The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Should the goverment illegalise unions

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 43344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I believe unions were once beneficial to the worker but now are a greater hinderince not only to themselves but to American buisness.

Hostess, the American based food company was brought to bankruptcy by the workers union wich refused to compromise with hostess, wich lead to the eventual dissolution of hostess and loss of jobs for the employees. Isn't it hypocritical that the unions want jobs in the Amerian companies with American made products but they destroy a corporate American giant that gave such things. Furthermore isn't the union detrimental to its own goals considering that they want to create and insure jobs however they would rather destroy the company they gives forth work than keep their jobs. This alone proves that unions are hindering American buisness

I don't discredit the Unions for their achievements in the past but they as of late seem to be achieving little. They unions are like a old antiquated appliance, they served nobely and were extremely usefull in the industrial revolution, however like a appliance when unions become a disadvantage instead of a advantage we must rid our household of such things to make progress.

Unions keep workers in the antiquated strugle of worker against executive, wich keeps the workers tense and when their is tension the unions thrive.

Unions are neary socialistic in the idea that unions would prefer workers stay workers their entire life in contrast to the capitalist idea of workers turning into owners.

For these contentions I support the resolve that unions should be Made illegal.


America is a free market society, under which businesses can thrive. Communism has been proven time and again to not work, at least not for the millions who die of starvation [1]. Under our system of democracy, we have both Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Protest; to take away these rights from workers, would be a strike against their rights as free citizens, and a move by government to directly interfere with the free market system. Thus the government should not interfere as pro suggests.

1) A Hasty Generalization from a single Reduction Fallacy.
That Hostess had unions and failed, tells very little. I know they wanted to cut pay to the lower workers to pay for massive pay raises for their top people, but when one failed they probably should not have gone ahead with the other.
    • "BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256" [2].

Granted when they were in bankruptcy under that leadership, they did cut his pay to only a 200% increase.

Even the highly respected Forbes magazine blamed a mix of management, and the simple business reality of the product cycle (IE, junk food becoming less popular for a time) [3].

2) A Fault Comparison fallacy.
Equal pay for equal jobs, are one of the main points to unions. Peoples livelihoods are nothing like an "old antiquated appliance."
Should women and minorities really be paid far less for performing the same job? No, and unions give at least some protection from that.

3) Argument By Emotive Language fallacy [4].
Irrelevant. Spelling errors aside, there really isn't an argument in that section; merely a hollow and unsupported assertion.

4) see above.
I feel this point is already countered to the point of redundancy.

Debate Round No. 1


I contest your finding of executive bonuses but Any way I can't restate enough that the world is in the worst economy since the crash of 29, would the unions rather suck it up and keep a job until the economy goes back in the black or would they rather join the most Vicous competitive unemployment line since the industrial revolution.

I never question the rights of women or children to work I merely challenged the usefulness of the union itself seeing how now the goverment has passed laws that protect the rights of workers. Also if the unions are so beneficial to the worker why are people fleeing union states like California and Detroit for the right to work states like Texas and north Dakota.

You can't be serious that unions thrive when everything is swell and grand.
Unions thrive in the same conditions as armed military assault, they thrive in tension.

Using redundancy dose not disprove my point. You did not provide a abundance of situations in wich the unions brought workers up to executive power


As a reminder, it is not my job to prove unions to be wonderful.

1) "suck it up and keep a job"
Actually educated people would rather someone lose a job, than everyone get a pay cut.
I shall paraphrase from Professor James Seal Ph.D., of the University of Portland (one of my economics teachers):
  1. When a budget shortfall at the university affects teachers, they would rather someone lose their job than everyone take a pay cut. First of all that person has unemployment benefits from the government. Second they're not going to draw straws, rather it will probably be one of the least useful people being cut, or trimming the fat to use an analogy.
    More important is their best people retaining competitive pay. If their pay falls to less than their worth, doubly so if something has made them dissatisfied (such as a reduction in pay), a smarter institution will acquire them. This harms the first institution since now they are less prestigious, having a lower quality pool of workers. Thus less people spend money there, and the cycle repeats itself in a downward spiral. A spirit easily prevented by trimming the fat, instead of hurting everyone.
I should not have to specify, that the above applies outside mere schoolhouses. The sentiment is in fact mirrored in the business community, as research done at Yale on the 1990's recession indicates [5].

2) "people fleeing union states like California and Detroit for the right to work states like Texas and north Dakota"
Economies shift up and down for a number of reasons, attempting to assign all blame to a single factor is weak. It is in fact as weak as if I were to claim people leaving "right to work" states like Michigan are due to the shortage of unions there ruining everything.
I suppose I would care more for this argument, if I was not an Oregon resident. Here we are currently having an influx of people from places like California. Seeing how Oregon in a union state, this pretty directly contradicts the one cause theory for why people migrate.

3) "Unions thrive in the same conditions as armed military assault,"
I've been in armed military assaults (82nd Airborne, combat medic), I fail to see any comparison to unions in such situations. Please cite an actual case of it.

Unions form as a part of the free market system, usually forming when workers feel they are mistreated. If companies don't want unions to form, they can simply not give their workers reason to form them... (continued below)

4) "Using redundancy dose not disprove my point."
From my R1 argument: "Under our system of democracy, we have both Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Protest; to take away these rights from workers, would be a strike against their rights as free citizens, and a move by government to directly interfere with the free market system." The government banning Unions, would be a step both away from free markets, but also a step firmly towards communism.

Debate Round No. 2


Equality2447 forfeited this round.


As Equality2447 (pro) has shut down his account, there is nothing more to say on this issue.

I believe in respect to his efforts, this should be viewed as a concession instead of a forfeit (conduct to him but arguments to me).
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 5 years ago
@Voters: Please discount my R2 source 6, as I forgot to include the in text citation to it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammer was horrible. Con had more convincing arguments and provided sources. I honored con's request to give pro conduct.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 5 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 Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: How sad that pro closed his account. This was a really good debate even though he was misinformed about the reality of the Hostess Debacle. Reliable sources and convincing arguments to con for setting it straight.