Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Democracy in the workplace has some merits, surely, but how are you going to stop that CEO candidate who promises wage increases that will bankrupt the company?

How do you stop a CEO who operates from short term stockholder interests to the long term detriment of the company now? You don't.

You assume that workers would be prone to endanger their long term prospects through inflated short term gain. It's possible. But certainly no more so than stockholders do now. My bet is that since their very livelihood is at stake, workers would be more inclined to take the long term view into account. If they run the company into the ground then they're out of a job. If a CEO runs a company into the ground, the investors can simply cash out and invest somewhere else. The relative immobility of labor vs. the highly mobile nature of capital ensures that the former has a greater interest in maintaining the profitability of any specific enterprise, while the latter treats any specific enterprise as being expendable.

Originally posted by rwingett
How do you stop a CEO who operates from short term stockholder interests to the long term detriment of the company now? You don't.

You assume that workers would be prone to endanger their long term prospects through inflated short term gain. It's possible. But certainly no more so than stockholders do now. My bet is that since their very livelihood is a any specific enterprise, while the latter treats any specific enterprise as being expendable.

It's not just "possible", it will happen. In France the high degree of worker's influence and rights has led to a culture of frequent and sometimes even aggressively militant striking.

A better option is to get the unions involved in the decision-making process. Concessions to the unions can then lead the unions to stop striking.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's not just "possible", it will happen. In France the high degree of worker's influence and rights has led to a culture of frequent and sometimes even aggressively militant striking.

A better option is to get the unions involved in the decision-making process. Concessions to the unions can then lead the unions to stop striking.

Strikes are not an example of economic democracy. They are an example of a workforce who is aware that they do not have a sufficient degree of economic democracy. Hence they strike.

Having unions involved in the decision making process does not alter the internal dynamic of a corporation. It is still privately owned and operated with a goal of maximizing stockholder profits. Having unions involved is more an example of making a corporation a constitutional monarchy rather than a true democracy.

Originally posted by rwingett
Worker ownership of business. And not some crappy ESOP either.

I like that. But it's a very subjective concept.

Originally posted by rwingett
How do you stop a CEO who operates from short term stockholder interests to the long term detriment of the company now? You don't.

You assume that workers would be prone to endanger their long term prospects through inflated short term gain. It's possible. But certainly no more so than stockholders do now. My bet is that since their very livelihood is a ...[text shortened]... any specific enterprise, while the latter treats any specific enterprise as being expendable.

Do some reading on how companies evolve, that may increase your knowledge and explain things to you.
You can try started with U.S. Steel.

Originally posted by scherzo
I like that. But it's a very subjective concept.

Very subjective concept? How so?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Do some reading on how companies evolve, that may increase your knowledge and explain things to you.
You can try started with U.S. Steel.

I'm afraid I don't see what your point is.

Originally posted by rwingett
Strikes are not an example of economic democracy. They are an example of a workforce who is aware that they do not have a sufficient degree of economic democracy. Hence they strike.

Having unions involved in the decision making process does not alter the internal dynamic of a corporation. It is still privately owned and operated with a goal of maximizin ...[text shortened]... more an example of making a corporation a constitutional monarchy rather than a true democracy.

Why don't all these 'workers' get together and form their own company. What a fantastic resource they have in that they are all 'workers' then they can leave all the non-workers i.e. company owners and managers and whatever dregs that are happy with the deal they're getting to their own self fulfilling fate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's not just "possible", it will happen. In France the high degree of worker's influence and rights has led to a culture of frequent and sometimes even aggressively militant striking.

A better option is to get the unions involved in the decision-making process. Concessions to the unions can then lead the unions to stop striking.

Union membership must remain voluntary.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Union membership must remain voluntary.

I'm not arguing against that.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Why don't all these 'workers' get together and form their own company. What a fantastic resource they have in that they are all 'workers' then they can leave all the non-workers i.e. company owners and managers and whatever dregs that are happy with the deal they're getting to their own self fulfilling fate.

Yeah it takes no capital whatsoever to start any company in any field.

Originally posted by rwingett
Very subjective concept? How so?

Economic democracy to some would mean capitalism. It's where the word "neoliberalism" originated.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah it takes no capital whatsoever to start any company in any field.

If you present a sound business plan investors will be knocking your door down trying to give you money.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Why don't all these 'workers' get together and form their own company. What a fantastic resource they have in that they are all 'workers' then they can leave all the non-workers i.e. company owners and managers and whatever dregs that are happy with the deal they're getting to their own self fulfilling fate.

Because most people labor under the delusion that substantive progress can be obtained through the political system. But they are very badly mistaken. The American political system is not designed to promote progress. On the contrary, it is specifically designed to blunt progress and maintain the status quo. Every item that we view as progress came about not because of the political system, but in spite of it. Progress is brought about through the endless agitation of individuals at the grass roots level and it then works its way up through the system. When Congress enshrines some progressive item into law, it is merely a reflection of a society that has already shifted from beneath it.

When progressives quit wasting their time and energy looking for change in a political system that is specifically designed to blunt change, then maybe they will make some progress. The way for people to obtain economic democracy is not through the political sphere, but through direct involvement in the economic sphere. If progressives took half the money they invest into winning political elections and invested it instead into building up worker owned businesses, they'd be well on the road toward obtaining economic democracy for themselves.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you present a sound business plan investors will be knocking your door down trying to give you money.

Yeah, that's definitely true in your view of reality. But in the aforementioned reality investors will ignore brilliant plans if they are submitted by people with no experience, no relations and/or no starting capital. Of course, in situations where this is not the case and initial investment and required expertise is low, the situation you sketched is already in place and new businesses are started all the time.