USW - Mondragon

Originally posted by quackquack
but would you agree that's not neceassrily a bad thing?

It's neither good or bad. That's just the way things are. High ideals are wonderful and beginning something with high ideals is exciting. Reality soon sets in and a company run by workers is still a company that must make money.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because it had no network of support. The more these projects happen, the more they'll form a mutually supporting network. Eventually they'll become the norm instead of the exception.

I don't have anything against a worker owned company. That's still capitalism. It can work, but it is generally hampered by leftist notions present in the new ownership group, often teamed up with unions and the government instead of a strictly private consortium.

Originally posted by dryhump
Why are whodey and norm raging against worker owned companies? A worker owned company still has to compete in the market place, doesn't it?

Not raging against it. I simply pointed out it was not a new idea. It could work, but not if the worker owners divorce from capitalism, and end up relying on government supports and union deals.

Originally posted by normbenign
Not raging against it. I simply pointed out it was not a new idea. It could work, but not if the worker owners divorce from capitalism, and end up relying on government supports and union deals.

Why do these workers need capitalists or the government? Capitalists are not required to make money on the free market.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do these workers need capitalists or the government? Capitalists are not required to make money on the free market.

The owners of existing plants, such as the one failing in downriver Detroit, required some payment for plant and fixtures. It was a "firesale" so the new owners got an exceptional value, but still couldn't make a go of the business.

They needed capital to buy the plant, and to make the payroll until they began to collect revenues. They needed the government to grant them protectionist tariffs, or so they thought.

Originally posted by dryhump
Even you must see the inherent problem, though. Once a group of workers become owners, it is inevitable that they will eventually behave as owners.

What does that mean? Behave as owners? There are many worker owned companies around the world already. They behave as worker-owners.

Originally posted by rwingett
What does that mean? Behave as owners? There are many worker owned companies around the world already. They behave as worker-owners.

Eventually they'll have to fire workers, or cut a shift due to a drop in demand. Or charge all the employees more for health insurance.

Originally posted by dryhump
Eventually they'll have to fire workers, or cut a shift due to a drop in demand. Or charge all the employees more for health insurance.

You don't fire worker-owners. Who's going to fire them? Themselves? If their revenue goes down, they could decide to cut their own pay.

Originally posted by rwingett
You don't fire worker-owners. Who's going to fire them? Themselves? If their revenue goes down, they could decide to cut their own pay.

Of course there will be performance issues (unless you just believe that workers just dog it because they don't have equity interests). There will be conflicts over relative worth and there will be times when certain skills are no longer needed. There will be times a business needs more workers or fewer workers. There will be times people need to be relocated or their shifts change. In fact there is no reason to think that worker ownership would avoid any issues in a non-worker owned business.

Originally posted by quackquack
Of course there will be performance issues (unless you just believe that workers just dog it because they don't have equity interests). There will be conflicts over relative worth and there will be times when certain skills are no longer needed. There will be times a business needs more workers or fewer workers. There will be times people need to be r ...[text shortened]... no reason to think that worker ownership would avoid any issues in a non-worker owned business.

They'll run into the same gamut of problems, but the difference is in how they deal with them. In a worker owned business they're dealt with democratically. In a traditionally run corporation they're dealt with autocratically.

Originally posted by rwingett
They'll run into the same gamut of problems, but the difference is in how they deal with them. In a worker owned business they're dealt with democratically. In a traditionally run corporation they're dealt with autocratically.

But without rich God Men telling them what to do the workers are bound to make a muddle of it and will soon be reduced to parasite status.

Originally posted by quackquack
Of course there will be performance issues (unless you just believe that workers just dog it because they don't have equity interests). There will be conflicts over relative worth and there will be times when certain skills are no longer needed. There will be times a business needs more workers or fewer workers. There will be times people need to be r ...[text shortened]... no reason to think that worker ownership would avoid any issues in a non-worker owned business.

There will be an IMMENSE amount of extra money available without capitalists leeching off profits without contributing anything.

Originally posted by rwingett
They'll run into the same gamut of problems, but the difference is in how they deal with them. In a worker owned business they're dealt with democratically. In a traditionally run corporation they're dealt with autocratically.

Every issues will not be voted on. There will be some manager whose job it is to decide things. In the end nothing will be different.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There will be an IMMENSE amount of extra money available without capitalists leeching off profits without contributing anything.

Providing capital is a significant contribution and in any system there will need to be significant rewards for it or no one will put capital at risk.

Originally posted by quackquack
Providing capital is a significant contribution and in any system there will need to be significant rewards for it or no one will put capital at risk.

No, providing capital simply means the police won't stop the workers.