Basically it's about making every decision collectively...or having the ordinary system where somebody in the organization decides by him or herself certain questions. — ssu
Of course you utterly fail to recognize that somebody who is 20 years old has his whole work career in front of him. Not so with someone that will retire in few years. — ssu
Statistics show quite well that it's the oldest segment of the workforce who faces PERMANENTLY losing their jobs doesn't reach your mind. — ssu
when you need to cut back the workforce, which would you as an employer start if two persons are qualified: the one who has a lower salary and far more work years ahead of him or the one that has a higher wage and will have to be replaced sooner? — ssu
It takes the average person 43 days to find, interview for and start a new job. With 1 in 5 workers age 40+ reporting not getting at least one job due to age discrimination, it’s no wonder it takes older employees longer to find a job.
One-half of the unemployed aged 60 to 64 were long-term unemployed.
when we take into account that many Americans don't have savings and the country doesn't have a welfare safety net, then hope you understand who is in more peril when a economic slump comes around: the 20 year old or the 50 year old worker that get laid off. — ssu
(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public?
(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation?
(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
(4) Who decides what to do with the profits?
(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?
(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products)
[There is actually an answer to this question]
(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
Truly interested in answers. — Xtrix
Democracy works basically if everybody also shares the responsibility of the actions. If voters choose bad politicians, they in the end will feel it. That is extremely hard to do in a workplace. — ssu
Everybody simply cannot decide with a vote on every issue! Hence in real life, not the ideological fairy tale castle where these structures of companies are larger than life issues, big Cooperatives function quite as big Corporations. Many wouldn't notice the difference in ordinary life between the two. — ssu
Listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. Yet in some technical question it's simply hypocrisy to assume that the young intern and the 30-year professional have equal say. — ssu
Yet some have top-down structures simply exist to coordinate the actions of everybody. — ssu
Democracy isn't an answer to everything, it works extremely well in some areas, not on others. Hence one should be careful just how to implement it. Practical thinking is far better than just ideological perseverance. — ssu
If you then say, "Nope, from now on the leaders and managers are just "team members" along with everybody else and everybody together has to make the decisions", what do you think will happen? So... you vote? Or do you have to have a consensus? On what matters? Just for starters, when is someone in the workforce capable doing a decision on his or on her own? — ssu
Basically it's about making every decision collectively — ssu
Can you please help me see how this is a philosophical topic? If so, to which category in TPF does it belong? — Alkis Piskas
(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically?
— Xtrix
No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them. — Cheshire
Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.
Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds. — Xtrix
These are legal and pragmatic questions and most responses are variable depending upon the particular corporation. If you're really interested, you can read up on C corps, S corps, for profit, not for profit, LLCs, mutual companies, and I'm sure there are more. Some are public and some are closely held. — Hanover
All of your questions would have different answers depending upon the specific company you're asking about. — Hanover
You may think this somewhat irrelevant, but, what I am going to flat out tell you is that who supports co-ops are anarchists and anarchist sympathizers, and, so, the only people who you are going to find who have any interest in such ideas are, well, us.
Thoughts? — thewonder
I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire
Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions. — Xtrix
Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work. — Xtrix
Ok, you know it isn't run democratically in a literal direct democracy. But, you believe it is a representative democracy. It's not, so your analogy fails. In a very plainly obvious way.Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic. — Xtrix
Apparently neither are you. — Xtrix
But, you believe it is a representative democracy. — Cheshire
So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder from less money with the belief they own something. — Cheshire
But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. — Cheshire
I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona. — Cheshire
I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.
It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working in companies of which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom. — Xtrix
Stop using "anarchist." This has nothing to do with anarchism, which has a long history, many branches, and many definitions.
— Xtrix
Please do not offer me the pretense of knowledge that you have over a political philosophy that you do not support again. — thewonder
Yes: I don't think that's remotely true. Most of this is commonsensical and has nothing to do with labels -- socialist, communistic, anarchist, or anything else. For most workers, it simply makes more sense and creates a better working environment. It's better for their morale, they usually receive better compensation, and have say in the place they work.
— Xtrix
While that may sound very reasonable and open-minded, it just simply is not true. — thewonder
you will find that such ideas are considered to be "left-wing", if not even "radical". — thewonder
It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. — Cheshire
Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. — Cheshire
Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. — Cheshire
Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. — Cheshire
You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters. — Cheshire
Since the term "anarchism" is meaningless until it's explained, I have nothing to support. — Xtrix
Sorry, I stopped reading your post at this point. Too long -- and you haven't earned the assumption of relevance. — Xtrix
Yes, because they are stupid ideas. If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder. The flex economy adopted to scale erases this deeper entrenchment solution. If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. If I can refuse work on the days I'm not paid enough, then I am in power. You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination.Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so. — Xtrix
The shortest definition for anarchism is "libertarian socialism". — thewonder
My point about cooperatives is that they do have a history that relates to anarchism, as the creator of the Mondragon Corporation narrowly escaped the firing squad during the Spanish Civil War. — thewonder
My personal kvetch against this a-political, but anti-capitalist initiative that you have proposed is that you seem to want participatory economics, a libertarian socialist idea, without any libertarian socialists involved. — thewonder
I really don't understand why it is that you feel a need to make consistent demeaning quips — thewonder
Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so.
— Xtrix
Yes, because they are stupid ideas. — Cheshire
If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder — Cheshire
If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. — Cheshire
You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination. — Cheshire
Ummm....that you have a career ahead of you obviously means that you don't need a safety net for so long? For crying out loud, how difficult is it for you to understand that a 16 year old is poor, doesn't get the highest pay and often can be out of work, but that actually has been quite normal? Because usually sooner or later generations have found a job and made a career in something.I'm talking about safety nets, what does having their career ahead of then have to do with safety nets? — Isaac
Again the motives of employers are not speculation, but a fact.You speculating about the motives of employers doesn't change that. — Isaac
I don't know what you are talking about here, because this doesn't make any sense.The duration of unemployment has nothing to do with the financial cushioning to withstand it. — Isaac
Democracy works as a government because it is inefficient. Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way.Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk: — Xtrix
Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine.Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done. — Xtrix
Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie.No, that's exactly what you're doing. — Xtrix
Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way. — Cheshire
Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done.
— Xtrix
Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine. — Cheshire
Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie. — Cheshire
They are worker-owned but not managed. — Cheshire
Everyone is welcome, and everyone can be involved. — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.