Democracy... At the workplace?

[Ben No.3]

Yes? No? To what extend?

 

 

I believe in the US, the board basically directs the company, and the board comes through career and is elected by the share holders. When electing the board, one share=one vote. So that's that.

 

In Germany, the board is split. 10 seats go to the share holder elected guys (one share one vote), 7 seats (one person one vote) are elected by the workers, 3 seats by the worker unions.

 

The more extreme version would obviously be only have the workers elect the board.

 

So, what do we think?

 

This obviously only affects big companies.

[Volourn]

No. The person who owns the company owns the company. If it is a huge company with a board  and shareholders than they decide. Employees and worker unions , in this case, can suck a ****. And, I say that as an employees. The best companies/bosses, however, listen to the advice of the people they pay to work for them.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Volourn

[Ben No.3]

I think big companies are more than their owners property, they are an social and economic institution. And as such, the people dependent on said institution should be able to have some saying. At the same time, the people who own the institution should also be able to use their own institution, so I think the split board is the best solution.

[Volourn]

"I think big companies are more than their owners property, they are an social and economic institution."

 

No. Only Nazis think that.

[Ben No.3]

"I think big companies are more than their owners property, they are an social and economic institution."

 

No. Only Nazis think that.

I'm a democratic socialist, not a Nazi, but we're getting there my friend

[Guard Dog]

Ben, first of all corporate organization is as varied as it gets. Some companies do things kind of the same, some are different. There are differences between private and public companies, differences between the actual power held by different CEOs, Presidents, and Boards. I realize what you are trying to discuss here but this just cannot be accurately boiled down to a single concept that can be discussed like that. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

A social democrat wanting to retain the firm, why am I not surprised.

 

Employees and worker unions , in this case, can suck a ****. And, I say that as an employees.

So this is what a cuckold looks like.

[Ben No.3]

Ben, first of all corporate organization is as varied as it gets. Some companies do things kind of the same, some are different. There are differences between private and public companies, differences between the actual power held by different CEOs, Presidents, and Boards. I realize what you are trying to discuss here but this just cannot be accurately boiled down to a single concept that can be discussed like that.

Whatever we come up with could be turned into a law. I believe in Germany it even is a law, so...

[Guard Dog]

 

Ben, first of all corporate organization is as varied as it gets. Some companies do things kind of the same, some are different. There are differences between private and public companies, differences between the actual power held by different CEOs, Presidents, and Boards. I realize what you are trying to discuss here but this just cannot be accurately boiled down to a single concept that can be discussed like that.

Whatever we come up with could be turned into a law. I believe in Germany it even is a law, so...

 

OK, not happening on this side of the pond, but ok. 

[Ben No.3]

Well do you think companies should be organised in that way, Guard Dog, and why?

[Guard Dog]

A corporation is, 99% of the time, a private enterprise. Even if it's stock is publicly traded it is not a "public" company in the way you are thinking. It has owners. They should, and do, organize in such a way as makes the most sense for their business and management. Up until two years ago I was a one sixth owner of a company I helped start. My partners and I discussed every business decision between us and came to a consensus. That was they way that made the most sense for us. There was no President (well actually there was but it was a meaningless title in application) or CEO. I'm invested in another business right now but I'm a minority share holder and I don't participate in it's operation in any way. That is a business owned by one man and he makes all the decisions my himself. And it has been reasonably successful. 

 

Look at Cargill. It has some 200k employees and does over $100M in revenue. It has a fairly common management structure with a CEO, President, and various Vice Presidents but it is a private company owned by one man. Everyone in management serves at his pleasure and he can make changes any time he sees fit. Before I left to start the business I mentioned I worked for Crown Castle International for three years. it's actually six different and largely independent companies under one name and each with it's own management. And it is a publicly traded company so it's owned by it's shareholders. 

 

The point I'm trying to make here is there is not cookie cutter pattern for corporate organization. Nor should there be. Every business is unique and has unique challenges. 

[Gorth]

The best companies/bosses, however, listen to the advice of the people they pay to work for them.

The best companies/bosses knows to include their employees in the processes. Not because they have to include them, but because in some situations it makes sense. Even if it's just smoke and mirrors to make the employees *feel* like they are part of the process

[Ben No.3]

[...]

 

Look at Cargill. It has some 200k employees and does over $100M in revenue. It has a fairly common management structure with a CEO, President, and various Vice Presidents but it is a private company owned by one man. Everyone in management serves at his pleasure and he can make changes any time he sees fit. Before I left to start the business I mentioned I worked for Crown Castle International for three years. it's actually six different and largely independent companies under one name and each with it's own management. And it is a publicly traded company so it's owned by it's shareholders.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is there is not cookie cutter pattern for corporate organization. Nor should there be. Every business is unique and has unique challenges.

First of all, yes, you excellently point out why the owners of a company should and need to have equal say over the company:

-it's their creation, thus there's sort of an "inherent right to govern" to it (though this is a rather weak argument when you think about it)

-they bring expertise (very important)

-they think for the best of the company, thus work towards more profits

-if someone puts money into something, he should be able to have a say in where that money goes

-after all, it's their property

I agree with all of that.

 

However, the employees, at least those of huge companies like Cargill that you mentioned (though that's an extreme example... let's say we talk about companies with 2000+ employees), should have an equal say over the fate of the company they work for. Let me make my case...

 

So, I see two main reasons why this should be this way.

The first is the concept of what is sometimes called primitive accumulation. Lemme explain what I mean... Generally speaking, a good is worth its production value. This is true for any good but one-human labour. You see, the "production value" of humans (essentially the price of maintaining a living) is less than what they are able to produce. So, this is where profit is created: The exploitation of that gap (essentially the gap between my wage and the value of my labour). And that is not a bad thing-profit is created this way, that's what fuels the world. But it lies in the nature of this process that the workers do not own the same of what they produce, and that difference goes to the firm. In other words, the firm exploits the workers (think of the word "exploitation" without its negative connotation, for now), and the firm needs to do so in order to survive in competition. So the firm is dependent on the workers. Therefore, if the workers can not get the value of what they produce, they should at least have a say in how that value is used. It is kind of like with the share holders-the share holders invest money into the company, so they should get a say in where the money goes. Well the workers give the profit they produce to the company, so they should equally get a say in how the company should be run. It is also to stop the company from overexploiting their workers... do you think there would be sweatshops if half of for example Nikes board was elected by the workers?

 

Now, that is obviously fairly theoretical. There's also a more practical argument: Huge companies like Cargill create a situation where thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people become dependent on that company, the company becomes a, as I said, social institution. I find it unreasonable not to give the people dependent on that institution a say over how the institution is to be run.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gromnir]

am thinking ben gots kinda a vague notion 'o "company." does ben know what is difference 'tween company and corporation?  am not being patronizing as there is a fundamental difference.  please do not resort to wiki if you are uncertain.  regardless, am thinking "company" may not exact be what ben believes it to be.  might need narrow your deffinition, at which point you will then need discuss the numerous kinda business entities, which will include corporations, and partnerships and whatnot.  your initial query doesn't make near as much sense as you believe it does once you recognize what actual is a "company."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Ben No.3]

am thinking ben gots kinda a vague notion 'o "company." does ben know what is difference 'tween company and corporation? am not being patronizing as there is a fundamental difference. please do not resort to wiki if you are uncertain. regardless, am thinking "company" may not exact be what ben believes it to be. might need narrow your deffinition, at which point you will then need discuss the numerous kinda business entities, which will include corporations, and partnerships and whatnot. your initial query doesn't make near as much sense as you believe it does once you recognize what actual is a "company."

 

HA! Good Fun!

Isn't a company just any business participant and a cooperation several companies under one flag? I don't know, I'm not native for gods sake, after all I'm just an underage teen putting out his opinions because why not?

 

Okay, how about we say "firm"? This is a very general discussion by nature, it's about an idea rather than the concrete measure. And when discussing an idea, let's not get hooked up on words.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gromnir]

firm is actual less helpful than you might s'pose. 

 

do a little research.  self-education.  is better than being told. regardless, am thinking you is gonna quickly realize the enormous range o' what could be considered a business participant.

 

the words is extreme important.  to have a meaningful discussion, one must have a common vocabulary, yes? if gd is talking 'bout a "corporation" and you is thinking he is using interchangeable with your notion o' "company," "business entity" and/or "firm," then am expecting a significant 'mount o' understanding will be lost. the sole proprietor with his hot dog cart is a business participant and may even be incorporated, but is unlikely have a board or shareholders. is non-profits and s-corps and partnerships and on and on and on.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

Democracy at the workplace is a terrible idea imo. A leader is required to directly instruct subordinates and make crucial, informed, decisions. Otherwise people will start to believe their input on every matter is valuable and important, when that couldnt be further from the truth. That's called "letting the inmates run the asylum".

[Ben No.3]

Democracy at the workplace is a terrible idea imo. A leader is required to directly instruct subordinates and make crucial, informed, decisions. Otherwise people will start to believe their input on every matter is valuable and important, when that couldnt be further from the truth. That's called "letting the inmates run the asylum".

Does the same apply for government?

[Guard Dog]

Ben, I'm going to be a hard "no" on this for all the reasons I've described. Fist off as I told you in the beginning and Gromnir reiterated, it's a much more complex subject that you are crediting. 

 

Let add one more point. And I'm going to use my former business as an example. My share of the start up costs was over $200k. That was how much of our own capital we each invested to float the company before it started making a profit. I don't have that kind of money lying around. I mortgaged my house, raided my retirement savings, and sold off a few other assets to raise it. Basically I risked (which is an appropriate word) my entire life's savings on that venture. We had 13 salaried employees. They had a job to perform and we compensated them for their time. They were good folks, hard working professionals who cared about the future success of the business. But they had nothing invested in it but their time. If the business failed they would lose their job. I would have lost everything. In that situation i certainly would want to hear their thoughts on business decisions that pertained to their areas of expertise but the actual decisions would be made by the six people who, as Barack Obama put it "had skin in the game". 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

Does the same apply for government?

We wound up with Trump didn't we? Ill let your question answer itself.