The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Viper-King
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Labor Unions: part III

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,409 times Debate No: 22945
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Ron-Paul

Con

I now have time to debate. My second round argument will counter your arguments from the previous debate. The first round is for acceptance.
Viper-King

Pro

Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate. I hope we can have no trouble this time.

I. Labor Unions increase unemployment and inflation.

One thing is certain; that businesses will be making less revenue when labor unions increase wages. "The workers who are in the unions usually end up staying employed while those who are not usually end up the ones being laid off. Again, business owners only want to hire up the point that the final worker hired benefits the business more than s/he costs the business. Thus an increase in the cost of a worker (due to increases in benefits and costs in maintaining higher health standards) leads to less people being hired by businesses."[1] "The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members–non-union manufacturing employment has risen."[3]

Less profit for businesses is bad too. It decreases expansion, and if low enough, makes the working situation worse. Any amount of loss for a business, be it less profit or a loss, is bad because they will be doing less than they wish. And I have shown that most of the workers losses have been from unionized companies.

They can increase prices, thus inflation in the same process. "Either the prices of goods and services in nonunion sectors have to fall and offset the union sector hikes, or people's cash balances need to fall, in terms of their purchasing power."[2] So here, yes, there is a bypass to inflation, but that would effect other sectors of the economy, and there still is the good possibilty of consumers having less buying power, which in effect is inflation.

II. Labor unions encourage sloth.

I disagree with you still (pun intended). Your point here is contradictory. If you can not get fired, then being slothful will have as many benefits as working hard. If you get the same amount of wages and security by being sloth than by doing hard work, you will do slothfulness.

Using your example, if a dog can get the same 100 pieces of chow by doing nothing than by running one mile, he will do nothing because it is less work for him.

III. Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers.

They take advantage of non-unionzed workers by getting themselves higher wages, thus giving non-unionized workers lower wages, and they don't even work as hard, much less to meet their higher wages. And on top of that, when the company starts to lose money and the need to let go of employees, they have to do the non-unionized workers first because they are not protected.

IV. Labor Unions hurt the consumer.

"Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages….. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities."[3] Lower profit passes on higher prices to consumers.

V. Unions have laws that take away the power of bosses and executives that are needed to handle bad situations.

But if the workers are unionized, it takes a lot for them to be fired. So if the employee in question is unionized, he most likely not get the punishment he deserves.

Sources:

[1]:http://socratic-resistance.tumblr.com...
[2]:http://mises.org...
[3]:http://omegahrsolutions.com...
Viper-King

Pro

I would like to say I won't be able to respond to your arguments on Monday-Wednesday so please forgive me if I forfeit.

Dropped/Conceded Arguments:
#1: Labor unions help employees.
#2: #2: Labor unions encourage hard work.

Thus I'd like to state that the above contentions were dropped by my opponent.

1. I. Labor Unions increase unemployment and inflation.

First of all, I'd like to say that the businesses will not be making less revenue. Why? The labor unions do not keep increasing wages until the business collapses. The labor unions only increase the wages until the employee gets wages high enough to be able to sustain economic security. They don't just randomly keep on pushing for higher wages but instad fairly advocate for the equality between the employer and the employee.

"States with higher rates of unionization have lower rates of poverty, crime, and failing schools. In partnerships with employers, community organizations, and local governments, unions have helped revitalize local economies by saving and expanding family-supporting jobs." [1] This proves that labor unions don't increase unemployment or inflation but instead decrease unemployment, crime, and failing education. Not only that, but it actually boosts the employer, the community, and the local government's economy by saving lots of jobs. Therefore, labor unions do not increase unemployment and/or inflation.

2. Labor unions encourage sloth.

I think this is a philosophical measure of the debate. I think that people tend to work harder if they see a reward. It's like classical conditioning. People try out new things and learn how to respond and how to work harder. How they get more rewards is because labor unions are more aware and will be much more interested in helping someone who works diligetnly for his pay. People work hard these days because they know that every moment is a crucial one and one wrong move can make you lose your job.

3. Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers.

That's wrong and I disagree a lot with you. How do they get higher wages? They are in labor unions which gives them higher wages. That's not taking advantage of others, that's getting the benefits of joining a labor union. Also I don't think anyone can judge if unionized-workers work less hard, as hard, or harder than non-unionized workers because we don't have solid evidence of it. Plus, as I've said, the company may have to lay off workers and unionized-workers get the benefit of job stability.

4. Labor unions hurt the consumer.

My opponent compares labor unions to labor cartels. However, they are two different things. Labor unions make a worker's wage more equal, advocate for better communications between the employer and the employee, and improve a worker's benefits. Labor cartels just restrict workers in a company/industry to drive up all the remaining worker's wages. I can see the similiarity but there's a huge difference. Labor unions don't just keep raising wages, they drive up the worker's wages for the worker to be able to sustain economic security. They also don't neccessarily reduce the workers and actually help the economy. "Across the economy, unions raise productivity by 19% to 24% in manufacturing, 16% in hospitals, and between 17% and 38% in the construction sector." They actually make themselves more productive which makes the consumer happy.

5. Unions have laws that take away the power of bosses and executives that are needed to handle bad situations.

I think this is a benefit of joining labor unions. I think this is supported by the Amendments as a right of labor unions. Plus, I don't know why giving a 2nd chance is so bad. Can you elaborate on how it is bad?
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Con

The computer just deleted my argument. I am sorry but I am going to have to forfeit again. I hate this stupid computer. I will have an argument for the final round though.
Viper-King

Pro

Oh well. :( I understand. I forgot to list my sources so I'll give them to you now.
I ask for the conduct point.
Sources:

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Con

I did not drop your arguments. Your point one was addressed throughout this debate and your point two was addressed in my point two. Thus, I'd like to state that the claimed "concessions" were not really concessions but merely not addressed because they were refuted in my own arguments.

I. Labor Unions Increase Unemployment and Inflation

Unionized workers do make more than non-unionized workers, "Estimates that correct these errors show that the average union member earns between 20 percent and 25 percent more than similar non-union workers."[1] "The money distributed as a pay increase comes from a company's contribution margin. This is the cash a company has left over after its expenses are paid from its gross revenue."[2] So the increases in wages come from the company's profit margin. This leaves businesses less money to invest in innovation and competition.

"It has been a well-established fact that unions reduce the numbers of employed workers by mandating wages that move in an ever increasing upward spiral."[3] Unions do keep increasing the wages of employees.

So it has been established that Labor Unions increase the wages of unionized workers and that these increases keep happening in an ever increasing upward spiral, and these two things lower the profit margins for businesses. But what needs to be established now is whether or not Labor Unions increase unemployment and inflation.

First, unemployment. There are three ways Labor Unions increase unemplyoment. One, they increase wages to a point that the company is making a loss, and they have to lay off employees to get back off balance. Two, they decrease the profit margin of companies, reducing their ability to hire new workers. And three, they restrict the amount of labor available. We will look at all three ways in more detail now.

If labor unions force companies to make a loss (which a lot of times they do), then they have to cut costs or increase revenue without raising costs. The only way to cut costs is to lay off employees. "Unions would like to negotiate higher wages as the alternative option for their members rises. This will only increase unemployment, the wage remains fixed in equilibrium."[4] Loss=Cut Costs=Lay Off Employees=Higher Unemplyment

If labor unions force companies to make less profit (which they always do), then they have less money for improvements and for hiring new employees. "By mandating higher wages for current workers, they leave companies with less cash for new hiring."[5] "In such situations, cash for hiring new workers diminishes as does cash for R&D and capital improvements."[3] When companies make less profit, they stop hiring new employees and they stop investments and R&D. Less Money=Less Money to Hire=Fewer People Hired=Fewer Jobs Added=Higher Unemployment. Also, we must consider the effects of less investment and R&D. If a company has less money for investment and R&D, then they have to use older equipment and less efficient ways of producing. This in turn produces fewer things more expensively. This extra expense is passed on to the consumers, so they buy another product. This makes the company less money, and eventually, they will have to shut down.

Also, labor unions restrict the amount of labor on the market, because in some instances, only unionized workers can be hired. This leaves the majority of the population unable to get jobs, which adds to unemployment.

Now, inflation. "Furthermore, those high union-mandated wages result in increased prices for manufactured goods. It has long been an established fact that as labor costs increase, demand for consumer goods diminishes and the pool of consumers shrinks."[3] "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!"[6] The other thing businesses can do is increase revenue. This means higher prices.

So at the end of the day, a company under the influence of labor unions has to constantly raise wages for its unionized workers. Either the company has to lay off emplyees, raise prices, or go out of business, and sometimes, the latter in inevitable.

Also, look at the third graph in source 7. It is also the graph I used in our original debate [8]. According to, wages will always gravitate towards the equilibrium. When wages are raised, a business can either lay off employees of cut wages, and the latter is impossible, so the former is the only option. There is no third option.

II. Labor Unions encourage sloth.

I agree with my opponent that this part of the debate is philosophical, but I still find fundumental flaws in my opponent's argument. Let me ask you a question? If you could get the same reward by either doing nothing or by working hard, which would you, or to be more representative, anyone, would choose? Obviously, they would do nothing. No one would work for something when they can get the exact same thing for nothing. "...Labor unions promote laziness and apathy. Laziness and apathy cause businesses to go bankrupt."[9] My opponent has a flawed understanding of philospohy.

III. Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers.

I'll repeat this again: "The average union wage is 28% higher than a non-union wage"[3] Higher wages for unionized workers. Higher wages for workers who do the exact same thing as other workers, but those other workers don't get higher wages is unfair. And plus, since non-unionized workers work harder than unionized workers (since, as I proved earlier, unionized workers can get away with not working while non-unionized workers can't), it is even more unfair the unionized, less hard working employees make more money than the non-unionzed, more hard working employees. Dosen't that sound unfair to you? And plus, when the company has to lay off workers due to the effects of the labor union, they have to lay off the non-unionized workers first, since the unionized workers are protected by the labor union. The only time a unionized worker can lose his job is when the company goes out of business. Dosen't the non-unionized workers being laid off first, even though they are the harder working workers, seem unfair to you too? And don't tell me that they deserve it because they did not join the union. They choose not to join the union because they don't want the company they are working for to be forced to shut down and they don't want to lose their job.

IV. Labor Unions hurt the consumer.

"Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price."[1] "Economists who study unions—including some who are avowedly prounion—analyze them as cartels that raise wages above competitive levels by restricting the supply of labor to various firms and industries."[10] Labor Unions are labor cartels. Again, as I said, unionized worker's wages are 28% higher than non-unionized worker's. Where do you get your numbers? Labor unions decrease productivity by keeping workers that are less productive and by firing workers that are more productive. Besides, even if they do, at the end of the day, when the company shuts down, productivity won't matter.

V. Unions Have Laws that Take Away the Power of Bosses and Executives that Are Needed to Handle Bad Situations.

Do you think not getting justice for a crime is a benefit? Really?

I would like to thank my opponent for responding to this debate. My opponent does deserve the conduct point, but please do not base the convincing arguments points on my forfeit. Please decide by telling whose arguments are better.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.heritage.org...
[2]:http://cwhitaker.hubpages.com...
[3]:http://stephencabotblog.com...
[4]:http://emi1777.hubpages.com...
[5]:http://www.smartmoney.com...
[6]:http://www.marxists.org...
[7]:http://mises.org...
[8]:http://www.debate.org...
[9]:http://www.broowaha.com...
[10]:http://www.econlib.org...
Viper-King

Pro

My opponent claims he did not drop my arguments and they were addressed throught his case. However, I'd like to state that those points were different from his points and that those were my arguments which were not addressed. Thus, I'd like to state that these were concessions and I deserve a point for him conceding the points.

1. Labor Unions Increase Unemployment and Inflation.

Okay. Let's see how much 20% - 25% really is. Let's say the non-unionized workers get paid $20 an hour. The unionized workers get paid 25% (at maximum) over the non-unionized workers so they get paid $25! That's a $5 increase over regular employees and that's maximum. So at maximum, one-fourth more of a regular non-unionized salary is what unionized workers get.

That's very little. I'd also like to state this is a benefit of joining labor unions. Thus, this doesn't prove how it increases unemployment. Then my opponent states that this amount of extra money taken by unionized workers causes the company to lose lots of money. That amount of money does not cause unemployment because it is very small and still allows businesses a lot of money to invest for innovation and competition.

Labor unions also do not continuosly increase the wages. Instead they increase the wages to a limit where the employee has the ability to sustain economic security. Labor unions also don't increase wages to the point my opponent is stating but instead to where the worker can get economic security which means they don't have to lay off employees.

His 2nd argument is that they decrease profit margin of companies which hurts companies. That's untrue because the money is so little it doesn't hurt the company. It doesn't reduce their ability at all. His last argument is they restrict labor. They don't restrict labor if they don't hurt the company so that point is untrue.

"Across the economy, unions raise productivity by 19% to 24% in manufacturing, 16% in hospitals, and between 17% and 38% in the construction sector. In the mid-1990s, the North Philadelphia Health System experienced an economic downturn and nearly had to close its doors. Unions stepped in and helped secure the money and political backing needed to keep the facilities open.

In 1994, the IUE (along with the Steel Valley Authority) worked with the General Cable Company in Pennsylvania to save a plant from closure. Since, General Cable has thrived, and this facility was recognized as one of North America's "Best Plants" by Industry Week.

A partnership with its unions helped propel Harley-Davidson Motor Company back to success after being on the brink of bankruptcy. By working together with its employees and their unions, Harley-Davidson was able stay in business and keep jobs in the United States. Studies show that a large union presence in an industry or region can raise wages even for non-union workers.

Since its workers organized in 1995, specialty rose producer Jackson & Perkins has seen an increase in productivity and a decrease in tardiness and absenteeism. The International Association of Machinists partnered with Harley-Davidson Motor Company to create a High Performance Work Organization, in which workers and managers shared ideas about how to increase both the safety and productivity of factory tasks.

Through solutions adopted by labor-management committees, waiting periods for emergency room radiology services have fallen by 40% at Maimonides Medical Center." They don't need to raise prices because of the labor unions. Labor unions don't actually keep raising wages as you believe.

They stop when the worker can sustain economic security where it doesn't hurt the company to the point it needs to lay off workers, raise prices, go out of business, etc. I have stated my case and it proves that labor unions don't increase unemployment or inflation.

2. Labor unions encourage sloth.

Untrue. If they worked harder they would get better representation and better approval from the labor unions. In a way, the labor unions would work harder to raise wages for him/her and show it as proof that labor unions encourage hard work. I don't understand why my opponent doesn't get this part of the debate. Thus, labor unions don't encourage sloth.

3. Unionized workers take advantage of non-unionized workers.

Switching you're argument, eh? First, my opponent states the average union wage is at maximum 25% higher than the non-unionized wages. Now, you're stating the average wage is 28%. I object to this huge switching of arguments and regard it as false due to my opponent's previous statements. I would like to state again, there is no way of knowing which workers work harder categorized instead of individually. It's not unfair because there is no actual evidence that non-unionized workers work harder than unionized workers. It is not unfair because they don't take advantage at all. Labor unions don't cause the laying off of workers and it's actually a hard-worked behefit to be able to get higher wages. No, it's not unfair because they pay to join the union. They choose to not join the union which leaves out some benefits for them so it's their fault. Plus, they won't get their job to be lost and have their company to shut down from labor unions. There are many other causes that have nothing to do with labor unions. Labor unions don't take advantage of anyone. Thus, unionized workers don't take advantage of non-unionized workers.

4. Labor unions hurt the consumer.

Not true at all. Labor unions raise wages to help the workers sustain economic security. They don't randomly keep raising wages like labor cartels. Now you're repeating the 28% average wage. This is definitely a switch in facts. First, it's at maximum at 25%! Now you're saying the average wage is 28%. My numbers are from my sources. Labor unions increase productivity as shown with my facts. Productivity matters and the actual company doesn't shut down because the productivity helps the company stay alive. I can't believe my opponent states that productivity doesn't matter which shows how labor unions don't hurt the consumer.

5. Unions have laws that take away the power of bosses and executives that are needed to handle bad situations.

I never stated that. The benefit is that unionized workers have more protection from being layed off/fired. It is true that it is protected by the Amendments and giving a 2nd chance as a benefit is not wrong.

I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate that had to have three parts due to me and him having many misunderstandings and forfeiting a lot. Vote for Pro!

Sources:
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
I've been too busy invading Great Britian in S1914 too (not our game).
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
I'm not. I've got most of my argument already made. I've just been making another argument for another debate all day.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
con dont FF, also show pros sources are bias as hell.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
I really do.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
I hate my computer.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol @ pro
`Labor unions are cartels, would give links but would be unfair

lol @ con

dropped arguments.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
I'll accept this soon.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
I'll accept this soon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ron-PaulViper-KingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources - ALL of pros where biased pro labor liberal think tanks. Sources to con. Argunments where simple as even the one round FF (conduct pro) had little effect on the argument, pro had poor arguments to begin with. CONS arguments proved the large economic detriments of labor unions, the strongest arguments either side can make. CON won the economic analysis. Also pros analysis of 20 is BS, 5$ adds up over hundreds of employees. Anyway, CON wins the arguments and the important part of the deba