a Joint-stock-company is by definition democratic. The shareholders are meeting reguarly and voting who get’s to sit on the board, can fire the CEO and so. That doesn’t apply to the workers, yes, but between the owners it kind of is democratic.
Yes, I know that many tech companies have this strange divide between “voting stock” and “non-voting stock” and founders, who still are in control without owning the majority of the stock, but that is an american thing and not legal in many parts of the world
there are also many ways to ensure democratic collaboration within a company. Look up the german “Betriebsräte” f.e.
there are also many cooperatives around there who are owned by their workers
and there are many state-owned companies around in democratic nations
Well, yeah, I’m criticizing the fact that owners under the current capitalistic system are only a handful of people who usually aren’t workers. If “employees” had a say in how a company is run, then it would be democratic.
I appreciate the examples provided but disagree with your opening, and would suggest the same of you. I specifically said “many businesses” and “largely undemocratic” as I was aware of most of the examples you gave beforehand.
In particular I don’t view the joint-stock model as sufficiently democratic due to what you already acknowledge, i.e. limited to owners/shareholders.
Regardless, appreciate you bringing to light “Betriebsräte”, as I’ll have to look into that.
Democracy is “owned” by stakeholders, and those stakeholders are the people. So it makes sense for them to have a say in how government works.
A company is owned by shareholders, and they take all of the risk for the company. An employee shows up and gets paid, with none of the downside risk (their paycheck won’t go negative), so the employee isn’t a stakeholder. Therefore, shareholders make the decisions, not employees.
In some structures, employees are the share holders and thus help make the decisions.
An employee shows up and gets paid, with none of the downside risk (their paycheck won’t go negative), so the employee isn’t a stakeholder. Therefore, shareholders make the decisions, not employees.
This depends on where the employee works, both in terms of business and nation. If they work in a nation that doesn’t provide some services, they may be dependent on their employer to some degree for some of those services. In that circumstance they’re no longer “just” showing up and getting paid, nor are they as mobile in their ability to switch businesses/employers.
Should those employees in that circumstance still have essentially no say?
Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Let’s say you’re working on a crab ship or something where your life is literally at risk. You should absolutely have a say because:
your income depends on your catch (could be zero, could be huge)
you can’t leave
you are wholly dependent on the ship for food and lodging
will be at sea for weeks and maybe months at a time
work ends at the end of the season
So yeah, in that case, something like a coop would make a lot of sense, with the captain (i.e. owner of the ship) having a larger say because they have more at risk. If the crab company goes under, they won’t get paid and they’ll be really hard pressed to find another job between crab seasons.
But something like a cruise ship isn’t a great fit because employees can be offered a fixed salary/wage, the risk is a lot lower, and trip times are a lot shorter. The expense of starting a cruise line is immense, so the owners have a lot more risk than the average employee. If the cruise line goes under, they can just join a competitor or even another business entirely, and they’ll likely still get their paycheck.
Whether you should have a say depends a lot on what you’re risking, the more you risk, the more say you should have.
Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Sorry, I had an idea in the back of my head that made what I wrote seem more grounded. The idea in mind was of a pretty standard non-union American corporate employee. An employee in a nation that doesn’t consistently provide services like healthcare, so many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare.
In any event, isn’t this whole line of discussion awkwardly suggesting at some point a fiscal risk may be more relevant than risk to one’s life/well-being? Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
That depends on your definition of “well-being,” as well as the severity of the financial risk. There’s a wide range between “literally risking your life” and “a little discomfort/inconvenience,” just as there is between someone mortgaging their house (risking financial ruin) and some VC tech bro risking other rich people’s money.
Any policy we come up with needs to be sensitive to those extremes. But in general, an individual’s ability to make decisions should be roughly proportional to the risk they’re taking.
many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare
Yeah, that’s ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with employees having a vote. Ideally, benefits like health care should be completely separate from employment. Switching jobs shouldn’t change your coverage… Likewise, you shouldn’t be screwed on retirement savings just because your employer picked a bad plan.
Because you are not paying enough attention:
“kind of democratic between the owners” is just oligarchy. still not democratic.
That’s like saying the foreigners not having a vote is being not democratic though. Because 100% of the owners have voting rights not only a few.
I think what you intend to criticize is the fact that owners and “employees” can be separated, right? If yes then I’m with you.
Well, yeah, I’m criticizing the fact that owners under the current capitalistic system are only a handful of people who usually aren’t workers. If “employees” had a say in how a company is run, then it would be democratic.
I appreciate the examples provided but disagree with your opening, and would suggest the same of you. I specifically said “many businesses” and “largely undemocratic” as I was aware of most of the examples you gave beforehand.
In particular I don’t view the joint-stock model as sufficiently democratic due to what you already acknowledge, i.e. limited to owners/shareholders.
Regardless, appreciate you bringing to light “Betriebsräte”, as I’ll have to look into that.
Democracy is “owned” by stakeholders, and those stakeholders are the people. So it makes sense for them to have a say in how government works.
A company is owned by shareholders, and they take all of the risk for the company. An employee shows up and gets paid, with none of the downside risk (their paycheck won’t go negative), so the employee isn’t a stakeholder. Therefore, shareholders make the decisions, not employees.
In some structures, employees are the share holders and thus help make the decisions.
This depends on where the employee works, both in terms of business and nation. If they work in a nation that doesn’t provide some services, they may be dependent on their employer to some degree for some of those services. In that circumstance they’re no longer “just” showing up and getting paid, nor are they as mobile in their ability to switch businesses/employers.
Should those employees in that circumstance still have essentially no say?
Could you be a little more specific? Because that sounds extremely hypothetical.
Let’s say you’re working on a crab ship or something where your life is literally at risk. You should absolutely have a say because:
So yeah, in that case, something like a coop would make a lot of sense, with the captain (i.e. owner of the ship) having a larger say because they have more at risk. If the crab company goes under, they won’t get paid and they’ll be really hard pressed to find another job between crab seasons.
But something like a cruise ship isn’t a great fit because employees can be offered a fixed salary/wage, the risk is a lot lower, and trip times are a lot shorter. The expense of starting a cruise line is immense, so the owners have a lot more risk than the average employee. If the cruise line goes under, they can just join a competitor or even another business entirely, and they’ll likely still get their paycheck.
Whether you should have a say depends a lot on what you’re risking, the more you risk, the more say you should have.
Sorry, I had an idea in the back of my head that made what I wrote seem more grounded. The idea in mind was of a pretty standard non-union American corporate employee. An employee in a nation that doesn’t consistently provide services like healthcare, so many workers find themselves dependent on their employer for health insurance to afford healthcare.
In any event, isn’t this whole line of discussion awkwardly suggesting at some point a fiscal risk may be more relevant than risk to one’s life/well-being? Shouldn’t monetary concerns always take a backseat to the well-being of people?
That depends on your definition of “well-being,” as well as the severity of the financial risk. There’s a wide range between “literally risking your life” and “a little discomfort/inconvenience,” just as there is between someone mortgaging their house (risking financial ruin) and some VC tech bro risking other rich people’s money.
Any policy we come up with needs to be sensitive to those extremes. But in general, an individual’s ability to make decisions should be roughly proportional to the risk they’re taking.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with employees having a vote. Ideally, benefits like health care should be completely separate from employment. Switching jobs shouldn’t change your coverage… Likewise, you shouldn’t be screwed on retirement savings just because your employer picked a bad plan.