Established Worker Cooperatives(worker owned businesses) are Better than Established Traditional Businesses, as of now.

Every single massive corporation is the traditional kind. By 'massive' what I mean is that the very way you make a company so huge that noone can deny it's huge, is that you have a group of executives in charge, who 'work' to make decisions about the company and then you have the workers who 'decide' within a small range of how best to work to achieve ends dictated to them by the executives, assigned to each individual's role in the company.

It doesn't matter if (obviously) worker-owned companies pay their workers more and fire them less. The entire reason they can even afford to do that is that they are almost cult-like. What I mean by 'cult-like' is that they'd rather keep paying workers more and less, proportional the profit they're making, rather than hire more or less workers and only increase the salary of extremely proficient ones, to ensure not only the best for the company but also that the most people who could be hired, do get hired. By being rigid in your workforce and flexible in the wages, what you actually do is reduce the opportunity for the average unemployed person to have a chance to get hired by you during an upswing (a job which could be the difference between that person having any career at all, feeding their family without starving themselves in some very capitalist nations, so on and so forth). By hiring more workers and letting more fruitful competition occur during 'good times' economically, traditional corporations foster a fairer system that isn't cult-like in how 'loyal' it is to otherwise incompetent workers it may have that lead to its lossful periods.

I am going to dismiss the 'happiness' point because just because your workers are more satisfied with the fact that they're allowed to have a say in decisions, doesn't actually mean it's better for the company overall. 

I leave it at that, I don't even need a source. It's that simple, I will win by pure defence and plan on it.

                                                     Established Worker Cooperatives are Better than Established Traditional Businesses 
Thanks for the argument RM.
                                                                                                          Rebuttals
“Every single massive corporation is the traditional kind.”
Coops actually seem to be larger than regular corporations, and I have a source.
“Pérotin cites research studies from Italy, the US, Spain, France, and Uruguay, which all indicate that, on the whole, worker-owned cooperatives tend to be slightly larger than conventional firms.”[SOURCE]
For a specific example, Mondragon is a Spanish worker cooperative that generates €12.110 billion in revenue. It has 74,335 employees.[SOURCE]
The data is very clear here.
“It doesn't matter if (obviously) worker-owned companies pay their workers more and fire them less. The entire reason they can even afford to do that is that they are almost cult-like. What I mean by 'cult-like' is that they'd rather keep paying workers more and less, proportional the profit they're making, rather than hire more or less workers and only increase the salary of extremely proficient ones, to ensure not only the best for the company but also that the most people who could be hired, do get hired. By being rigid in your workforce and flexible in the wages, what you actually do is reduce the opportunity for the average unemployed person to have a chance to get hired by you during an upswing (a job which could be the difference between that person having any career at all, feeding their family without starving themselves in some very capitalist nations, so on and so forth)”
This point is also rather inaccurate, coops are a reliable resource to decrease unemployment, this workforce rigidity isn’t occurring, if you’re merely trying to hypothesize that coops could lead to unemployment rates increasing, why is it not born out in the data?
“Democratic worker-ownership offers a way forward. Throughout the world, worker-cooperatives have a proven track record of successfully combating unemployment, mitigating income disparities, expanding wealth-building business ownership opportunities, and promoting strong, sustainable local economies.”[SOURCE]
So they clearly ‘have a proven track record’ of lowering unemployment.
------
Also, my opponent seems to think coops hire less people, but they have an average of 21 employees in France[SOURCE], compare this to the average where almost all french companies have between 0-9 employees.[SOURCE]
“I don't even need a source. It's that simple, I will win by pure defence and plan on it.”
Yes you do, keep in mind that the description says. “my opponent will argue that traditional businesses are better than cooperatives.” You must offer an offence, and sources are basically a necessity in a debate like this.

I admit defeat. It's too nitpicky for me to go into the details. Honestly both have pros and cons, netiher is 'better' but the worker coops are always smaller than the supergiants like microsoft, walmart etc.

It doesn't matter to me, I enjoy theoretical-flexing debates not nitpicking facts.

My opponent has conceded.

My opponent has succeeded.