Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

You'll be evaluating a debate where two sides discuss a topic. Your opinion matters - you'll vote how persuasive each side is in each stage. We will use your feedback to improve the debate quality.

What to Expect:

Debate Structure

The full debate includes:

  • Opening: 4 min audio per side
  • Rebuttal: 4 min audio per side
  • Closing: 2 min audio per side

You'll evaluate a portion of this debate.

Your Evaluation Tasks

For each stage, you'll:

  • Rate the persuasiveness of each side's statements
  • Update your position after hearing each argument
  • Provide optional feedback
Final Comparison

In the final stage:

  • You'll see two versions of each side's closing statement
  • Rate each version independently
  • Select which version you found more persuasive
Important: Before beginning, you'll vote for the side you initially support. After each stage, you'll have the opportunity to reconsider and update your position based on the arguments presented.
Note: Throughout the evaluation, you'll encounter attention check questions to ensure data quality. Participants who demonstrate thoughtful engagement will receive compensation as agreed. If you're unable to commit to providing quality responses, you may exit the survey at any time without penalty.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

1
Poor

Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

2
Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

3
Moderate

Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

4
Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

5
Compelling

Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

* indicate required question

Motion: Labor Unions Are Beneficial To Economic Growth


Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage
End of Pre-Vote Stage Comparison
Question 2: Opening Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Good morning, everyone. We're here today to discuss whether labor unions are beneficial to economic growth. We firmly believe they are, and we will demonstrate why.

First, let's define our terms to ensure clarity. By "labor unions," we mean organizations representing workers to improve their wages, working conditions, and overall well-being through collective bargaining. "Economic growth" encompasses more than just GDP figures. It signifies overall economic growth, measured by indicators such as GDP, productivity, and income equality, across all age groups, genders, and income levels, within the current global economic landscape. It’s about a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Now, how do we determine whether labor unions truly benefit economic growth? We propose that the key criterion is sustainable and inclusive economic growth. By sustainable and inclusive economic growth, we mean growth that not only increases overall wealth but also protects the environment, creates jobs for all skill levels, and reduces disparities in income and opportunity. Does union activity lead to economic improvement that benefits a broad spectrum of society, not just a select few? Does it foster long-term stability and shared prosperity? We believe the answer is a resounding yes.

Now, let’s explore why labor unions are a catalyst for economic growth. I will present my arguments in a sandwich structure.

First, labor unions boost wages, and this is a fundamental driver of economic activity. When workers collectively bargain, they have more leverage to negotiate for fair compensation. Higher wages mean more money in the pockets of working families, which fuels demand, drives production, and stimulates economic growth. According to *the Economic Policy Institute*, unions raise wages for workers from every background. The *institute's* research indicates that the union wage premium is highest for Hispanic workers at 12% and for workers without a college degree at almost 12%, meaning union membership can close racial and educational wage gaps.

Second, collective bargaining through unions reduces income inequality. Unions help raise wages and push for benefits and fairer treatment, creating a more level playing field. *A 2021 report in The Journalist's Resource by Clark Merrefield* highlighted research in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, noting that the rise of unions from 1936 to 1968 explains about 25% of the decline in the Gini coefficient, a common measure of income inequality.

Third, unions invest in worker training and skills development. Unions often provide apprenticeship programs, training courses, and other resources to help their members improve their skills, leading to increased productivity and competitiveness. *MEPI Policy Analyst Andrew Wilson* stated that the biggest distinction between union and nonunion construction career training programs is the financing mechanism. He added that union programs include a self-financing instrument that does not exist in the nonunion side of the industry. This self-financing mechanism ensures that union training programs are well-funded and sustainable, leading to higher quality training and more skilled workers.

In conclusion, labor unions are not a barrier to economic growth. They are, in fact, a vital engine for creating a more prosperous and equitable society for all. As we look to the future, let's consider policies that empower workers and foster a more prosperous and equitable future for all, building a society where everyone can thrive. We look forward to demonstrating this throughout the debate.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
Good morning. We're here to discuss whether labor unions are beneficial to economic growth, and it's crucial to critically examine the claims made by the opposition.

First, let's address the definitions and criteria proposed. While defining labor unions and economic growth might seem straightforward, the opposition's definitions overlook key nuances. Their criteria for judging the effects of labor unions are incomplete, failing to account for crucial factors such as productivity, innovation, and overall competitiveness. To truly assess the impact, we need a more comprehensive framework that considers these elements.

Now, let's move to the main arguments. The opposition claims that labor unions boost wages, which in turn increases consumer spending. However, this argument ignores several critical factors. It's not as simple as "higher wages equal more spending." The wage increases driven by unions are not universally beneficial; they can lead to inflation, potentially negating the increased purchasing power. According to *a 2018 study in ScienceDirect* by Bhattacharya, Sen Gupta, and Samal, increased demand, partly fueled by higher wages, can contribute to rising food and non-food prices, ultimately driving inflation . This means that the supposed benefit of higher wages could be offset by the increased cost of goods and services, leaving consumers with little to no real gain.

Furthermore, this argument fails to acknowledge that union-negotiated wages don't exist in a vacuum. These higher costs can translate to higher prices for consumers, reduced investment in innovation, and ultimately, job losses as companies struggle to compete. As *the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank*, points out, union wage gains come out of business earnings . To cover these increased costs, companies often have to raise prices, potentially losing customers in competitive markets. Unions disproportionately benefit their members at the expense of non-union workers, creating a two-tiered system that is not conducive to overall economic growth. In fact, *Statista reported in 2023* that only around ten percent of U.S. workers were members of labor unions, highlighting the limited reach of these benefits .

Furthermore, the opposition claims that collective bargaining through unions reduces income inequality, leading to a stronger middle class. Again, this argument neglects broader economic forces.

Therefore, we must consider the potential downsides. First, unionization drives up production costs, making domestic industries less competitive in the global market. As *Investopedia, a website providing resources about investing*, explains, unions can limit labor market flexibility by negotiating higher wages, benefits, and better working conditions, which can increase costs for employers . Second, labor unions often resist technological advancements that could improve productivity but might displace workers. Finally, union influence can lead to inefficient resource allocation, as resources are diverted to satisfy union demands rather than market needs.

In contrast to the opposition's view, our vision for economic growth emphasizes innovation, free markets, and a level playing field where all workers have the opportunity to succeed. We believe that fostering a competitive environment, encouraging technological advancements, and promoting policies that support entrepreneurship are the keys to sustainable economic prosperity.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Alright, let's get to it. They've raised some concerns about the impact of labor unions, but we're here to disprove the claims that unions hurt business, and prove to you that they benefit worker wages, their health, and overall economic growth. We'll address their arguments about wages, flexibility, and strikes, providing evidence to support our position.

First, let's tackle the issue of wages. They argue that unions artificially inflate wages, which harms businesses. But that argument overlooks a crucial point: higher wages translate to increased consumer spending, which stimulates economic growth. Perhaps most importantly, *a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury* points out that nonunionized firms in competition with unionized workplaces often raise wages to attract workers. This *supports our argument that unions don't only benefit their members* because it demonstrates that the positive effects of unions extend beyond their members. It's not just about union workers getting paid more; it's about raising the standard for everyone. We understand businesses need to be profitable, but fair wages are not the enemy. It's not a zero-sum game; a healthy economy needs both thriving businesses and a thriving workforce. Increased wages benefit everyone by creating a more vibrant marketplace. As *Gurley reported in 2023* for the Economic Policy Institute, unions have recently won record wage increases at companies such as UPS, the Big Three auto companies, Kaiser Permanente, and Disney. These wage increases put more money directly into the hands of workers, who then spend it in their communities, further boosting local economies. So, while wages may be higher in unionized workplaces, the positive ripple effects throughout the economy far outweigh any perceived negative impact on business.

Second, they claim unions reduce workplace flexibility, hindering innovation. This argument assumes that innovation only comes from management, which is simply not true. Innovation also comes from the workers on the ground, who possess invaluable knowledge of the processes inside and out. *The WorkRise Network* indicates that unions improve business outcomes by helping firms hold on to tenured workers who tend to be more productive. Unionized workers are less likely to leave their jobs, which supports the stability necessary for investments in firm-specific human capital and training. Furthermore, safety regulations, often advocated for by unions, actually boost productivity by reducing workplace accidents and improving employee well-being. These programs also ensure that workers receive fair wages and benefits while they learn, further contributing to a stable and skilled workforce. So, it's not about stifling innovation but ensuring it benefits everyone, not just the top executives.

Finally, let's address the issue of strikes. They paint a picture of unions constantly disrupting the economy with strikes. But the reality is that strikes are rare. Unions don't take striking lightly. It's a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. And while strikes can cause temporary disruptions, they're also a critical tool for workers to fight for fair wages and safe working conditions. Without the right to strike, workers have little power to negotiate with employers. As *the U.S. Department of the Treasury* pointed out, unions advocate for policies that promote fairer income distribution. By bringing workers' collective power to the bargaining table, unions are able to win better wages and benefits for working people, reducing income inequality as a result. It's about leveling the playing field and ensuring that workers have a voice.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
They argue that labor unions are beneficial to economic growth, but let's take a closer look. We're here to demonstrate how labor unions often hinder long-term prosperity, addressing wage claims, apprenticeship programs, innovation, and long-term economic health.

First, let's address the claim that unions boost wages, leading to increased consumer spending. While appealing, this is like giving someone a raise by printing more money. It feels good initially, but ultimately leads to inflation, making goods and services more expensive. Artificially inflated wages lead to higher prices, making businesses less competitive globally. Consequently, companies might freeze hiring, reduce their workforce, or even lay off workers. *The Heritage Foundation* has pointed out the negative impact of unions on business investment. According to *The Heritage Foundation*, unions have the same effect on business investment as a 33 percentage point corporate income tax increase. This hurts the overall economy. As *The Heritage Foundation* also noted, businesses may choose to automate tasks or relocate to areas with lower labor costs to remain competitive, further harming the economy and resulting in job losses.

Second, let's discuss apprenticeship programs. While unions can offer certain benefits, such as worker safety and collective bargaining power, it's crucial to consider whether these advantages outweigh the significant negative consequences for the broader economy. They claim that union apprenticeships are essential for skilled trades. While union programs provide valuable training, it's inaccurate to suggest that they are the only viable option. Non-union apprenticeship programs also produce highly skilled workers who contribute significantly to infrastructure development and overall economic growth. These non-union programs also provide quality training and effectively meet industry needs.

Third, they argue that unions promote innovation by giving workers a voice. However, consider a company as a sports team. Too many rules and regulations can stifle creativity and flexibility, hindering the team's ability to adapt and succeed. Similarly, strict union rules and rigid contracts can make it difficult for companies to adapt to changing market conditions and implement new technologies. A 1987 study by Hirsch and Link found that unionization is associated with firm managers perceiving their firms as being less innovative than their competitors. When businesses cannot innovate and adapt, economic growth inevitably suffers.

Finally, we need to consider the long-term economic health of our nation. For example, strikes can disrupt production, affect supply chains, and lead to broader economic consequences that ripple through industries and affect both businesses and consumers. According to *a 2024 report by the Congressional Budget Office*, strikes have far-reaching economic consequences that extend beyond the immediate disruption of production.

In conclusion, while unions may offer some benefits, their negative impacts on wages, innovation, and long-term economic health outweigh these advantages.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Okay, everyone, let's break down our rebuttal strategy. First, I'll provide a quick overview, setting the stage for our response. Then, we'll tackle their claims about wages and consumer spending, followed by a rebuttal on innovation and productivity. We'll then address their core definitions and judging criteria. Finally, we'll reinforce our key arguments about how unions hinder economic growth.

First, regarding wages and spending, my opponents argue that unions boost wages, leading to increased consumer spending and overall economic growth. However, this argument is flawed because it overlooks the broader economic consequences of artificially inflated wages. According to *a 2025 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER, a non-profit research organization committed to providing data to public policymakers*, nominal wage increases have become the main factors behind wage and price inflation. This means that union-negotiated wage increases do not automatically translate to increased consumer spending because they contribute to higher prices for everyone, effectively negating any potential benefit.

Second, they contend that unions promote innovation and productivity. However, union contracts often lead to rigid workplaces that can stifle innovation. As *the Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM, the world’s largest HR professional society*, reported in *2025*, bargaining teams are seeing increased requests for advance notice of technology implementation, especially when the technology could lead to worker displacement. This demonstrates that unions often prioritize job security over the adoption of new technologies, which can hinder productivity growth.

Now, let’s address their definitions. They define economic growth as simply job creation, higher wages, and income equality. But that's far too narrow. A truly thriving economy needs productivity, innovation, and global competitiveness. We also disagree that job creation, wage growth, and income equality are sufficient criteria. These metrics ignore factors vital to a thriving economy. We need a more comprehensive view.

Now, let's reinforce our main points about how labor unions hinder economic growth. Their activities lead to inflated wages, reduced flexibility, and disruptions from strikes. My opponents failed to adequately address the negative impacts of union activities, such as strikes, and the resulting economic instability. They also failed to acknowledge that union apprenticeships aren't the only source of skilled workers and aren't necessarily essential for infrastructure.

Furthermore, focusing solely on job creation, wage growth, and equitable distribution of wealth presents an incomplete picture. We must consider the long-term health of the economy, not just short-term gains for a select few. As *IZA World of Labor*, *a global network of labor economists*, points out, union wage effects can have negative consequences for firm performance if they are not offset by increased worker productivity. The report also notes that shareholders often respond negatively to union organizing, with the share price of publicly traded firms falling by roughly 10%. This demonstrates a clear lack of confidence in unionized firms.

In conclusion, while unions may provide certain benefits to their members, their overall impact on economic growth is negative. They inflate wages, reduce flexibility, stifle innovation, and disrupt production. Therefore, we maintain our stance that labor unions are not beneficial to economic growth.

End of Rebuttal Stage Comparison
(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?
Additional Question 1 / 2
(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?
Additional Question 2 / 2

If you find that you can't submit the results, please check back to see if you have filled in your name and if you have answered every required question with *. Thank you.

© CMU Debate Team