wat0n wrote:It is a necessary condition for one.
For liberal democracy, yes. Not all democracies are liberal democracies. Intraorganizational democracy can't be pluralist, by definition, because it is within a single organization. Should the Democratic Party give votes to Republican Party members in determining its platform? Its absurd.
wat0n wrote:Shareholders own the business, as such, they have most skin in the game.
I knew you'd end up there.
Fasces wrote:This critique is more broadly a critique that has been rehashed for centuries, basically a restatement of the idea that individuals without property or land should not vote because they can't be trusted because they don't have 'stake in the game'.
To sum up your argument:
A worker cannot be trusted to make beneficial decisions for his company, through a vote, because although he depends on it for his livelihood, his food, his shelter, his healthcare, etc. he hasn't bought his vote and is thus not committed to its long-term health.
A shareholder can be trusted to make beneficial decisions for the company, through a vote, because they bought that vote, and are motivated by profit. They may not be a member of that community, or dependent in any way on the continued life of the company but can be better trusted because they assumed risk and want a monetary return on that risk.
Consequently, workers should not have a voice in the long-term decision-making of the company.
I don't find it convincing.
wat0n wrote:As for the examples of Denmark and Germany, workers are not represented in executive positions. At least from what I was able to find, in Denmark their powers have more to do with ensuring transparency and reducing information asymmetries within the firm (e.g. pay transparency and transparency regarding other working conditions) rather than making executive decisions. It seems the same happens in Germany.
Workers' representatives play a role in choosing their leadership, in voting in favor of taking on debt, on mergers, etc. Supervisory boards have to approve the hiring of executive officers, and the adoption of their strategic plans. There is no reason to reject the voice of workers.
No one ever was talking about workers themselves micromanaging management decisions except you, who keeps bringing it up as a strawman.
Fasces wrote: electing a representative to that board to act in their interests - not some sort of direct democracy referendum. IE: If a Board of Directors has 6 seats, workers of the firm should be able to pick individuals to serve on a plurality, if not majority, of those seats
Fasces wrote:My proposal was about reserving some seats on the Board for members voted on by the workers of the company - not letting workers vote on late policies or whether their manager wants to fire them for poor performance.
Fasces wrote:worker voice represented in management, and the ability of workers to approve or veto some decisions (such as going public, selling to a specific buyer, etc).