Until Workers Own Their Jobs, We're Only Rearranging Titanic's deck chairs - this IS the rEvolution
Do yourself a favor and please watch this video, of Richard Wolff, economics Professor
at Amherst & Yale, lay out passionate & lucid logic for doing the obvious, to take care of
ourselves, to exercise much ballyhooed "democracy" in our own economic life, by simply
taking one huge clearheaded step OUT of the capital v. labor box, the box where workers
endure an increasingly frequent and pathetic string of defeats via "collective bargaining"
motif, which we all blithely assume to be set in concrete.
I mean really, "what's the alternative?" you ask?
HERE is the answer ---->
Here's a cross post from Video & Multimedia Forum, of an interview with Professor Fred
Freundlich another well-informed advocate for worker ownership as a massive corporate
paradigm shift, which could be easily facilitated through the tax incentives.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=107748
Worker ownership literally WAS the original labor movement in the USA, rather than
collective bargaining motif, which hasn't worked out so well over the long haul, which
has led to outsourcing, downsizing, and all manner of anti-worker laws being passed.
Fuck 'em. Labor needs to use what influence and recourses it still has managed to hold
onto, and just buy-out and own the freaking factory, using well-known, tried and true
methodologies and models that have been around for over a century.
http://www.workerscontrol.net/authors/worker-cooperatives-united-states-historical-perspective-and-contemporary-assessment
This is what the Labor Movement was pretty much ALL ABOUT in the late 1800's and
during 1900s, until they dumped all their eggs into the collective bargaining basket in
early 20th century in the US.
In addition to the Labor Movement, there are ALREADY national associations, a network
of technical assistance consultants and capital investors, etc. that can be built upon and
duplicated.
http://www.nceo.org/
http://www.usworker.coop/front
Here's a rather amusing piece by Gar Alperovitz about how profoundly UNinterested the Wall
Street Journal is in shedding light on the worker ownership option, which should be a clue.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/08-6
So here's the BOTTOM LINE: Why in the fuck are we not doing this? And doing it full-bore
on a grand scale, to invest & focus our collective attention and energy and resources in a way
where we REALLY can make a historic and substantial difference to heal the economy and
rebuild a stable Middle Class. Compared to this notion, everything else is just tinkering or
kicking the can down the road, a road leading straight into a draconian neo-feudal dystopian
nightmare.
I can think of no better rEvolutionary idea in which to invest, to focus, to spread the word
about, to apply pressure on politicians to align themselves with, and support worker owned
enterprises in every conceivable and legal way.
If we don't do this, we no longer have any excuses left to lean on, to comfort ourselves. We
can't say down the road that we didn't know what to do, because THIS IS THE FUTURE, if there
is a future where workers are paid a living wage and are valued for the work they do because
once ALL workers fucking OWN their jobs, no one can take their livelihood away from them
again, or destroy their community by outsourcing, etc. ... not ever. We will have awakened
from our nightmare, and taken charge of our collective economic welfare.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
markiv
(1,489 posts)organizations that get bailed out by the individual when they misstep in their quest to strangle the individual. they cant possibly lose, because they still win when they lose
and that's why the individual cant win - the cards are withdrawn and re-dealt anytime the outcome doesnt come out as pre-ordained
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I'm not saying it would be "easy" by any means, as suggested by the
utter lack of any mention by WSJ at one of the links in OP. But we
still have the internet (but not for much longer the way things seem
to be headed), and there IS still a chance to massively just say "YES"
to worker ownership in a big way, virtually overnight.
I'm just saying, it COULD happen; not that it's likely to, or that it would
be easy. just that it is a positive imagination out of this mess, that
could become contageous, because the idea has power & is very compelling,
given our current macro-economic context.
But, as Leonard Cohen says "everybody knows the dice are loaded".
The emperor has no clothes. Now we need to "Occupy" our jobs by
owning them, or simply allow the "too big to fail" canard to usher in
it's own brand of a hideously neo-feudalistic so-called "future".
patrice
(47,992 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)which Prof Wolff goes into some in the video.
Essentially, worker-owners are going to genuinely care about the quality of the product or service they are creating with their labor, because they literally have ownership, just like with a house one owns, is better taken care of, and that shows up in many ways in the workplace, all of which contribute to being a "more economically efficient" business.
patrice
(47,992 posts)watched change fuck at least one national corporation up horribly. I'm not sure it ever recovered, no matter how many change managers they hired.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)There's no magic bullet for some market changes; but I do think worker
owned businesses are just smarter, because all of us are smarter than any
one of us; and so therefore would be more capable of finding creative ways
of coping with changing market conditions.
The reason I say it's no magic bullet is, that even being worker-owned didn't
keep 5-6 worker-owned plywood mills (during late 80s) from eventually going
under, due to huge market changes in timber industry. These plywood co-ops
had been operational since the late 40's and so had obviously already survived
their fair share of market turbulence, but in the end they went under along
with most conventionally owned firms as well.
dkf
(37,305 posts)In all honesty I couldn't tell the difference in how we conducted business. We made the big money when we sold ourselves which was overwhelmingly approved by the employees who wanted to be part of a larger more stable organization. Originally we became an ESOP because no one else wanted to buy us. I took a leap of faith and used 30% of my 401k to buy shares and thank goodness it paid off.
wercal
(1,370 posts)An ESOP is an Employee Stock Ownership plan. We've been organized this way for decades, but the ESOP didn't own the entire company.
Now it does, and has for three years now.
Now, its not like we've magically changed to a democratic vote on every decision...and we certainly don't all get paid the same. But, ownership is good. In 15 years, I've accumulated around a year and a half's worth of salary in stock value - so the value of stock I get each year is 10.5% of my salary. Not bad.
The way ESOP's are set up, stock distributions to employees are based on time at the company, not position or pay. So, eventually, as employees leave and are bought out by the ESOP, and additional distributions are made, there is an equalization. Major decisions such as selling the company would have to be voted on by the ESOP members....and sooner or later, the 'rank and file' will amass a large enough voting block to have real influence.
The bottom line is that the value of the company will be continuously disbursed to employees over time. There won't be a 'buyout' where the sole owner or small group of partners gets to cash in on a windfall. Even the most senior members will simply get their shares bought by the ESOP when they leave...alot of money for sure, but only a fraction of what they would get in a traditional partnership.
ESOP's are not a new idea at all. An economist in the 1980's really pushed them. Instead of just being a wage slave, I a slowly becoming an owner. And, if the company ever has a Microsoft style explosion in value, I will get some of the reward.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)yes. ESOPs were coming onto the scene, as you say, during the late 80s, which is also
when I was doing my masters thesis on the subject of work ownership's relationship to
job stability and the amount of capital that stays in the host community to turn over and
multiply v. being syphoned off to NYC or Chicago boardrooms.
As I recall, ESOPs can be very flexible and so also can be more or less "democratic" in
their governance and corporate structure, and sometimes even subject to abuse and
manipulation by capitalists hostile to economic democracy. .. so and because of this in
some circles ESOPs are frowned upon, mostly in organized labor-related groups I think.
This should be such a no-brainer for Labor, but sadly abuses of ESOPs had the opposite
effect on organized labor, i.e. discouraged it from pushing harder for worker-ownership
in the workplace.
wercal
(1,370 posts)to being in a union. But the two are incongruent. Organized labor can never support ESOPs, since being part owner disqualifies a worker from being in a union negotiating across the table with ownership.
I think ESOPs are a great idea....but I know promoting them will get me called alot of names. Just imagine, though, an employee owned car company. All the books would be open to the employees.....and there would be 'decisions' instead of a cycle of layoffs and strikes.
dkf
(37,305 posts)There is no prohibition against that.
The thing is most people don't want to do that.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)if it's not your cup of tea, go be a wage slave or a private contractor. Have at
it ... It's supposedly still a "free country".
I never said everyone wants to be a worker owner, but I'm venturing a wild
guess here, that most would prefer that to being an over-worked under-paid
wage slave, if they are lucky enough to have a job at all.
On Edit: TOO FUNNY that I assumed from above comment that you hated the very idea
of worker ownership, but then saw your other post that you're a relatively happy ESOP
worker owner. 
dkf
(37,305 posts)Now I'm an owner of common shares of my corporate stock.
Both felt exactly the same and if I didn't hold shares of my common stock I don't see how anything changes. Yes I can get the benefit of my corporation's earnings by owning shares. On the other hand I contrast that to what I could get if I owned stock in other corporations.
Yet another consideration is that having all your equity tied up in your employer is risky because if it goes, you lose everything ala Enron.
So sometimes I own company stock, sometimes I sell it out. It's an investment decision like any other.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)later after I posted this and actually thought I went back
and edited one of my posts to reflect this new info, but
somehow it got lost in the shuffle. as it's not showing up
in my purursal of the string.
at any rate, yes, as I say elsewhere, ESOPs are very
flexible and are therefore more easily corrupted and/or
abused by insiders than is the case with a conventional
"worker cooperative".
On edit: I found my other On edit, here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172340#post9
dkf
(37,305 posts)How much $ is in the various pension and other benefit providing funds? Maybe that is where the bastardization occurs, because retirement and benefits are tied to the owner class, not the worker class and everyone wants to retire.
But I can't blame them. My retirement is tied to the owner class also. And let's face it, the worker class isn't very good at saving and investing.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)when you're a wage slave living barely surviving from paycheck to paycheck.
Doesn't it all depend on what labor's capital is invested into, as to whether it's "tied to
the owner class" or not? There actually are worker-owned and controlled entities that
one can invest in, banks and/or credit unions for example.
dkf
(37,305 posts)We barely had extra funds when I was growing up.
But...now that they are retired they have an amazing life. Take home pay higher than when they were working, fully covered health care benefits and double coverage through Medicare with a reimbursement of Medicare premiums!
They are very lucky. Of course this is all being provided by the investments in the state retirement system.
If the union had invested in worker controlled entities, like banks, I wonder where they would be.
Then again if the fund's investments don't do well it is quite likely they will see less favorable benefits. Of note the reimbursement of Medicare premiums seem to be in the cross hairs when this pops up.
Oh, and pensions aren't taxed by the state. Yet another perk.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)is give worker-ownership a chance, in terms of investments.
In Mondragon, worker-ownership is pretty much laterally
integrated across many sectors, including such things as
child care, health care, banks, etc. so there are more sound
worker-friendly places to park retirement funds.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon
