolPosted 2014-09-02 11:27:33
oh dang...banning labor unions...thats gonna be hard.Posted 2014-09-01 11:26:07