1AC - Plan aff Advantages 1NC - Theory No solvency arguments Disad 1AR - Theory Turns 2NR - Weighing on disad
Princeton
3
Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Jayanne Forrest
1AC - Full res Util Unions and Democracy 1NC - Turns and Unions DA 1AR - Definitions and Responses 2NR - Weighing and Delinking 2AR - Weighing on inequality
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0-Please Read
Tournament: 0-Please Read | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Hi! My wiki won't let me upload any cites! Please email me if you need anything.
1/15/22
Contact Info
Tournament: NA | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA Hi! I'm Kate, I'm currently a JVer at Bronx Science competing on the circuit for the first time so please don't spread quickly! The best way to contact me is via email or text: email: hankink@bxscience.edu text: 347-981-7695
12/3/21
NOVDEC - NC - DA
Tournament: Princeton | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
Framework
Pleasure is an intrinsic good.
Moen ’16 – (Ole Martin, PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Oslo, "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267). Modified for glang Let us start by observing, empirically,that a widely shared judgment about intrinsic
AND
that pain is intrinsically disvaluable. I shall argue that these objections fail.
And, consequentialism is true—
A~ All actions are forward-looking, so intentions are constituted by foreseen consequences. If I throw my hand towards your face, I intend to punch you.
B~ Moral substitutability—if I ought to mow the lawn, then I ought to turn on the lawnmower. Thus, an obligation requires all of its necessary enablers.
Thus, the standard is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
1 Maximizing pleasure is a prerequisite to any other moral framework because you must have life before you can achieve anything else. If you are dead you can’t do anything at all, including protecting rights, making this a logical prerequisite.
Unions DA
In the status quo, union membership rates are low.
BoLS 21 US Bureau of Labor Statistics ,. "Union Members Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22 Jan. 2021, www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm. In 2020, the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions
AND
. For more information, see the Technical Note in this news release.
health and welfare of our people in order to attain a selfish end.
An unofficial strike versus an official strike
Team 21 Team, The Investopedia. "Unofficial Strike." Investopedia, Investopedia, 1 Dec. 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unofficial-strike.asp. An official strike is a work stoppage by union members that is endorsed by the
AND
unofficial strike is also called a wildcat strike or an unofficial industrial action.
So the aff is clearly defending official strikes because 1. If they weren’t they’d be defending breaking the law and 2. Official strikes are more beneficial for workers. If you don’t buy that, non-unionized workers can’t go on strike, they can break the rules but they can’t strike.
====Ahkbari 18 Akhbari, Ki. "Rights of Nonunion Employees." LegalMatch Law Library, LegalMatch, 3 Sept. 2018, www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rights-of-nonunion-employees.html. ==== Unlike unionized workers, non-union workers do not have a union as a bargaining representative. Non-union employees cannot go on strike because only unions may call strikes. Non-union workers do have similar rights to unionized workers, but they need to be addressed in a different manner.
Essentially strikes require unions.
The aff is defending an unconditional right, also definitionally known as a human right.
UN 21 "Human Rights." United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights. Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex
AND
and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.
So essentially these two things are the same. Now for a right to be an unconditional human right, everyone must be able to exercise it, and in order to strike you need to be in a union, so for everyone to strike everyone needs to be in a union.
This is a huge problem considering that this makes it so the aff violates serious human rights outlined in the first amendment. Constiution 1787 "The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 1. Congress
AND
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – the first amendment
The right to assemble also includes the right not to assemble. Even if we’re not only looking at America, a just government would not violate basic human rights.
So this implicates in 3 ways
The aff contradicts itself because by supporting a workers unconditional right to strike, the government is not just because it violates the human right of assembly.
By hurting workers
For example, all workers will have to pay Union fees
Hunter 99 Robert P. Hunter 8-24-1999 "Disadvantages of Union Representation" https://www.mackinac.org/2313 (Robert P. Hunter served as the regional director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Washington, D.C., and was a senior fellow in labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Hunter was director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center from 1996 to 2003.) JG Still another disadvantage of union representation is the cost to employees. Most collective bargaining
AND
to advance the interests of the group over those of the individuals.45
These union dues also don’t do much to help the workers
Unions still like to organize on a platform of "The Benefits Of Being A Union Worker"— that unionized workers receive higher wages and more benefits than non-union workers. But the real question is, why should employers pay more per hour to cover the cost of union dues? The Office Of Labor-Management analyzed union financial data for the period 2000-2019. In 2019, $10 billion was collected in dues, and only $3.75 billion went to representational activity. The average union collected $2.5 million in dues in 2019, and about 36 percent went to representational activity. And with fewer members, unions must increase the dues for existing members, meaning workers see an increase in the cost of unionization as well. - https://projectionsinc.com/unionproof/the-cost-of-unionization-2/
In addition, workers lose their individuality
Hunter 99 Robert P. Hunter 8-24-1999 "Disadvantages of Union Representation" https://www.mackinac.org/2313 (Robert P. Hunter served as the regional director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Washington, D.C., and was a senior fellow in labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Hunter was director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center from 1996 to 2003.) JG Another disadvantage for unionized workers is the loss of individuality. When a union is
AND
as the loss of the opportunity to negotiate for themselves an individual arrangement.
And 3. Jurassic effects on the economy
This is because unions at a large scale would cause mass unemployment
Lumen 21 Boundless, lumen. "Boundless Economics." Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-economics/chapter/understanding-unemployment/. Unions are able to raise wages because, when they are powerful, they may
AND
the demand curve and where it intersects the supply curve represents the resulting unemployment
On a small scale, like we have right now with not many people in unions, this is fine and has very little impact, however on a large scale this will be terrible
Simpson 21 Simpson, Stephen D. CFA, has 15+ years of experience in financial publishing and editing. "The Cost of Unemployment to the Economy." Investopedia, Investopedia, 28 July 2021, www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0811/the-cost-of-unemployment-to-the-economy.aspx. The economic costs of unemployment are probably more obvious when viewed through the lens of
AND
, it is also more expensive for them to retain or hire workers.
Firefighters DA
Firefighters U.S. states are among the groups commonly barred from striking usually by state and federal laws meant to ensure the safety or security of the general public.
AT an early morning fire in a Jamaica, Queens, furniture store, a Fire Department lieutenant runs straight to a telephone booth to call for permission to fight the blaze. Civilians try to put it out, but they have no protective gear. A union official arrives and orders everyone away, while firefighters, dressed in street clothes and bright stocking caps, stand idly by and shout taunts. ''These stupid firemen, they're arguing with each other while this building burns to the ground,'' a bystander says. That might sound like a scene from some alternate universe, but the account is taken directly from an article in The New York Times about the firemen's strike of Nov. 6, 1973. On that day 30 years ago, for five and a half tense hours, most of the city's 10,900 firemen (they were all men) picketed outside their firehouses or simply watched as some 80 fires burned citywide, chanting ''Scab! Scab!'' at makeshift firefighting crews. It was a strange, ugly moment in the city's history, one that many of the firemen who lived through it now choose to forget. The strike, the only one in the department's 138-year existence, proved the unthinkable: that the covenant between rescuer and civilian — until then seared in the city's collective consciousness through images of burly men carrying victims from smoky tenements and tales of volunteer firemen brawling in the streets to be first to put out fires — could be broken. Only in hindsight might there be some recognition, even appreciation, of the other covenant that remained mostly intact that day. In spring 1973, an ambitious fireman from the South Bronx was elected president of the firemen's union. Richard J. Vizzini, a husky, balding man of 46, took office with a flourish, promising that he would bargain hard with the city. It was no small task. Mayor John V. Lindsay's administration was known for being tough with the city's labor unions; already there had been strikes and slowdowns by teachers, transit workers, police officers and sanitation workers. Through that hot August, Mr. Vizzini pushed for a one-year contract and a $2,000 rise in the firemen's base salary of $14,300. Abruptly, in September, he declared the talks a ''charade'' and walked out. The stage was set for arbitration, or action. In October, he mailed firefighters ballots asking whether they backed a strike. The votes were counted by the Honest Ballot Association, which, under an existing agreement, told only Mr. Vizzini the results. At a Nov. 5 union meeting attended by thousands of firemen, Mr. Vizzini declared that his members had voted overwhelmingly to strike. The crowd erupted. ''Strike! Strike!'' the men cried, fists raised in the air. Mr. Vizzini, now 76 and living in Yonkers, had counted on that declaration — and the response it received — to give him leverage in arbitration, he said in a telephone interview last week. But early the next morning, Election Day, arbitration talks broke down. Mr. Vizzini went on WINS radio at 8:30 a.m. and told firefighters to walk out. Inside firehouses across the city, scared and angry firemen were already milling. In a surprise effort to pre-empt the strike, the department's chief and commissioner, John T. O'Hagan, had ordered all city firemen to report to their firehouses at 8 a.m., on the theory that some of the additional men could cover for any who went on strike. It turned out to be a staggering misstep. Men who were firefighters at the time said that before the recall they were leaning toward not striking. At a party the night before, Vincent J. Dunn, then a department chief, saw a friend from a Harlem firehouse, an outspoken union supporter, who was scheduled to work the following day. Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more. Get it sent to your inbox. ''Bobby, are you guys going to strike?'' Chief Dunn asked. ''What, are you kidding?'' the friend replied. ''I'm not going on strike.'' But the next morning, in that Harlem firehouse and others, from Riverdale to Sheepshead Bay, from Whitestone to Tottenville, the regular crews of firemen were overwhelmed by the eerie presence of the full company. Firehouses took on the air of union meetings. At 9 a.m., Commissioner O'Hagan began the company roll call to see which companies might strike. The first call by the Manhattan dispatch office was to Engine Company 1 on West 31st Street. Early that morning, members of Engine 1 had phoned other Manhattan companies to see who would back them, however they acted. Firemen now strained close to the department radio to hear how the company would respond. ''Engine 1 is out of service,'' a voice said. The strike had begun. ONE by one, companies across the city went out of service until, by 10 a.m., there were no working fire companies in New York City. Firemen, gently turned out of quarters by officers who remained on the job, picketed their firehouses in the 32-degree chill, some warming their hands over fires in 55-gallon steel drums. Then the alarm bells rang. The department quickly organized crews of probationary firefighters (who could not strike), fire officers (who could not do firemen's work) and the handful of firemen who refused to strike. These well-intentioned but overwhelmed teams responded to 338 alarms in the next few hours, while striking firemen followed them to the emergency scenes and yelled, ''Scab!'' A shrewd man, Commissioner O'Hagan, who died in 1991, is said to have gotten a tip that Mr. Vizzini had bluffed on having enough votes to strike. At 2 p.m., in the chambers of New York Supreme Court Justice Sidney A. Fine, he and Mr. Vizzini signed a deal entering the city and the union into binding arbitration. The strike was over. Mr. Vizzini's bluff had been called. By 4,119 to 3,827, the firemen had actually voted against a walkout. Mr. Vizzini said then, as he did last week, that he had not lied, but simply used the cheers at the Nov. 5 meeting rather than the ballot vote to gauge support. Still the bitter situation became more confused. Some firemen felt embarrassed, some defiant. Some, who had agonized about betraying their oath to protect New York, now felt betrayed by the union president who said he was only trying to protect their interests. And, back in the firehouses, there was the awkward question of how to deal with the conscientious objectors, the handful of men who had continued to work during the strike. In the public's eyes, those men (it is unclear how many there were) were considered heroes who put the welfare of the city ahead of their own interests. But in firehouses, they were seen as cancers, men whose individualism threatened the very ethos of a successful firefighting operation, which, to firefighters, is itself a covenant. It is, as one department veteran explained, ''all for one and one for all.'' There was the tale of one objector, Tom Donovan, whose colleagues recalled that he was banned indefinitely from the kitchen table. Reached by phone the other day at his home in Richmond Hill, Queens, Mr. Donovan, who retired in 1997, simply said: ''Nah. It wasn't so bad.'' No deaths were reported because of the strike. The firemen who walked were not fired, but fined two days' pay under the state's Taylor Law, which forbids public employees from striking. Under the contract signed later, their salaries increased by $950. The word ''strike,'' a current union delegate said, has never been uttered at a union meeting since. And Mr. Vizzini? He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of reckless endangerment for the bluff, was put on three years' probation and served out his union presidency. In 1977, he was elected to a second term.
Strikes in public services had stark impacts: disruption of nation’s productivity and people’s daily lives as well as Billions of dollars lost worldwide Committee on Economic Affairs and Development 05’ The right to strike in essential services: economic implications Report
Strike actions in essential services – whether in the public or private sector – are having an increasingly profound effect not only on the countries where they occur but also internationally and especially within a rapidly integrating Europe. Not all strikes in the public services create the same level of inconvenience or take place in key sectors. Their impact on the community depends on the usefulness of the good or service provided, reserve stocks and whether there are alternatives to the good or service concerned, and at what cost. Notwithstanding reserve capacity, strikes in public services are among those perceived as being the most disruptive of people’s daily lives, particularly as most public services are virtual monopolies. The cost of strikes will be higher the greater the weight of the particular services in the economic life of the country. In this respect France is especially vulnerable compared with its near neighbours, in that public services occupy a very important position both in terms of numbers of employees and as a percentage of GDP. This is particularly true of the post office, which has a total workforce of 302,000 and an annual turnover of €15.2 billion, or 0.95 of GDP. By comparison, the United Kingdom post office has a workforce of 193,000 and a turnover of €28.1 billion, 1.79 of GDP, while Deutsche Post, with 263,000 employees, has a turnover of €10.5 billion, or 0.45 of GDP. Depending on the outcome, a strike may significantly weaken staff motivation and productivity. If it has been highly disruptive, it may cause lasting damage to the enterprise’s commercial image and result in loss of business if there are alternatives. For example, the transport strikes in France in 1995 saw more car-sharing and more use of bicycles for short journeys from home to workplace. The macroeconomic impact of strikes in public services can also be considerable. There is often a significant fall in consumption and a loss of confidence in the future. The strikes in France in November and December 1995 is estimated to have resulted in a drop of around 0.17 in that year’s GDP, i.e. a loss of about €1.96 billion. Altogether, more than two-thirds of the loss in GDP caused by these strikes were borne by the private sector. Similarly, the general strike in Spain on 20 June 2002 likely cost 0.1 of GDP or €250 to 300 million. In Austria, the short but massively observed strikes in May 2003 lost the country about €1 billion, or 0.46 of that year’s GDP.