Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
About 5% of US companies are owned by a large group of employees or by the entire staff in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), United Airlines comes to mind. So we know it can work, though results have been mixed in the US for a variety of reasons.
I certainly wouldn't presume, so just what exactly are you proposing here?
I would never knock companies offering their employees more participation or ownership but the stock option thing is pretty useless unless you're a higher up. And it's another canard that libertarians use to promote the idea that the major firms are owned by the people. Lol
And in general I mean using the mondragon example as way to run an entire economy/society.
If capitalism was such a natural mutually beneficial thing then there would not be a need to call in the State to batter workers back into submission when they call for better conditions and wages.
Ahhhhh, you're a diehard union guy who got upset that someone finally had the balls (scott walker) to stand up to those union thugs....
Ahhhhh, you're a diehard union guy who got upset that someone finally had the balls (scott walker) to stand up to those union thugs....
Now we get your motivation (bias)....
Everyone has a bias, Jack. Unions represent the interests of workers, even if they're not in a union. Unions bring wages up and better conditions. The majority of Americans are workers.
Unions were blamed for the crisis of the 70s but it was bullspit considering union participation is down by record numbers so there are no "thugs" to blame this time around for this new crisis.
Does it really take balls to tell workers to shut up and listen to the interests of big business?
You have your bias and I have mine. Don't for a second think there is some middle ground that is unbias and objective.
Capitalism (really nothing more than the freeand natural interplay of supply and demand) is what happens in the absence of governemnt intervention. Labor unions (and their pipe dream called socialism) are just one more method of intererence with that process by the use of the state's (government's) legally recognized power to coerce, under the rationale of some supposed "greater common good". Militant environmentalism, or extreme offshoots like "animal rights" are also motivated by the same desire for power.
If a group of entrepreneurs were ro attempt the same tactic as labor unions, they would possibly, in most mature industrializaed societies, be subject to prosecution under anti-trust or simiilar laws. Our political process allows an exception for organized labor because its membership is viewed as a sympathetic figyre by most of the public. However, it has been demonstrated in recent years that the only truly successful group under this system are those who also enjoy a government sanctioned monopoly (or nearso) of the "services" they provide. Public employees such as polce, firefigters and teachers are the most prominent example.
I would never knock companies offering their employees more participation or ownership but the stock option thing is pretty useless unless you're a higher up. And it's another canard that libertarians use to promote the idea that the major firms are owned by the people. Lol
And in general I mean using the mondragon example as way to run an entire economy/society.
So.... worker ownership in the US is bad, and worker ownership elsewhere is good?!?!
I would never knock companies offering their employees more participation or ownership but the stock option thing is pretty useless unless you're a higher up. And it's another canard that libertarians use to promote the idea that the major firms are owned by the people. Lol
And in general I mean using the mondragon example as way to run an entire economy/society.
Employee ownership might lead to higher wages, but there's no guarantee employees will be able to manage the company. Of course they could hire professional managers, but they'd have to pay competitive wages to attract them. Why would a CEO worth $X/yr on the open market work for less for the employee owned company. Bottom line, employee owned companies will flourish or fail, just as conventional capitalist companies.
I don't have any problem with employee ownership or unions fighting for better wages, but there's a danger they will extract too much and no longer be competitive. Auto workers and steel workers (both with massive layoffs and two tier pay rates) are a clear example, and more recently it appears the Hostess employees. I ran a company paying entry level HS diploma hourly rates of $25-30/hr with full healthcare and a safe working environment, but it was never enough for most employees. Frankly it was a big reason I left, too many employees who could not be satisfied, they always imagined management was paid much more than they actually were (I was the only one who could actually know the facts).
The employee owned companies will have to compete with capitalism. Even if you could eliminate capitalism in a country, you have to complete globally in many industries.
Are you conceding that employee owned companies are inherently less competitive, and therefore need to be shielded from competing by governments?
So I'd say why not let employee owned companies compete with conventional capitalist enterprises, and let them (both) prosper or fail on their own merits. Eliminating competition doesn't work, ie socialism, communism, etc.
You think a trade deficit is our only problem? How about the fact that wages have remained stagnant since the late 70s while production is up and profits are high? Who is getting the bulk of that gain? Certainly not workers who have had to finance their way into the middle class. I think that if we really believe wholeheartedly in democracy, we should stretch that concept out into the economic sphere as well. And I do not mean some stock option thing either.
There should really be a national debate about this too considering the evidence is out there that this model works more efficiently and promotes better sustainability than what we have now.
I do not mean to pigeonhole you but just from your question I gather you think that the hierarchy in the workplace doesn’t bother you and you think that there is some overriding balance of payments embedded in its structure, and that this doesn’t seem to translate outside of the work place at all. Since it’s “voluntary” you assume that there is antagonisms within the workplace do not translate into social antagonisms between people outside the work place. As if there is no contradiction between the model we uphold now and society?
I apologize if that is not what you were intending but libertarians tend to really spam most boards.
Are you talking about a corporate model or a national economic model? Are you overlapping the two and when you mention the company you link shouldn't you look at it in the context of the economic mess in Spain?
It is actually a network of worker owned co-operatives, linked by a complex set of rules that sees them sharing profits, pooling financial and technical resources, and democratic decision making.
It was founded by a visionary priest, father José María Arizmendiarrieta, who arrived in the town of Mondragon shortly after the end of the Spanish Civil War to find a town divided and impoverished by the conflict. He set up a technical college, believing that education and the creation of jobs where the workers were also owners was the key to transforming the fortunes of the town.
So if it is wonderful and you want it make the effort to duplicate it here. It was started by one visionary so be that visionary here. It is legal and if it is that important go for it and don't wait for others to do it or try to force it on existing structures created by the effort of others. Arizmendiarrieta did it so go for it and get back to us. If you say the world has changed and it isn't that simple today, then ok to late oh well!
So.... worker ownership in the US is bad, and worker ownership elsewhere is good?!?!
Worker ownership can be great so workers should go for it and start their own collective companies. If workers own it shouldn't they be the ones to take the risk and enjoy the fruits of THEIR initial efforts?
Worker ownership can be great so workers should go for it and start their own collective companies. If workers own it shouldn't they be the ones to take the risk and enjoy the fruits of THEIR initial efforts?
Absolutely.
I am self employed and I enjoy it immensely!
Just not following the OP's point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
