- 22 May 2023 09:31
#15274751
We're talking about workplace democracy, not the state.
Which is more likely - that a major shareholder has alternative sources of income, or that a worker's town has many major corporations all working in the same industry as that employee's training? Not every worker lives in a major city, and company towns where a single employer is the predominant driver of economic activity are hardly rare.
We're not talking about most businesses. I would, like Denmark, probably say these requirements only come in over a certain threshold of employees - at least a couple dozen. I own a small business and have worked at small startups in the past - they're quite democratic as they are compared to larger firms because they're not large enough to have the bureaucratic structures in place that lead to dehumanization of employees and their owners tend to be petit-bourgeois that have to labor themselves - they're not simply parasitically surviving off the surplus value of other workers.
Sure. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving workers even a plurality of seats is a step forward in ensuring the interests of the firm's employees are protected over the present situation in the United States.
I don't know. I made my own thoughts clear. I said upfront I'm not particularly dogmatic.
wat0n wrote:But not for managing the state.
Clearly, having a single party regime that bans others outright isn't a democracy. As simple as that.
We're talking about workplace democracy, not the state.
wat0n wrote:This assumes all workers have no other choice but to work for their employer and that shareholders obviously have other sources of income. This is a very strong assumption that doesn't need to hold.
Which is more likely - that a major shareholder has alternative sources of income, or that a worker's town has many major corporations all working in the same industry as that employee's training? Not every worker lives in a major city, and company towns where a single employer is the predominant driver of economic activity are hardly rare.
wat0n wrote:keeping in mind most are small.
We're not talking about most businesses. I would, like Denmark, probably say these requirements only come in over a certain threshold of employees - at least a couple dozen. I own a small business and have worked at small startups in the past - they're quite democratic as they are compared to larger firms because they're not large enough to have the bureaucratic structures in place that lead to dehumanization of employees and their owners tend to be petit-bourgeois that have to labor themselves - they're not simply parasitically surviving off the surplus value of other workers.
wat0n wrote:From what I can see in Germany (the poster child for codetermination) the tie breaking vote, if any, in supervisory boards comes from the company's owners.
Sure. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Giving workers even a plurality of seats is a step forward in ensuring the interests of the firm's employees are protected over the present situation in the United States.
wat0n wrote:born-again Marxists
I don't know. I made my own thoughts clear. I said upfront I'm not particularly dogmatic.