Aff - FJG Supplement - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

AFF – FJG Updates – BFGHR
Thanks to Ashrit, Nicole, and Raleigh for their hard work on this file. Please email khirn10@gmail.com with any questions or concerns
AFF---FJG---Unions
Unions Good---Democracy---1AC/2AC
Unions are key to democracy---it’s a prerequisite to voter turnout, economic security, and political freedom
Levitz ’19 [Eric Levitz, 9-18-2019, "Democracy Dies When Labor Unions Do," Intelligencer, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/democracy-dies-when-labor-unions-do.html, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
But these facts say less about the deficiencies of democracy than they do about about the insufficiency of elections — by themselves — to produce popular self-rule. The alternative to naive faith in the omnicompetence of the individual voter need not be an equally naive faith in that of unelected technocrats. The most vital mediating institutions in a liberal democracy are not those formed by elites to check the irrational appetites of ordinary voters, but rather, those formed by ordinary voters to check the avarice of elites. Democracy asks too much of the individual. But if individuals organize collectively, they can force democracy to give them a better deal.
Which is a fancy way of saying: To repair American democracy — and fortify it against future threats — Democrats must not only bring more Americans into the electorate, but also, more American workers into labor unions.
Democracy begins at work.
There’s a strong argument that giving ordinary Americans a say over how their workplaces are governed is just as fundamental to democracy as giving them the ballot.
These days, political liberty is often defined narrowly as the freedom to vote in fair elections. But in earlier eras of American history, genuine political freedom was thought to have a material component: To truly participate in self-government, one needed not only a voice in public affairs, but also a modicum of power in one’s economic life. Franklin Roosevelt articulated this principle when introducing his economic bill of rights in 1944, telling Congress, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” This sentiment might have struck some of FDR’s fellow “economic royalists” as un-American. But the notion that self-government is impossible without a degree of economic autonomy was common among our republic’s founding generation. The historian Terry Bouton writes of America’s original grassroots revolutionaries:
[M]any Pennsylvanians believed that economic equality was what made political equality possible. They were convinced that “the people” would never have political liberty until citizens had the economic wherewithal to protect their rights. To them, concentrations of wealth and power led to corruption and tyrannical rulers, while widely dispersed political and economic power promoted good government.
… Farmers and artisans declared that the Revolution was about “the freemen of this Country” stating that “they do not esteem it the sole end of Government to protect the rich & powerful.” … [G]overnment should promote the interests of “the mechanicks and farmers [who] constitute ninety-nine out of a hundred of the people of America.” In short, the objective of the Revolution was bringing “gentlemen men … down to our level” and ensuring that “all ranks and conditions would come in for their just share of the wealth.”
The revolution’s elite architects had other objectives. But while they typically did not believe that all white men (let alone, all people) were entitled to political liberty, they agreed that one needed economic power to exercise such freedom. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “A power over man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.”
If we accept our founders’ premises, then the true measure of a democracy — which is to say, a system of government in which all citizens enjoy political liberty — cannot merely be how many offices its people get to vote on. Rather, to gauge how democratic a society is, one must examine how much power ordinary citizens have over the terms of their own subsistence, and how evenly economic resources are dispersed across the demos. Judged on these terms, it is clear that the contemporary United States is the opposite of “excessively democratic” — and that it will remain so, absent a revival of its labor movement.
In the founding era, classical republicans imagined that the great masses of ordinary (white male) Americans could attain the economic autonomy necessary for political liberty by becoming small landholders, or independent artisans. But the industrial revolution rendered that vision obsolete. Today, the vast majority of Americans are not self-employed, and spend the bulk of their waking hours answering to bosses who have power over their subsistence. In this context, most workers can only secure a degree of control over their economic lives by organizing collectively to check the power of their employers. Which is to say, they can only do so by forming unions.
That trade unions do, in fact, increase their members’ power over their own working lives is confirmed by the wage and benefits premiums that unionized workforces enjoy. But organized labor does not merely democratize individual firms; it also democratizes economic power throughout the economy. As America’s private-sector unionization rate collapsed over the past half century, the middle-class’ share of productivity gains went down with it. And a large body of economic research confirms that this is no mere correlation. When workers organize, they secure a voice within the “private governments” that rule their economic lives, and they (typically) use that voice to rationally advance their own material interests — which, most of the time, also advances the self-interest of most Americans (a.k.a. the public interest). In other words, by forming trade unions, ordinary citizens achieve much of what critics of democracy insist it can’t deliver.
Thus, even if organized labor did nothing to increase voter participation, or the responsiveness of elected officials to popular demands, it would still serve an indispensable democratic function by fostering the material preconditions for popular self-government.
Unions make electorates more representative.
Many items on the Democratic Party’s democracy reform agenda are aimed at making the American electorate look more like the American people. Automatic voter registration, a federal Election Day holiday, and felon enfranchisement are all aimed at reducing class and racial disparities in voter participation. And such reforms are laudable. But no plan for lifting America’s low voter turnout rates is complete without a plan for boosting its piddling rate of unionization.
As the Center for American Progress (CAP) has noted, the U.S. states with the highest unionization rates also have the highest rates of voter turnout, and the same correlation holds between nations. And the political science literature suggests this is not coincidental. As David Madland and Nick Bunker wrote for CAP in 2012:
A 1 percentage point increase in union density in a state increases voter turnout rates by 0.2 to 0.25 percentage points according to analysis by Benjamin Radcliff and Patricia Davis, political scientists at the University of Notre Dame and the State Department, respectively. In other words, if unionization were 10 percentage points higher during the 2008 presidential election, 2.6 million to 3.2 million more Americans would have voted.
Similarly, research by Roland Zullo, a labor studies professor at the University of Michigan, shows that self-described working-class citizens — whether unionized or not — are just as likely to vote as other citizens are when unions run campaigns in their congressional district. Yet when unions don’t run campaigns, working-class citizens are 10.4 percent less likely to vote than other citizens.
Unionization is decreasing now---the plan is necessary to revitalize democracy
Cliffton et al. ‘21[Rita Cliffton, Malkie Wall, and Sam Ricketts, 7-7-2021, "The Clean Economy Revolution Will Be Unionized," Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/clean-economy-revolution-will-unionized/, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
Moreover, union membership can also strengthen democracy, at a time when working families in the United States need equitable and just representation in the nation’s highest political offices. Beyond their role as an active counterbalance to corporate power,18 unions represent one of the few interest groups whose positions line up with the interests of the middle class.19 Research shows that lawmakers representing strong union districts are more responsive to working-class constituents,20 and unions have been shown to increase voter turnout among both members and nonmembers.21
Years of de-unionization have harmed the middle class
Despite the evident health and livelihood benefits of unionization, the past five decades have seen declining union membership rates. Just 10.8 percent of Americans belonged to a union in 2020,22 down from nearly 30 percent in 1970.23 Jobs in the private sector, which are particularly pertinent in discussion of a clean economy transition, are only about 6 percent unionized.24 Declining unionization is strongly correlated with a downward trend in the share of national income garnered by the middle class.25 In fact, researchers estimate that the decline in unionization explains one-fifth to as much of one-third of the increase in wage inequality between 1973 and 2007.26 Once overlooked or avoided in some policy circles, the empirical evidence showing the benefits of unionization for economic and wage growth are now overwhelming and undeniable.
Unions Good---Solvency---Democracy---2AC/1AR
Jobs guarantee unionization reverse-causally solves democracy
Darity & Hamilton ’17 [William Darity Jr. and Darrick Hamilton, Darity is Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, at Duke University and received a PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hamilton is Henry Cohen Professor of Economics and Urban Policy at The New School and received his PhD in economics from UNC Chapel Hill, 3-1-2017, "Why the U.S. Federal Government Needs to Guarantee Jobs for All Willing Workers," Scholars Strategy Network, https://scholars.org/contribution/why-us-federal-government-needs-guarantee-jobs-all-willing-workers, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
The Broad Benefits of a Federal Job Guarantee
Positive impacts from the new federal program we recommend would be immediate and broadly distributed. A Federal Job Guarantee would of course help the unemployed and ameliorate joblessness, a key predictor of poverty. Employer discrimination would have less impact on vulnerable social groups, and “working poverty” would be remedied once and for all. Moreover, reverberations would reach far beyond the poor. As workers became less fearful of job loss, they would become emboldened to push for better pay and working conditions. Unionization drives and other efforts to improve labor condition would help workers in general gained bargaining power in a more balanced labor market. Rising inequality might finally be reversed – revitalizing American democracy and the national economy in countless ways.
Unions Good---AT: Manufacturing/Productivity---2AC
Unions have zero effect on manufacturing productivity---300 studies prove
Doucouliagos ‘19 [Chris Doucouliagos, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Deakin Business School and Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, 5-8-2019, "Unions do hurt profits, but not productivity, and they remain a bulwark against a widening wealth gap," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/unions-do-hurt-profits-but-not-productivity-and-they-remain-a-bulwark-against-a-widening-wealth-gap-107139, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
Some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism argue that trade unions are bad for productivity. “With few exceptions,” according to one American economist, George Reisman, “unions openly combat the rise in the productivity of labour.”
Other economists disagree. “Unionisation and high worker productivity often go hand-in-hand,” say Harley Shaiken and David Madland. “Fairness on the job and wages that reflect marketplace success contribute to more motivated workers.”
So who’s right?
To answer this question, my colleagues Richard Freeman and Patrice Laroche and I surveyed the global evidence from more than 300 studies on the economic impact of unionisation.
We conclude that unions do not, overall, reduce productivity, though it varies according to specific circumstances.
Unionisation does make businesses less profitable for the owners. But importantly, it also reduces income inequality, a useful social function given the problems that flow from a widening wealth gap.
National differences
Productivity refers to the efficiency of turning inputs into outputs. It’s a key measure of economic performance. A nation’s productivity raises its per capita GDP.
The evidence from Australia is too thin to draw a credible conclusion (there are just a handful of studies), so our overall findings reflect evidence from other nations.
That evidence is mixed. In Britain, for example, union influence has reduced company productivity. In the US, unionisation appears to be associated with higher productivity in the construction and education sectors, but has made no difference in manufacturing. In developing countries, the overall effect is generally positive.
Such differences can be explained by variations in labour market institutions. These include employment protections, minimum wages and unemployment benefits. Laws influence social attitudes, and vice versa, which in turn affect relative negotiating power and whether unions and employers value cooperation over conflict.
In theory, the more labour and capital cooperate, the more productive an enterprise is likely to be, providing higher wages and greater job security to workers and higher profits to shareholders. Less cooperation means lower productivity.
Unions help businesses, but even if they’re right, inequality outweighs---creates long-term economic risks and drags society
Doucouliagos ‘19 [Chris Doucouliagos, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Deakin Business School and Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, 5-8-2019, "Unions do hurt profits, but not productivity, and they remain a bulwark against a widening wealth gap," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/unions-do-hurt-profits-but-not-productivity-and-they-remain-a-bulwark-against-a-widening-wealth-gap-107139, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
But unions are by no means all bad for business. In representing worker interests, they can help make a company a more attractive place to work, reducing turnover and increasing employees’ commitment to business success. Higher union wages and benefits also attract more job applicants, allowing management to select the best workers.
But a benefit to society
Most importantly, from a societal point of view, unions reduce pay inequalities. They increase the relative pay of lower skilled workers. They help to establish pay norms that extend beyond unionised companies.
Inequality is bad for economic growth, because it discourages investment in education and innovation.
It is bad for democracy. It widens social divisions within societies and reduces participation and political engagement. It drives the rich to oppose democratic reforms that might lead to wealth redistribution.
The increase in inequality in wealthy nations as union membership has declined over the past half century suggests unions are a pivotal institution for promoting equality. In OECD nations the average rate of unionisation was about 46% of the workforce in 1980. By 2015 it was 27%.
Meanwhile, the average income of the richest 10% of the population in OECD countries is about nine times that of the poorest 10% – up from seven times 25 years ago.
The trade-off of lower profits and reduced managerial autonomy, with managers forced to work harder as they negotiate and compromise with unions, should be considered a cost-effective price to pay relative to the long-term costs of rising inequality.
So Alfred Marshall, a founder of neoclassical economics, had a point when he said in 1890 that trade unions “benefited the nation as well as themselves”.
Unions Good---AT: Hurts Growth---2AC
Increased union membership is key to cushion recessions
Hindery ’20 [Leo Hindery Jr., 10-19-2020, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, "Commentary: Why stronger labor unions would speed up America's post-COVID recovery," Fortune, St. Mark’s School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva ‘24]
Recessions always inflict the most pain on Americans in the middle and lower end of the income distribution range, destroying jobs, eroding wages and wiping out savings for those working in industries such as construction, manufacturing, hospitality and retail.
But the crushing economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have reached levels unseen in the last four decades, and the long-term scarring will be severe without intervention from Congress – not just in the form of emergency relief, but also with targeted policy solutions.
One solution lawmakers should prioritize is a historic workers’ rights proposal, given that defanged labor protections are a large part of the reason the downturn has been so devastating to those who can least afford it. We need to bring back fairness to an economy that is increasingly plagued by a fundamental imbalance of power between workers and employers. And at a time when our nation is engaged in a vital conversation about economic justice, we need to make union membership a civil right.
When the pandemic struck, only about one in ten workers were unionized, a steep decline from the nearly one-third of workers who were members of a union in 1964, myself among them. As a result, millions of Americans—many of them essential workers—were left without a voice at the table when employers were deciding their fate. They had no ability to minimize layoffs or to define what paid sick leave would look like during the pandemic.
The consequences of this are hard to overstate. At the peak of the pandemic, jobs in low-wage occupations—many of which have chronically low rates of union membership, such as food services—disappeared at roughly eight times the rate at which high-wage jobs did. This inequity has especially ravaged communities of color.
It’s long past time to reverse the trend in declining union membership.
States---Affirmative
Cannibalization---2AC
Increasing state-level taxation drains revenue for both states and the federal government.
David Gamage 17, Professor of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, Darien Shanske, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law, 2017, “Tax Cannibalization And Fiscal Federalism In The United States,” Northwestern University Law Review, 111 Nw. U.L. Rev. 295, lexis
In theory, the tax cannibalization problem may occur whenever state governments and the federal government levy taxes on overlapping tax bases. We demonstrate that the tax cannibalization problem currently does occur with respect to state-level taxes on corporate income and capital gains, and possibly also ordinary income. n9 Specifically, we show that state governments' current top tax rates on these bases impose large, wasteful costs through tax cannibalization. [*299]
Extrapolating from the existing empirical literature, we develop a model showing that a typical state's top corporate income and capital gains tax rates generate surprisingly large economic waste. n10 We propose federal-level reforms that could eliminate much

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.