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

Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 8057
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I negate the following resolved. Although my opponent may post their arguments next round, i ask that they dont so we can have an even debate.


Well I can't go until you go. That's the way it works. I can delay better than you can. Just ask Charlie.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright then opponent. I post my arguments with these 3 contentions:

1) Card check system is flawed
2) Binding arbitration is flawed
3) This bill will ultimately hurt American business

1) Card Checking

Now lets talk about card checking. Under EFCA as long as unions have majority of signed cards, the union would automatically become a representative among the employees and a private ballot election would become illegal.

By doing this, employees are left open to intimidation and coercion.

According to the Testimony of Jen Jason, who was a former union organizer from Unite-Here, she along with other organizers were instructed to use mainipulation tactics that would agitate employeese into signing cards. She even ADMITS that EFCA is a powerful advantage to unions to be recognized, and later states that the amount of signed cards is usually disproportionate to pro union ballots.

They are actually far less. According to an inside study by AFL-CIO, unions dont have a 50% of winning until at least 75% of employees sign cards. What AFL-CIO admits is that just because you sign a card doesn't necessarily mean you want to join a union, otherwise 75% of signed cards would mean a certain victory.

2) Binding arbitration

Under the EFCA if an initial contract isnt made in 120 days, a government appointed arbiter will make a decision binding on the parties for 2 years. Basically this tells businesses "you better let us mess with your wages whether you like it or not."

The unwise thing about this bill is that it puts an arbiter, who has no stake in the matter or financial consequence for making a poor decision, in a position to manipulate wages, therefore behind the wheel of your business. This bill assumes that the arbiter is trustworthy and immune to all forms of corruption (specifically bribery), and that the arbiter is educated enough to make a MARKET based decision that wont hurt business.

Also, this bill takes away power from the employers and the employees. The employees cannot hold a vote to terminate the contract, and employers may not terminate the contract without consent of the union. The business and employees may suffer dire consequences as a result of a poor decision, as they cannot terminate it no matter how bad it is.

3) Business

Unionizing has its benefits, but is not necessary at ALL COSTS. Increasing wages and benefits for the employees may not be suitable for the company. One example of an industry torn by mindless overuse of collective bargaining is the American auto industry. Thanks to the contracts made by the United Auto Workers union, the big three pay as high as $70 an hour to support worker salaries and benefits. Now since the automotive industry has had to suffer the financial consequences of a greedy union, it is on the brink of bankruptcy, and must cut jobs in order to stay afloat. From the year 2000 till today, in attempt to stay afloat the big three have cut over 250,000 American jobs.


I humbly await my opponents arguments


`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

This permits campaigning and an open and fair process, based on the observation that people are more likely to sign a petition than to vote, as Jen Jason points out. She is not saying that employees who do not want a union were coerced into signing petitions. Coercion by employers is much more of a problem, which is why there is collective bargaining to begin with. Any coercion is already dealt with under existing law, with due process.

Of course employers do not like this law because it does not give them anything. They are against all labor law. They would prefer to treat employees as they please and work them long hours under terrible conditions for substandard wages.

If the workers do not want a union then no union will be able to be certified under this law.

If the workers do want a union, they should have one. The circumstance of there being more than one union should not be used to prevent workers who want a union from getting one.

Formerly, if several unions wanted to represent a shop, a secret election might guarantee that none of them would get a majority vote, even if the majority of workers wanted a union.

This way, the first union to get a majority of signatures gets the job.

This is not unfair at all but prevents the company from being unfair.

Arbitration in labor disputes has been around for some time and was not created by this law. If arbitration is unfair then that is the situation that should be addressed.

Similarly, this bill addresses only the certification process, not the termination process.

Has it ever happened that a shop wanted to get rid of a union but couldn't?

And again, this bill did not invent collective bargaining. If there is something wrong with collective bargaining, that is the situation that should be addressed.

How many hours did you work today? Your grandfather woked sixteen. Your grandmother too. When they were teenagers.

Do you have a health plan? They didn't.

for a good history of labor read "Labor's Untold Story."
Debate Round No. 2


diety forfeited this round.



Yes that's a pretty good job. Health care for life even after you retire. Here's an even better one. Must be a better union:

It's worth a thousand of those UAW jobs. I would much prefer that union where you get your own private jet also.

You need it to go round trip from Detroit to Washington to ask for bailouts.

It's too bad for the thousands of good workers who had to be sacrificed for a few execs though.

Especially since the point of the bailout I thought was to save jobs.

I guess that wasn't the real point after all.

When the auto companies do well they might think about returning all that bailout money instead of giving it to execs.

Where are the shareholders when all this is going on? They're not any smarter than we are.

They are making bad business decisions to protect their fat paychecks:

And they think they are underpaid.

And it's not just the auto companies.

Executive pay.

But wait. That's small potatoes compared to the Bank Robbery plan which has given the banks thirteen trillion dollars so far.

How much is this for every man, woman and child in America? I can't even count that high.

Almost forty thousand dollars.

Government spending is going to ruin us.

So of course we have to make that much first. We need collective bargaining just to be able to support the rich in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

We are not doing this for ourselves. We don't need yachts and vacations and stuff. It's the rich we are thinking of unselfishly.

Collective bargaining makes this all work.
Debate Round No. 3


diety forfeited this round.


Currently serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason.

Plagiarism such as , plagiarized from and , plagiarized from is not being addressed.

Multiple accounts:


all from Spring, Texas.

We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators.

We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating.

The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly.

Cell phones must not be used to verify identity.

There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate.

There should be voting after each round.

More statistics should be available.

It should be possible to display debates by category.

More participation, and proper debating technique learned by all should be encouraged.

Educators need to look more to the Internet for the delivery of "open courseware" utilizing "distance technology."

Debating has moved from the courts into the auditorium. Its next move is the big one.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
I'll show you "clogging the available debates."
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
There are three other "Employee Free Choice Act" debates. Two of them address it as an issue of globalization. The remaining one involves my opponent who Panda asserts is therefore "clogging the system."

My opponent is quite capable of losing this debate without any help.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
I'll ask my old PFD partner for our case and then I'll take you on!
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
Shouldn't the Aff give their case now and go first and not put in to the last round. You still get even debating time.
Posted by diety 8 years ago
Lol thats how you know its me
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
You love clogging the available debates with the same resolution over and over again, don't you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70