The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Labor unions hurt the economy!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,010 times Debate No: 19308
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Labor unions hurt the economy. I say yes to this, you deny it. The BOP is on both of us me to prove it is bad you to prove that it is good. 1st round acceptance.


To be truthful, this is a silly arguement, because it is so obvious, but I will be nevertheless happy to have this debate, no matter how easy.

Labor unions absolutely do not hurt the economy. Labor unions are essential! Teachers, policemen, workers, farmers, all of them are required to sustain a good economy! Even though we pay them money for work, we gain more money than what they earn. Hence, if a person picked, delivered, and sold 30 apples, each for a dollar, the whole money earned would be 30 dollars. We would give the person around 3 dollars, and keep the money for other uses. A small percentage would go to the government, as tax.

I cannot believe I am discussing something so simple, but here are my reasons, and I would like to see you try and refute them!
Debate Round No. 1


Milton freidman on labor unions:

One, you broke the rules, so right there you should lose a conduct point. But I don't care do what you want even though the rules said not to.

"Teachers, policemen, workers, farmers, all of them are required to sustain a good economy!"

Can you tell me how a labor union helps them? You talk about taxes. I'm glad you said that that helps me a lot. More taxes actually leads to more innefeciency. If oyu tax things prices rise, which leads to less money in the economy. An economy revoves around money in the sysyem, so less consumer spending because of prices=worseeconomy. And you said something wa so simple. I am actually enjoying this coversation though. Also your argument doesnt show how there is any incling of benifit for a labor union.

You will then come around and say unions can increase pay because of their bargaining power. Is that good in all cases? Lets take a look through economics, not personal gain. If you raise the wages then you raise the prices on buissness. Excessive pay makes their employer uncompetitive and puts their jobs at risk. Since unions have so much control they are something they hoped to get rid of, monopolies. Since they can bargin anything they want to get what they want then they are an omnipotent power in the economical realm. As we know, monopolies can ruin small buissness and destroy a whole industry.

Labor unions hold no real purpose and actually ruin the competivness. If you belive competition ruins the economy then ask for it next round for more explanation. So if it ruise competition then it hurts the economy in that sense too.

I will now copy and paste 5 reasons why labor unions are bad:

1) Unions are severely damaging whole industries: How is it that GM and Chrysler got into such lousy shape that they had to be bailed out? There's a simple answer: The unions. The massive pensions the car companies paid out raised their costs so much that they were limited to building more expensive cars to try to get their money back. They couldn't even do a great job of building those cars because utterly ridiculous union rules prevented them from using their labor efficiently. America created the automobile industry, but American unions are strangling it to death. Unions also wrecked the steel and textile industries and have helped drive manufacturing jobs overseas. They're crippling the airline industry and, of course, we can't forget that...
2) Unions are ruining public education: Every few years, it's the same old story. The teachers’ unions claim that public education in this country is dramatically underfunded and if they just had more money, they could turn it around. Taxpayer money then pours into our schools like a waterfall and....there's no improvement. A few years later, when people have forgotten the last spending spree on education, the process is repeated.
However, the real problem with our education system in this country is the teachers’ unions. They do everything possible to prevent schools not only from firing lousy teachers, but also from rewarding talented teachers. Merit pay? The unions hate it. Private schools? Even though everyone knows they deliver a better education than our public schools, unions fight to keep as many kids as possible locked in failing private schools. In Wisconsin, we've had whole schools shutting down so that lazy teachers can waste their time protesting on the taxpayers’ dime. Want to improve education in this country? Then you've got to take on the teachers’ unions.
Unions are costing you billions of tax dollars:Let's put it plain and simple: Government workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Period.


Because you elect representatives to look out for your interests.

It's obviously in your interest to pay as little as possible to government workers, to keep their benefits as low as possible, and to hire as few of them as possible to do the job. However, because the Democratic Party and the unions are in bed with each other, this entire process has been turned on its ear. Instead of looking out for your interests, Democrats try to hire as many government workers as possible, pay them as much as possible, and give them benefits that are as generous as possible, all so that union workers will do more to get them re-elected.

In other words, the Democratic Party and the unions are engaged in an open conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer. There's no way that the American people should allow that to continue.

Unions are fundamentally anti-democratic :How in the world did we get to the point where people can be forced to join a union just to get a job at certain places? Then, after they're dragooned into the union, they have no choice other than to pay dues that are used for political activities which the unwilling dues-paying member may oppose.

Add to that the fact that the Democrats and the government unions collaborate to subvert democracy at the expense of the taxpayer and it's not a pretty picture. Worse yet, unions have gotten so voracious that they even want to do away with the secret ballot, via card check, so they can openly bully people into joining unions. The way unions behave in this country is undemocratic, un-American, and it should trouble anyone who cares about freedom and individual rights.

5) Government unions are bankrupting cities and states: Government unions have bled billions from taxpayers nationally, but the damage they're doing on the local level is even worse. We have cities and states all across the country that are so behind on their bills that there have been genuine discussions about bankruptcy. There are a lot of irresponsible financial policies that have helped contribute to that sorry state-of-affairs, but unquestionably, the biggest backbreakers can be directly traced back to the unions.

Wow I liked all of that.

In my opinion unions are to totalitarian over their members if you know what I mean. To much control, dotn let you think for yourself.

The cost of a union is also high. It basically makes you or me pay all those teachers healthcare, wages, and other needs. If you do it from the kindness of your heart then great, but the goverment forcing you to do it through taxes is morally wrong.

Unions actually harm the economy. Artificially high wages were one of the factors that drove GM and Chrysler into


Just another scource.



Wow. It takes much skill to copy and paste.

No offense, but your refutations makes no sense (except the one that I broke one of the rules. Didn't see that). Taxes will raise prices of merchandise, but not dramatically, becuase other competing buisnesses would try to stay at a low price. Your refutations about giving more money to schools and teachers, but not having improvement, is not true. After a more substantial pay, the government was able to hire better teachers, resulting in better test scores. If some didn't, that was because they were not able to find good enough teachers, or it was the student's fault.

Unions didn't mess up GM and Chrysler; it was because they couldn't sell enough cars! That's it! Even if you're saying that because of minimum wage, they had to spend so much money, look at Toyota! Look at Honda! GM and Chrysler had a bad reputation in the first place because their cars weren't properly made.

You keep on saying how job unions are bad, how they effect the economy badly, but what could we do without them? Car companies, food companies, shoe companies, all of the need job unions to make things. How could we live without teachers, firemen, and policemen? Millions of jobs in the country would be lost!

Yes, labor unions hurt the economy, BUT ONLY WHEN THE UNIONS FAIL. We need unions to pay most of our taxes, since they gain lots of money, they also have to pay lots of taxes. Without them, our taxes would be many times higher to maintain secuirity, welfare, transportation, etc.
Debate Round No. 2


"Taxes will raise prices of merchandise, but not dramatically, because other competing businesses would try to stay at a low price."

Yes taxes will raise prices of merchandise a lot over time. Hope you like math.

you spend 350$ a week, under a non taxation sales tax zone.
Under the unions you pay 385$, a 10% sales tax. Now lets look at this over a one year time period.
350*52= 18,200$
385*52= 20,020$
That is a large =increase, especially for lower class families. If the poor knew that they could ave that much then they would hate unions. Also unions decrease competition. How? When you raise prices i.e. union wages then they will hire less people. So lets take easy numbers again.
you have 250,000 workers, you need to pay them 8$ an hour= that's 200,000 dollars an hour. That's a lot.
Under a union 250,000 workers 10$ an hour= 2,500,000 Look, a 500,000 dollar increase. Some company's cant afford that This is economics 101, more cost = less jobs, less money and job = poorer company, which = less competition, because they need to save money to keep their existence not spend it to be better then eir neighbor.

"After a more substantial pay, the government was able to hire better teachers, resulting in better test scores. "

How does higher wages make more jobs? Please explain, because that defies logic. More cost makes less jobs. So how does higher wages lead to hiring better teachers?

"Unions didn't mess up GM and Chrysler; it was because they couldn't sell enough cars!"

Toyota has selled 11.0% pf the worlds auto mobiles, 8,557,351 cars. GM sold 10.9%, ,476,192 cars. That is to close to blame it on the cars. It was the wages. I japan there are less unions and stuff like that, leading to you can pay your workers less, in America you must pay them more. I dislike the minimum wage, but the unions make a minimum wage into a median wage. 8$ to 20$. That raises costs that is a 250% increase in costs.

"You keep on saying how job unions are bad, how they effect the economy badly, but what could we do without them? Car companies, food companies, shoe companies, all of the need job unions to make things. How could we live without teachers, firemen, and policemen? Millions of jobs in the country would be lost!"

This is a fallacy, these jobs aren't union created. In right to work states these people can work without a union, and they still exist. You say unions make these jobs, it is not the unit is the industry. Also since wages rise and as I have stated harm the economy then the price rise then jobs decrease. It is ECONOMICS! Killing unions wouldn't kill the jobs, they would stay there, and it would make more jobs come into existence.

"We need unions to pay most of our taxes, since they gain lots of money, they also have to pay lots of taxes. Without them, our taxes would be many times higher to maintain security, welfare, transportation, etc."

This debate is annoying, you don't understand economics, maybe I don't, but you certainly need to see the whole picture. Unions don't make JOBS the things you stated don't coincide with UNIONS. ALL OF WHAT YOU SAID HERE WAS OFF TOPIC! Sorry to say. Our taxes raise die to unions. We already pay for all of what you listed, duh, the unions are an extra add on. So we pay all of that plus unions, or if labor unions died then it would be all of that minus unions.... It is simple.


Lower investment obviously hinders the competitiveness of unionized firms. The Detroit automakers have done so poorly in the recent economic downturn in part because they invested far less than their non-union competitors in researching and developing fuel-efficient vehicles. When the price of gas jumped to $4 a gallon, consumers shifted away from SUVs to hybrids, leaving the Detroit car makers unable to compete and costing many UAW members their jobs.
Economists would expect reduced investment, coupled with the intentional effort of the union cartel to reduce employment, to cause unions to reduce jobs in the companies they organize. Economic research shows exactly this: Over the long term, unionized jobs disappear.
Consider the manufacturing industry. Most Americans take it as fact that manufacturing jobs have decreased over the past 30 years. However, that is not fully accurate. Chart 1 shows manufacturing employment for union and non-union workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs fell by 75 percent between 1977 and 2008. Non-union manufacturing employment increased by 6 percent over that time. In the aggregate, only unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared from the economy. As a result, collective bargaining coverage fell from 38 percent of manufacturing workers to 12 percent over those years. (1)
Unions Cause Job Losses
The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent.[32]
One prominent study comparing workers who voted narrowly for unionizing with those who voted narrowly against unionizing came to the opposite conclusion, finding that newly organized companies were no more likely to shed jobs or go out of business.[33] That study, however--prominently cited by labor advocates--essentially found that unions have no effect on the workplace. Jobs did not disappear, but wages did not rise either. Unless the labor movement wants to concede that unions do not raise wages, it cannot use this research to argue that unions do not cost jobs. (1) Ignore their []'s. So in conclusion it decreases jobs.
Next round my case will be devote to taxes, and its explanation such as the one above abut destruction of jobs, like all the stuff above. (1)


Seine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


extend all arguments


Seine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
this debate outcome was BS
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Posted by Defensor-of-Apollo 4 years ago
This is stupid. Pro should have won.
No votes have been placed for this debate.