Opinion on workplace democracy

[Socialist Tera]

Workplace democracy is:

generally understood as the application of democratic practices, such as voting, debate and participatory decision-making systems, to the workplace.

There are many ways to do this, some much more ambitious than others. At one extreme lie small firms and non-profits that have embraced pure, direct democracy. This is unwieldy in any but the smallest firms, since more time would be spent deciding than doing. At the other extreme lie firms where executives follow recent management fads and exhort employees to “feel like owners,” but then do very little else.

In the middle we find firms where the processes of workplace democracy aid the success of the business. The best examples have been distilled into what a noted expert calls the “equity model” of employee ownership (Rosen et al.). A key part of this approach is the relationship between participatory management and employee stock ownership. According to a recent summary, “the combination of ownership and participatory management is a powerful competitive tool. Neither ownership nor participation alone, however, accomplish very much.” (http://www.nceo.org/library/corpperf.html).

What is employee ownership? It simply means that the people who work for a company own some or all of it. Among the kinds of employee ownership (partnership, cooperative, etc.), the most common method of ownership is the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) , through which employees own shares in their company.

Sources:
http://learning-in-action.williams.edu/ ... democracy/
It is an ok system, it is not as good as the Soviet System or communes even though I disagree with anarchism. I feel it is a step in the right direction but not far enough. What is your opinion on workplace democracy?

[The Serbian Empire]

I consider it vastly superior to the Soviet System as the Soviets no longer have a Union.

[Socialist Tera]

I consider it vastly superior to the Soviet System as the Soviets no longer have a Union.

What do you like about the system? Can you go in depth without resorting to retorts?

[Conserative Morality]

Sounds reasonable enough. I've heard good things on small scale implementation, mostly in the West. Some good things about workplace democracy in the SFRY.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The image I got was a bunch of soldeirs voting on not doing shit all day.

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't care as long as I am not forced to be apart of your experiment.

[Yorkvale]

Look, heres my answer.

The best CEOs I've ever met, and the most successful start ups I've ever worked in have always taken advice and cared about what their workers have had to say. That way everyone has an impact on what the company is doing as a whole, and that is very positive and empowering corporate culture. That being said corporate culture should be directly impacted by the founder of the company, and the owners should get final say but it is in their best interests to have the employees on board or they will fail.

So I don't condone direct workplace democracy, but the workplace should FEEL democratic.

[The Serbian Empire]

I consider it vastly superior to the Soviet System as the Soviets no longer have a Union.

What do you like about the system? Can you go in depth without resorting to retorts?

The democracy part of it seems like a good way to improve the running of the company.

[United Marxist Nations]

In the OP, when you refer to the Soviet system, do you mean the de jure one? If so, I am in full agreement that it is not as good as it, but there were problems which restricted the effectiveness of Soviet power in governance, despite there certainly being some degree of it.

[Deuxtete]

I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I'm a worker bee, I think it sounds good, but at the same time, its feels like it could get really inefficient, and encourage bad practices via compelling argument.

Edit: and like a worker bee, I voted "i don't care as long as I get paid" because we don't.

[Infected Mushroom]

Empowering the workers?

This sounds like it would be great.

I support it. I would like to have my wages doubled and my work responsibilities halved. Raise the vacation rights please.

As an employee, I fully support this.

[Internationalist Bastard]

To be honest, I'm a military man, and I don't have a side job, so I can't really imagine it working, but I'm no means the guy to argue against it.

[Yorkvale]

Empowering the workers?

This sounds like it would be great.

I support it. I would like to have my wages doubled and my work responsibilities halved. Raise the vacation rights please.

As an employee, I fully support this.

Companies want workers that share their vision, not ones that leech off vacation days >.>

[Infected Mushroom]

Empowering the workers?

This sounds like it would be great.

I support it. I would like to have my wages doubled and my work responsibilities halved. Raise the vacation rights please.

As an employee, I fully support this.

Companies want workers that share their vision, not ones that leech off vacation days >.>

yeah but once we have the vote, we can reshape the companies for our short-term advantage... we are the many, they are the few

this is why I like workplace democracy

[Socialist Tera]

In the OP, when you refer to the Soviet system, do you mean the de jure one? If so, I am in full agreement that it is not as good as it, but there were problems which restricted the effectiveness of Soviet power in governance, despite there certainly being some degree of it.

Typical M-L Stalin economic system.

Empowering the workers?

This sounds like it would be great.

I support it. I would like to have my wages doubled and my work responsibilities halved. Raise the vacation rights please.

As an employee, I fully support this.

Companies want workers that share their vision, not ones that leech off vacation days >.>

We have to be careful we do not create cronies.

[Conserative Morality]

yeah but once we have the vote, we can reshape the companies for our short-term advantage... we are the many, they are the few

this is why I like workplace democracy

Pretty sure most people aren't idiots who're looking to see their company go under.

[Kubra]

>workplace democracy is not as good as soviet system
lol. Do you know what how Soviets as a political unit started?

Typical M-L Stalin economic system.

One word: piece-wage
revisionism of the highest degree, it is.

[Rusozak]

Communication and understanding of everyone's position is important, but I don't think workplace democracy is necessary or even practical. The people in charge are in charge for a reason.

[Daburuetchi]

The type of employee ownership you are talking about only becomes viable on a large scale unless we revert back to a precapitalist mode of production. As Luxemborg explained in "Revolution or Reform" " The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The working day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. and, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors. The workers forming a cooperative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to play the role of capitalist entrepreneur toward themselves—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of cooperatives in production, which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving." cooperative can't free themselves from the completion of capitalism without assuring themselves a constant market. So no cooperatives aren't going to be a means for the creation of a socialist society nor are they going to be a widespread means for the proletariat to strengthen themselves.

The fact of the matter is that decentralization for he means of production into the hands of worker congresses ils just a cover for capitalist consolidation over the means of production as explained by Enver hoxha in his book about Yugoslav self Administration and shouldn't be viewed as a positive thing.

As you rightly pointed about the soviet system afforded better workplace democracy since trade unions where the backbone of the soviet system.

[Threlizdun]

A necessary development to provide for economic sustainability and the alleviation of social alienation.

It is an ok system, it is not as good as the Soviet System or communes even though I disagree with anarchism. I feel it is a step in the right direction but not far enough.

Not far enough? What are you talking about? This is socialism. This is what the Soviet Union claimed they were working towards. And how are communes better when this is exactly how communes operate?

[Kubra]

The type of employee ownership you are talking about only becomes viable on a large scale unless we revert back to a precapitalist mode of production. As Luxemborg explained in "Revolution or Reform" " The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The working day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. and, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors. The workers forming a cooperative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to play the role of capitalist entrepreneur toward themselves—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of cooperatives in production, which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving." cooperative can't free themselves from the completion of capitalism without assuring themselves a constant market. So no cooperatives aren't going to be a means for the creation of a socialist society nor are they going to be a widespread means for the proletariat to strengthen themselves.

The fact of the matter is that decentralization for he means of production into the hands of worker congresses ils just a cover for capitalist consolidation over the means of production as explained by Enver Alisha in his book about Yugoslav self Administration and shouldn't be viewed as a positive thing.

As you rightly pointed about the soviet system afforded better workplace democracy since trade unions where the backbone of the soviet system.

Better workplace democracy cuz unions? I'm speechless.

[Napkiraly]

yeah but once we have the vote, we can reshape the companies for our short-term advantage... we are the many, they are the few

this is why I like workplace democracy

Pretty sure most people aren't idiots who're looking to see their company go under.

Balderdash, everyone knows that workers secretly wish to become unemployed!

[Kubra]

Pretty sure most people aren't idiots who're looking to see their company go under.

Balderdash, everyone knows that workers secretly wish to become unemployed!

Well I mean if unemployment insurance is involved, but usually employers will go over how they'll let you cash in on unemployment insurance beforehand.

[United Marxist Nations]

The type of employee ownership you are talking about only becomes viable on a large scale unless we revert back to a precapitalist mode of production. As Luxemborg explained in "Revolution or Reform" " The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The working day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. and, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors. The workers forming a cooperative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to play the role of capitalist entrepreneur toward themselves—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of cooperatives in production, which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving." cooperative can't free themselves from the completion of capitalism without assuring themselves a constant market. So no cooperatives aren't going to be a means for the creation of a socialist society nor are they going to be a widespread means for the proletariat to strengthen themselves.

The fact of the matter is that decentralization for he means of production into the hands of worker congresses ils just a cover for capitalist consolidation over the means of production as explained by Enver Alisha in his book about Yugoslav self Administration and shouldn't be viewed as a positive thing.

As you rightly pointed about the soviet system afforded better workplace democracy since trade unions where the backbone of the soviet system.

Better workplace democracy cuz unions? I'm speechless.

He is saying that a system of Soviets ensures workers' democracy more fully because the workers in the country can directly control both production and distribution, not relying on simple market mechanisms that are fickle.

[Threlizdun]

Better workplace democracy cuz unions? I'm speechless.

He is saying that a system of Soviets ensures workers' democracy more fully because the workers in the country can directly control both production and distribution, not relying on simple market mechanisms that are fickle.

It isn't good to propagate the myth that workers had any meaningful control of the economy in the Soviet Union. There also is no need for workplace democracy to have a market. Again, workplace democracy is socialism.