Quote from: Edsan;222987How in the heck would this work? It sounds...interesting, for someone who isn't a boss, but it's the first time I've heard of it.

There is an organization, called a collective.  Everyone who is a member of the collective is an owner, and has a vote in the operation of the collective -- exactly like a stockholder has a vote in the operation of the company they own part of.  The majority of the decisions are made by a board of directors and a chief executive officer.  This CEO is nominated by the board of directors, approved of by the members, and can be fired by a no-confidence vote of members.  The CEo makes some important decision that have a powerful affect on the lives of the workers in the collective.  A decision to spend $4 million of company money on a birthday party for the CEO's wife rather than ensure that all of the workers have access to decent child care is going to get a CEO fired, not get him a golden parachute.

Just as shareholders get quarterly reports that tell them what is going on in the company, where the money is being made and spent, so do workers in a collective.  It is basically exactly like being a shareholder in the company you work for, and getting to have a say in decision that affect the corporate culture, that affect lifestyle choices and opportunities, etc.

The primary difference between a collective firm and a capitalist firm is that only working members of the collective (which includes the CEO) can be owners of the collective.  No outsider can be an owner.  This has many positive effects that make outside regulation less necessary.  For example, a collective that owns several factories has a strong incentive to be environmentally friendly -- most of the owners of the factory will live near the factory, and would be polluting their own homes.  Compare this with corporations owned by Americans that operate factories in Mexico that flagrantly violate what few environmental regulations there are.  Why?  Because the owners don't have to deal with the externalities of their operation when it's thousands of miles away and they never actually see it.

Likewise, you don't need OSHA with it's stupid and frustrating one-size-fits-all safety regulations when the workers can say "Listen man, do something about these specific unsafe conditions or we will find someone who will."  That way nobody gets annoyed by regulations they'll just ignore, and workers can ensure that their workplace works for them, and not for some pencil pusher in Washington DC.

Some people think that it won't work because 'workers will just vote themselves raises and drive the company under."  This is, of course, highly insulting to the intelligence of working folk, and assumes they can't comprehend even the most basic of economic principles.  But a well-designed collective encourages workers to become emotionally invested in the entire collectives success (it's the "I love my team!" effect).  

Mondragon CC, the most successful corporate collective, requires new member worker/owners to buy in to the company.  In 1995 it was $500.  This money was used to open an account in the bank the collective owns.  As   the company earns profits, dividends are paid into all of the accounts.  This money is used as the operating capital of the company.  Everything gets paid for out of this money.  A member can't withdraw anything from this account, though they can borrow against their future dividends at a fairly low interest rate.  When a member leaves, they withdraw everything from their account, pay a capitalization fee (25% of the sum total), and walk away with a fat payout -- but only if they invest time into a company.

In theory, if there was a massive schism in policy, the minority faction could walk and take a significant portion of the capital they helped create with them.  Workers would be so much more empowered in such a situation.

In many ways, it's a win-win situation for everyone.  And even a world mostly dominated by large corporate collectives, there would still be plenty of room for small privately owned companies that hire employees.  And highly skilled freelancers will still be able to name their own prices, they'll just be marketing their skills to collectives rather than companies.  And there is a potential for almost any sort of collective, each with its own set of values that matches the will of its members.

To put it all together for you, here's an easy to imagine hypothetical scenario:  

Sunflower Collective Corporation started as a group of organic farmers in Douglas County, Washington who united and created a bank to help fund the expansion of their operations.  Within ten years, they had expanded to include members across the state and country, and were developing international contacts.  They had their own distribution network, and had just opened Sunflower Super Stores, a chain of organic and natural food stores that primarily distributes goods grown by Sunflower CC farmers.

After twenty years, Sunflower has grown massive, and the farmers who once ran the collective are now a minority voice in the operation -- a powerful voice, as Sunflower has expanded to include several different restaurant chains, more supermarkets, the Sunflower stadium, convenience stores, ethanol fueling stations, and a host of  other business that rely on the farmers to provide raw materials for damn near everything.  But still, for every farmer in the collective, there are 75 people who have never even seen a working farm.

Beyond the profit-generating sector of Sunflower, there is a whole host of non-profit departments, from the Sunflower Elementary Schools, the Sunflower Cancer Research Center, the  to the massive retirement community in Florida the collective purchased for it aging members.

One small segment of the Sunflower collective that has trouble getting its voice heard is Custodial Services.  Seen as non-vital by most of the members, the demands of those who keep the various properties owned by the collective clean and shiny are largely ignored.  After several years of fruitless negotiation with the management, and unable to get support from their fellow workers, Custodial Services reaches outside the collective.

Members contact members of the custodial departments of several other collectives, who are facing similar problems.  They decide to strike...out on their own.  They quit en masse, withdrawing their stake in the various collectives they work for, and they create a new collective -- American Custodial Services.   Able to use their starting funds to negotiate bulk purchases of supplies and uniforms, they go into business.  Their first clients?  The collectives they used to work for!

And twenty years later, most large collectives don't even bother with having in-house janitorial departments.  They farm all such work out to ACS, who now own factories of their own to produce the cleaning supplies they use, and can thus offer janitorial services at a cheaper cost than most collectives can provide for themselves...since ACS, as one of the largest consumers and producers of cleaning supplies, has driven practically everyone else out of the market, and can thus charge anyone who doesn't use ACS for their custodial needs an arm and leg for the supplies they'll need to provide the guy they hire to mop the floors.

And that is how the market should work, and I believe eventually will work.

JaQ'alope,

 Could you please start a separate thread about communism or socialism in the workplace? (whatever you want to call it)

 Please ?

 Because that is real huge digresson from where I was hoping this thread would go.

Thank you,


- Ed

Quote from: Koltar;223585Because that is real huge digresson from where I was hoping this thread would go.

Which was where exactly?  Page 2?

Let's argue about this Ed.  I'm sure that will be productive.  Or maybe you could just PM us all our lines, and then we can have a nice little scripted conversation just the way you want.