Labor Party Beliefs

Point 1: With more profit, why would a company decrease wages? To earn prfit, why would a company decrease wages? For the first one, with more profir, that allows for an INCREASE in wages and more ability to hire, thus reducing unemployment. For the second, if the company decreased wages, the employee would leave and seek better employment. That is a significant advantage of Capitalism. If someone is not satisfied witht their job, they can find another, thus companies are forced to provide good working conditions and high wages to ensure the employee does not leave. In Third World countries, countries do not have fully developed economic systems. They have repressed, totalitarian forms of Government that "set up" and "allow" these working conditions. We cannot use them as an example for that very reason. It's the totalitarian, backward Government and Economy, not the Corporations. The fact that they have jobs in third-world countires is a blessing to them. What they consider good working conditions and what we consider good working conditions are two totally different things, and to them, the jobs to Apple are some of the best in China for the working class. And plus, many multi-national corporations, like Walmart, are making strides to help the workers and the communities of these countries. Their help has helped thousands of people survive hunger that without them, would have died. Companies are owned by CEOs and stockholders. These are the "people" behind corporations. They represent the "body" of the company. The corporation functions as a group and a corporation works no different than any other group of people. The body of people make decisions, formulate solutions to problems, and do other things that are characteristic of people. They should be considered people. Point 2: How can you be outmaneuvered by management? Again, if you have enough complains you can get another job. This isn't really a pro side to trade unions, and I will explain cons later. Here is what I meant about the trade union salary argument. When unionized workers are employed, they have to be paid a certain wage set by the Union. And that wage keeps getting higher through wage. The business is not allowed to decide when wages are, so when they are running a loss, they still have to pay higher pay and raises to the unionized workers, thus making the loss bigger. Sooner or later, the loss will get too big and the company will go out of business. Thus, the unionized worker has to go to lower-wage work. Now you might be asking, what about the non-unionized workers. Well the majority of workers in the factories are unionized. I will explain more about the minimum wage later, but to preview, they do not increase the standard of living for workers because one, they are rarelt needed, and two, you should be paid for performance, not just time. And the disparity between a larger company and the right to a standard of living is false because being a part of a larger company does not hinder the standard of living, but in fact helps it, and two, there is no "right" to a good standard of living. That is a responsibility, not a priviledge. Again, companies cannot write in unionized employees even when their perfromance is bad because they are unionized, so the complaint has to first go through the union before anything can be done about it, and the union always sides with the worker, so when a company tries to fire someone for sloth, they cannot because they find themselves in a legal battle over it with the labor unions and they do not want to waste the money. They are stuck and in a dilemma. That's why your argument here is flawed. Point 3: Teenage workers are not supposed to make high wages. That is for later in life. If you give them high wages at the beginning, then there will not be much incentive later on to work because they will not be making much more money. Teens do not deserve the same amount because they rarely work as hard. Their "sloth" rate is higher than adults. And plus, teens do not need all of the money that adults do. Most of their expenses are paid for. And they have a lot of bargaining power because the teen can simply go next door. In other words, he can work somewhere else if the company does not provide enough. Having a minimum wage is determinal to the teen because it encourages the "something for nothing" mindset that is killing this nation (both the United States and England). This is a main argument. Your argument does not really explain the teens aren't lazy argument. You haven't refuted anything. Teens shouldn't rely on their parents for room and board if they are not in high school and are not going to college, but they do becuase they can lazy. So many tenns and now 20-year olds are in their parents' basement because they are to lazy to look around for a job. Their parents' encouragenment does no good. And having a minimum wage does not fix this problem either becuase teens don't want to work. The minimum wage would have to be A LOT higer for teens to actually need to use it. Point 4: Teens should be able to balance school and work. If they can't, they shouldn't work. But those that can should have the ability to do so, and the Government should not stop them. It should be up to them, but they should decide whether or not they are up to it. First of all, you are still supposed to put school ahead of work. You still complete your schooling. You got that part wrong. Second of all, having a job would not mean quitting high school. Whereas school activities may be a liitle fun, maybe exercising, or somewhat educationally benefitial if the person plans on doing that activity in later life, working in the teenage years produces hard work and preservance, teaches good working skills that last a life time and help make sure the person holds down a job for the rest of his or her life, and the job will most certainly either be the job he will be doing later on in life (hopefully not), be practice for a higher job, or just a job to help with working skills, having a job is a very good thing to do as a teenager. It can also be very rewarding, not just financially. If there are any workers conditions laws that you would like to debate specifically, please tell me. I can't think of any.