[Fasces]

But not for managing the state.

Clearly, having a single party regime that bans others outright isn't a democracy. As simple as that.

We're talking about workplace democracy, not the state.

This assumes all workers have no other choice but to work for their employer and that shareholders obviously have other sources of income. This is a very strong assumption that doesn't need to hold.

Which is more likely - that a major shareholder has alternative sources of income, or that a worker's town has many major corporations all working in the same industry as that employee's training? Not every worker lives in a major city, and company towns where a single employer is the predominant driver of economic activity are hardly rare.

keeping in mind most are small.

We're not talking about most businesses. I would, like Denmark, probably say these requirements only come in over a certain threshold of employees - at least a couple dozen. I own a small business and have worked at small startups in the past - they're quite democratic as they are compared to larger firms because they're not large enough to have the bureaucratic structures in place that lead to dehumanization of employees and their owners tend to be petit-bourgeois that have to labor themselves - they're not simply parasitically surviving off the surplus value of other workers.

From what I can see in Germany (the poster child for codetermination) the tie breaking vote, if any, in supervisory boards comes from the company's owners.

Sure. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving workers even a plurality of seats is a step forward in ensuring the interests of the firm's employees are protected over the present situation in the United States.

born-again Marxists

I don't know. I made my own thoughts clear. I said upfront I'm not particularly dogmatic.

[AFAIK]

Shareholders can divest from a company at the click of a button whereas an employee may need to relocate themselves and their families to another locale to pursue a job there or go through expensive and time consuming education and training to gain the qualifications to pursue a different job. Furthermore, employees tend to get 90% or more of their income from their primary employer whereas most investors spread their money around so that no more than 5% is placed in any one business.

[wat0n]

We're talking about workplace democracy, not the state.

Weird, I recall you were speaking about democratizing all spaces.

Which is more likely - that a major shareholder has alternative sources of income, or that a worker's town has many major corporations all working in the same industry as that employee's training? Not every worker lives in a major city, and company towns where a single employer is the predominant driver of economic activity are hardly rare.

Well, if you move to a company town just for the job you can always move to another place for another job. This doesn't really sound like a great justification, not when workers (specially in the US) often do move when they find a better offer.

Seriously, what the hell? It's 2023, this "job for life" stuff doesn't exist anymore.

We're not talking about most businesses. I would, like Denmark, probably say these requirements only come in over a certain threshold of employees - at least a couple dozen. I own a small business and have worked at small startups in the past - they're quite democratic as they are compared to larger firms because they're not large enough to have the bureaucratic structures in place that lead to dehumanization of employees and their owners tend to be petit-bourgeois that have to labor themselves - they're not simply parasitically surviving off the surplus value of other workers.

In Germany, it starts at 500.

For smaller businesses, quite frankly it depends a lot on the business. Sure, startups may be democratic and indeed they are often started by a group of capitalists who work there too. But there are many others that simply don't work like that.

Sure. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving workers even a plurality of seats is a step forward in ensuring the interests of the firm's employees are protected over the present situation in the United States.

There are different ways to do it, you know. The US and many other countries just rely on collective bargaining. The US also often just gives shares to workers, turning them into owners, and unions themselves could just use their own pension funds to invest in their company if they're so concerned about it (and if they are totally confident in their work too).

Germany, Denmark and others have this system to avoid collective bargaining outright, even though the results may be similar in practice since the best case scenario is that the type of bargain that would take place between the board and the union in the US just takes place discreetly in the supervisory boards. I don't think this is all that different, although it may have the benefit of making a strike less likely by basically institutionalizing the bargain process.

I don't know. I made my own thoughts clear. I said upfront I'm not particularly dogmatic.

At least when socialists speak of "worker's democracy" I've always understood that as workers having the last word on all important decisions (if not day to day operations).

What you describe is actually corporatism.

@AFAIK it depends a lot, particularly when you consider pension funds exist. It may as well be in the interests of many worker-capitalists (that's what those contributing to those funds are) to avoid a world where all or most businesses are run as a socialist workers' democracy.

[Fasces]

Weird, I recall you were speaking about democratizing all spaces.

Sure, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

if you move to a company town just for the job you can always move to another place for another job

You've lived through the US housing crisis the last few years and you're giving me this? Hell, just imagine you bought a house last year, with last year's interest rates, and want to just move this year.

In Germany, it starts at 500.

I said Denmark for a reason. But 500 is better than 0.

For smaller businesses, quite frankly it depends a lot on the business. Sure, startups may be democratic and indeed they are often started by a group of capitalists who work there too. But there are many others that simply don't work like that.

This just comes off as 'the situation is complicated so we may as well not even try'.

The US and many other countries just rely on collective bargaining.

Yes, the US is a case study in the power of unions and their efficacy. A true paradigm in protecting the right of workers to organize.

The US also often just gives shares to workers

There are 10,171,561 employees participating in ESOPs* in the US. There are 161.2 million full and part time employees in the US.

That's 6.3% of the workforce (2019).

Even limiting the implementation of worker participation in supervisory boards to companies with more than 1,000 workers we would reach 15.63% of the workforce (2018).

If we go with the Danish rule of 20 workers or more, and exclude all public employees working for a government, then 33.1% of the workforce (82% of the non-public workforce) would participate in the program (2020).

These numbers are all more than 6.3%.

Sources from census.gov 'Business Dynamics Statistics'

*The problem with using ESOPs here is that not all shares are voting shares, and there's no way to distinguish, and there's no way to determine the quantity of voting shares. An Apple Engineer with a single voting share ($175) counts as a worker participating in an ESOP but you need at least $82 billion in voting shares (3% of market cap) before you can even nominate a board member.

Anyway you slice it, this solution sucks.

At least when socialists speak of "worker's democracy" I've always understood that as workers having the last word on all important decisions

I specifically said:

The question is whether capital should be privately owned and the allocation of capital decided by individuals or democratically.

In the interests of offering specific solutions for markets such as the US or Canada that would increase democracy in the workplace without any changes to the political structure:

What you describe is actually corporatism.

Corporatism involves vertical trade unions participating in the legislature on that basis; not codeterminism.

[Rugoz]

There is more to a market than capitalists and consumers. The most important, in fact. Namely, workers.

A market economy is supposed to maximize output for consumers, capital and workers are merely inputs.

If a certain type of work is undervalued by the market, then you subsidize the profession or its output. Art and science is often heavily subsidized, as an example.

All this says to me is that you're perfectly OK with corporate raiders running around and closing down firms for personal profit, as they do, but are against giving workers an equitable power - despite the fact that a worker's livelihood is under threat, not just an arbitrary quantity of their net worth.

Unemployment insurance is a thing basically everywhere.

This isn't even an insane proposal. Codetermination has been a thing in Germany for the past sixty years, for almost half of seats for companies with more than 2,000 employees and for a third of seats for companies between 500-2,000. Where is this epidemic of rent-seeking workers plaguing German industry?

And where is the benefit for German workers? Germany has a largest low-wage sector in Europe.

Shareholders can divest from a company at the click of a button..

Shareholders can only divest if somebody is willing to buy their share.

..whereas an employee may need to relocate themselves and their families to another locale to pursue a job there or go through expensive and time consuming education and training to gain the qualifications to pursue a different job.

How many? 1%? You realize that employees change jobs all the time while the employment rate stays constant?

You people are such worker drama queens.

[Godstud]

Unemployment insurance is a thing basically everywhere.

You know who can't benefit from that, even though they pay into it? Employers.

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument for the owner having more risk is not only not convincing, but seems based solely on some pseudo religious views of capitalists.

[wat0n]

You've lived through the US housing crisis the last few years and you're giving me this? Hell, just imagine you bought a house last year, with last year's interest rates, and want to just move this year.

You are now assuming workers in this business own the properties they live in. I would also not count on that, not if the only reason they are moving is for a job.

I mean, at least the area should offer something besides the job shouldn't it?

I said Denmark for a reason. But 500 is better than 0.

When I searched about the Danish case, the only thing I found is that codetermination serves to ensure transparency for workers about conditions (e.g. pay transparency). Not naming executive positions or anything like that.

This just comes off as 'the situation is complicated so we may as well not even try'.

Or maybe "one size doesn't fit all".

Yes, the US is a case study in the power of unions and their efficacy. A true paradigm in protecting the right of workers to organize.

I would say it actually shows many workers aren't willing to unionize to begin with.

And this brings another problem: What makes you think voters will actually participate in voting for their board representatives?

There are 10,171,561 employees participating in ESOPs* in the US. There are 161.2 million full and part time employees in the US.

That's 6.3% of the workforce (2019).

Even limiting the implementation of worker participation in supervisory boards to companies with more than 1,000 workers we would reach 15.63% of the workforce (2018).

If we go with the Danish rule of 20 workers or more, and exclude all public employees working for a government, then 33.1% of the workforce (82% of the non-public workforce) would participate in the program (2020).

These numbers are all more than 6.3%.

Sources from census.gov 'Business Dynamics Statistics'

*The problem with using ESOPs here is that not all shares are voting shares, and there's no way to distinguish, and there's no way to determine the quantity of voting shares. An Apple Engineer with a single voting share ($175) counts as a worker participating in an ESOP but you need at least $82 billion in voting shares (3% of market cap) before you can even nominate a board member.

Anyway you slice it, this solution sucks.

Does it? A non-voting share has its advantages too. For instance, they have priority when it comes to distributing dividends.

And of course workers themselves - by using their pension funds - could buy a share of the company they work for (or even all of it).

I specifically said:





Corporatism involves vertical trade unions participating in the legislature on that basis; not codeterminism.

Ugh if anything what you said is exactly the kind of measure that requires legislation.

[Pants-of-dog]

In fact, it seems like the justifications for unilateral decision by the owner to manage all the risks is a moral afterthought for this unilateral appropriation of risk management, despite the fact that the entire enterprise shares any risks that the owner decides to undertake.

[wat0n]

Well, that is one reason why businesses are regulated by the law. Indeed, the whole community can be affected by businesses' decisions, not just workers.

And likewise businesses themselves can be affected by the decisions of private individuals who are not related to it, but I don't think we let capitalists a say in their affairs.

So what?

[Pants-of-dog]

It appears that capitalists feel that owner appropriation of risk management is morally justified despite their awareness of the fact that the owner is choosing the level of risk for others without their consent.

[wat0n]

Really?

Workers are not forced to work for their employer.

Capitalists are also not forced to keep investing in their businesses, which is why opportunity costs are important and should be taken into account. They can always just accept the loss and leave, not to ever invest in the jurisdiction again.

Again: If workers are so willing to share risk, why don't they invest their pension funds in buying the businesses they work for? I don't think there are laws banning unions from doing that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Workers who quit their job because of owner’s poor decisions risk unemployment and poverty if they quit. For those in undeveloped countries (i.e. no public health care), this also includes a risk of losing access to medical care.

Workers can also lose their jobs, income, healthcare, et cetera, through no decision of their own. It is called “getting laid off” and is the direct effect of owners poor decisions. This is what happens when, for example, owners want to cash out and no longer invest in their business.

Also, note that the vast majority of those of us who work for a living do not have private pension funds, have private pension funds that are so small as to be useless when buying stock, or use the public system which does not allow for private purchases of businesses.

Most of this has already been explained in this thread.

[wat0n]

Workers who quit their jobs can always do so once they have alternative employment.

Those who are laid off are usually not the only ones losing. If they are being laid off because the business is failing then the business owner is losing money as well, and taking the measures to make the business viable. Or are you saying that it would be best if all workers were laid off and the business shuttered instead of having only some workers being laid off?

As for pension funds, it's not anyone else's fault that your union doesn't have one but yours. Maybe you could propose setting one up?

[Pants-of-dog]

So workers cannot quit and find alternate employment without substantial risk unless they seek alternate employment before quitting. This is impossible for anyone laid off.

And while the laid off employee is not the only one losing out, the owner is losing out less. They still have a job. This has been explained in the thread already. It seems odd and illogical to ignore these presented facts and restate the argument as if these facts have been forgotten.

And union enrolment is down and owners often practice union busting. This has been explained in the thread already. It seems odd and illogical to ignore these presented facts and restate the argument as if these facts have been forgotten.

[AFAIK]

If workers are so willing to share risk, why don't they invest their pension funds in buying the businesses they work for?

If you pursued that strategy and the business went tits up then you'd not only lose your monthly income, healthcare and other perks that you rely on day-to-day but you'd also lose your retirement savings, which you need to sustain yourself in old age. The first rule of investing is to develop a diverse portfolio and to avoid putting all your eggs in one basket. Most investors learnt this lesson centuries ago. It appears you are late to the party.

[wat0n]

So workers cannot quit and find alternate employment without substantial risk unless they seek alternate employment before quitting. This is impossible for anyone laid off.

You were speaking about workers who decide to quit. Yes, those who voluntarily separate from their employer can be smart about it

And while the laid off employee is not the only one losing out, the owner is losing out less. They still have a job. This has been explained in the thread already. It seems odd and illogical to ignore these presented facts and restate the argument as if these facts have been forgotten.

Not necessarily. Again, if the business fails and has to close everyone loses.

In fact, this is one of the reasons why workers' democracy can be inefficient: What happens if lay offs are necessary to make the operation viable? Who gets laid off and who makes that call?

And union enrolment is down and owners often practice union busting. This has been explained in the thread already. It seems odd and illogical to ignore these presented facts and restate the argument as if these facts have been forgotten.

You make it sound as if union busting is why union enrollment is down. There are many reasons for that, including that many workers simply don't see a benefit in paying for having one (having an union requires paying dues).

As it is, you can't deny the government itself has been taking on the functions that used to be left to unions. Anti-discrimination, minimum wages, labor safety standards, etc - all of which used to involve unions a lot more when standards weren't more rigidly set by law. Not that I'm necessarily against it, it is evidence of that the government is behaving as intended that many workers find unionizing unnecessary.

Likewise, you also can't deny that recent and historical cases of union corruption have hardly helped the movement.

And of course, the rise of the gig economy has made many unions a bit redundant and also made the difference between capitalists and workers murkier than it already was (when worker pension funds were introduced, and managed by unions for that matter). There are industries where what some call an union could be perfectly considered to be a business federation others.

Seriously, many workers (and not just in cities) don't follow that "worker for life" scheme. It is increasingly uncommon and if workers rotate often the incentives to unionize are lower - many workers may find it easier to just get a better job.

If you pursued that strategy and the business went tits up then you'd not only lose your monthly income, healthcare and other perks that you rely on day-to-day but you'd also lose your retirement savings, which you need to sustain yourself in old age. The first rule of investing is to develop a diverse portfolio and to avoid putting all your eggs in one basket. Most investors learnt this lesson centuries ago. It appears you are late to the party.

Sure, but it then shows that the capitalist is in fact putting more skin in the game in the business, particularly if he has to work in its board or as CEO as well.

That is, this is something unions themselves are choosing not to do: Investing in their own business to get an ownership share and the corresponding board representation.

[Fasces]

You are now assuming workers in this business own the properties they live in. I would also not count on that, not if the only reason they are moving is for a job.

And this brings another problem: What makes you think voters will actually participate in voting for their board representatives?

Grasp those straws. When's the last time you voted in the annual shareholder meeting for your own retirement, wat0n?

Does it? A non-voting share has its advantages too. For instance, they have priority when it comes to distributing dividends.

What are the dividends on $175 worth of Apple?

Ugh if anything what you said is exactly the kind of measure that requires legislation.

What constitutional change does it require? Specifically.

[Pants-of-dog]

At this point, I am not repeating myself a third time.

Since the arguments are merely repeating previous refuted claims, there is nothing new in this thread to address.

[AFAIK]

Sure, but it then shows that the capitalist is in fact putting more skin in the game in the business, particularly if he has to work in its board or as CEO as well.

An investor may put 1% of his portfolio in wat0n Inc and not even notice when it crashes and burns since he's too busy riding AFAIK Inc to the moon and back. I'm happy to see you walk back your claim and now acknowledge that only those who labour in a business can be considered to have more skin than anyone else.