Labor Party Beliefs

Before I start, there's just one minor point I need to make: in the UK, "labor unions" are more commonly referred to as "trade unions". For my own ease of reference I will call them "trade unions" in this debate, as this is the phrase to which I am more accustomed. These terms are, as I understand it, though, pretty much synonymous, so this difference in terminology shouldn't matter to much to the crucial issues under debate. With that out of the way, I'll begin:The major principle that outlines my approach to this debate is as follows: People should be the cornerstone of government policy, not corporations. This principle, if it holds true, serves to knock down several of my opponent's arguments about the alleged 'damages' to corporations. If there is a conflict between a corporation getting larger and people's right to a reasonable standard of living and employment, then the latter must come first. There is no right for corporations to be as large as they could become, if that expansion comes to the detriment of a worker's standard of living – simply because workers are people with rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, and other similar documents, and corporations are not.My opponent may claim that as corporations are made of people – such as employers and shareholders – that corporations to some extent should have the rights that I've just denied them. But I don't think this matches up, even if we consider the balance of rights between employers and shareholders vs the employees, because the conflict that we're talking about here is between the employers'/shareholders' right to preside over a larger company than they currently have, and the employees' right to a reasonable standard of living and employment, as provided for by the minimum wage, trade unions etc. With this balance under examination, I think it's clear that the employees' rights should come first.Now of course, my opponent also argues that these policies actually cause some harm to employees specifically, so let's move onto them in turn:THE EXISTENCE OF TRADE UNIONSThe purpose of trade unions is to represent workers' interests to the employers and society at large, mainly because workers – spending a great deal of their day working, surprisingly enough – don't really have the time to do that themselves. In this way, trade unions serve to represent the interests of workers – as people – against the non-human force of corporations, and/or against the less vital interests of employers to a larger company (as compared to the vital rights of workers to a reasonable standard of living and employment). If there's a disparity between the effects of union / work protection laws on workers, then the non-unionised workers should join a union, or set one up if necessary, to ensure that they too can reap the benefits attributed to being in a union. Such a disparity, if/where it exists, should not serve instead as reason to abolish trade unions altogether.My opponent claims that increased unionisation leads to workers being lazy and becoming "sloths". I don't quite understand why this would be the case – clearly, employers will reasonably expect a certain level of productivity, and will employ workers with that target in mind, and (presuming they are intelligent enough) will write that level into the contract of employment. If the worker then becomes lazy to the point of harming their productivity, and that of the company as a whole, then they will be fired for failing to live up to the terms of their contract, something which would happen regardless of whether trade unions exist or not. My opponent also argues that labor laws increase unemployment. Whilst this may be true in some circumstances, there are two ways that one can respond to this: the first is my opponent's strategy, which is to decrease labor laws and thus risk that workers will have their standard of living/employment decreased. The second is to significantly increase the number of jobs, so that if people become unemployed then there is a much greater chance that they will soon become employed again. Increasing jobs has the triple benefit of not only benefiting the workers (because they get money from their employment that can increase their standard of living) and not only benefiting the economy in general (because more people in employment means they have more money to spend into the economy, and more money to pay in taxes, etc.), but also benefits the companies that my opponent seeks to defend, because it allows them to become larger and employ more people. MINIMUM WAGEThe point of minimum wage is to provide enough money to survive - thats why the amount stops where it does, and doesn't/shouldn't go to $500 per hour etc. According to my opponent, if there is no minimum wage, then employees will 'shop around for the highest wage'. I don't see why this would happen. My opponent talked about unskilled teenagers who are being allegedly "priced out of the market", but all that happens with no minimum wage is that these teenagers – being unskilled and thus have not much to offer that every other prospective worker has - have no bargaining power with the employers and so will take any job they can, regardless of the price, simply because it gets them minutely closer to being able to afford basic living standards. All that my opponent's policy does is harm the people at the bottom of the ladder, whereas those at the top can afford to take lower paid jobs – because either they or their parents already have enough to subsidise their basic living standards - or unpaid internships, to increase work experience and thus give them an even greater advantage over the unskilled teens at the bottom of the ladder.WORKERS' CONDITIONS LAWSIt is very difficult to make an assessment of my opponent's argument here without many specifics in what he deems to be "unnecessary" laws over workers' conditions, especially as he sensibly concedes that a certain layer of worker protection is necessary. The one category that he does condemn is restrictions on child labor laws.We shouldn't allow children to work full-time (and we should put restrictions on underage teenagers' ability to work part-time), mainly because that time is better and more profitably spent getting an education, something that they wouldn't have the time to do if they were spending all day in a factory, coal mine or office. Such an education would allow them to develop their intelligence so that they are more able to compete with employers on an intellectual basis - and thus be less likely to be exploited - and give them an "out" so that they are not doomed to spend the rest of their lives either unskilled or with only one skill. It also allows them to progress through the ladders of the company system - evidently people who never had a decent education, and thus are illiterate and innumerate, will never even have a chance of becoming middle managers or CEOs. They will be doomed to be forever on the lower rung of the ladder, something which surely is not in their best interests, and should be protected against.If there are other categories of laws that my opponent would seek to be abolish as "unnecessary", then I will deal with them if/as they arise, instead of trying to argue generalities.