Should the US adopt codetermination?

[Murica!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

[Redalgo]

I would like for firms to be collectively owned by the citizens of the country in which they are based, with the employees of each producer cooperative (or sole-proprietorship when only one worker is concerned) granted management privileges over workplace properties associated with the business in question by the state. For co-ops, employees would elect representatives to serve as their managers, administrators, and officers in other capacities depending on what kind of framework for governance they've set up.

A socialist system with some characteristics more often associated by folks with capitalism would be more attractive to me than one that is more decidedly corporatist in character. Nonetheless, I like the concept of co-determination more than what the United States currently has in place. So ya!

[Murica!]

I would like for firms to be collectively owned by the citizens of the country in which they are based, with the employees of each producer cooperative (or sole-proprietorship when only one worker is concerned) granted management privileges over workplace properties associated with the business in question by the state. For co-ops, employees would elect representatives to serve as their managers, administrators, and officers in other capacities depending on what kind of framework for governance they've set up.

A socialist system with some characteristics more often associated by folks with capitalism would be more attractive to me than one that is more decidedly corporatist in character. Nonetheless, I like the concept of co-determination more than what the United States currently has in place. So ya!

I mostly agree with you, but I'm *slightly* more of a collectivist.

[136or142]

Co-operatives and credit unions already exist although they are a tiny percentage of the economy.  My understanding is that private sector unions (such as they still exist) generally oppose worker ownership.

[Murica!]

Co-operatives and credit unions already exist although they are a tiny percentage of the economy.  My understanding is that private sector unions (such as they still exist) generally oppose worker ownership.

Exactly.

[Redalgo]

And that goes to the root, in large part at least, to why it frustrates me when people on the left think of the interests of unions and workers as synonymous. Unions are useful but still need to be treated as the interest groups they are.

[Murica!]

And this goes back, in large part at least, to why it frustrates me that so many people on the left think of the interests of unions and workers as synonymous.

Well in my opinion, unions are the workers and vice-versa.

[Redalgo]

Well in my opinion, unions are the workers and vice-versa.

In a system of syndicalism that makes sense. Under capitalism, however, my concern is that firms tend to be like authoritarian regimes ruled by coalitions of owners, administrators, etc. with the unions meanwhile being narrowly-interested, disadvantaged opposition parties with little chance of (or will for) clambering up into power. This is often helpful to workers, true, but unions can be corrupt, they can be coercive in their treatment of workers, may at times betray the best interests of workers as workers themselves perceive them, and unions can be intolerant of competition from others even if it would ultimately be good for a lot of employees. I fear that unions do not advance the causes of socialism or cooperativization so much as they offer to imbue the capitalist system with some corporatist qualities.

I value unions - don't get me wrong here - but I do not trust them to speak on the behalf of all workers.

[bedstuy]

I think you want to have the share-holders hold ultimate authority over a corporation.  For some corporations, it makes sense that the majority shareholders will be the employees and that's fine.  But, just by being an employee, I don't see why you should have a say in the management decisions.  Often, the interests of the employees are at odds with the best interests of the corporation.  In general, for a major corporation it would likely be very limiting and detrimental.  You would be closing off all kinds of equity financing and mergers and acquisitions.  And, ultimately, if you limit and hurt the corporation, you're hurting the employees in the long run.

[Redalgo]

Bedstuy, I reckon there may be bit of a tradeoff involved with how democratic and egalitarian a business is on one hand, and on the other how much efficiency and decisiveness it is run. I believe it would be best to let workers either elect representatives to call the shots or to have those representatives decide who to hire on a contractual basis to fill executive roles. This is still not all that great for the overall performance of firms, I think, but in taking this position I am expressing more interest in an economy that is fair and compassionate than one that is better-suited to rally us to cultivate the fruits of efficiency and ambition.

That is to say, there are good reasons for folks to respect and commend capitalism.

[136or142]

I think you want to have the share-holders hold ultimate authority over a corporation.  For some corporations, it makes sense that the majority shareholders will be the employees and that's fine.  But, just by being an employee, I don't see why you should have a say in the management decisions.  Often, the interests of the employees are at odds with the best interests of the corporation.  In general, for a major corporation it would likely be very limiting and detrimental.  You would be closing off all kinds of equity financing and mergers and acquisitions.  And, ultimately, if you limit and hurt the corporation, you're hurting the employees in the long run.

1.While you'd obviously be closing off sales of stock (although not sales of common shares that don't allow voting), I don't understand why you couldn't get equity financing.

2.Most mergers and acquisitions turn out to be disasters.  Reducing the number of mergers would likely benefit the economy.

3.I recommend you see a Canadian (and Argentinian) documentary film called "The Take" regarding worker ownership.  Although I don't know the longer run result, in the short term the workers taking over of a factory was very successful.  I'm not a big fan of the writer of the film, Naomi Klein (I think her latest book on solutions to global warming is ridiculous), but I recommend this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426596/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3
http://www.thetake.org/

[Murica!]

Well in my opinion, unions are the workers and vice-versa.

In a system of syndicalism that makes sense. Under capitalism, however, my concern is that firms tend to be like authoritarian regimes ruled by coalitions of owners, administrators, etc. with the unions meanwhile being narrowly-interested, disadvantaged opposition parties with little chance of (or will for) clambering up into power. This is often helpful to workers, true, but unions can be corrupt, they can be coercive in their treatment of workers, may at times betray the best interests of workers as workers themselves perceive them, and unions can be intolerant of competition from others even if it would ultimately be good for a lot of employees. I fear that unions do not advance the causes of socialism or cooperativization so much as they offer to imbue the capitalist system with some corporatist qualities.

I value unions - don't get me wrong here - but I do not trust them to speak on the behalf of all workers.

Of course they do not forward socialism when they are just puppets of the State.