Worker Owned Companies.

Author: Trent0405

Posts

Total: 57
Topic's author
#1
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
   I've recently been captivated by this topic so I want to create a forum thread on it. However, I'm just a laymen so we must look to studies from people who know their stuff. One conclusion I came to was that worker owned companies are more profitable and more stable.

Here is a good source.
   On the contrary, I have also come to the conclusion that worker owned companies are horribly difficult to get off the ground.

Here's another good source. (Use the word search function for the best experience, it's too long.)

   On the whole I'm anti worker owned companies. I'm not an economist, nor do I have a great or decent understanding of economics. But I want to create a discussion on the topic anyway.
#2
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Trent0405
If a worker wants to own part of a company, they can.  They just have to buy stock in whatever company they want.

If a worker wants to own an entire company, start one from scratch as what captains of industries did.  Less regulations would make this easier.
Topic's author
#3
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
-->
@Alec
If a worker wants to own part of a company, they can.  They just have to buy stock in whatever company they want.
That's true, but in most companies workers own an insignificant portion of the companies stock. People who are pro worker owned companies want more employee stock ownership plans for example.


#4
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Trent0405
but in most companies workers own an insignificant portion of the companies stock.

They can get more if they buy as much stock as what they are willing to invest into the company.

 People who are pro worker owned companies want more employee stock ownership plans for example.
It should be up to the company.  Lets say your daily wage is $100 and 1 share of stock is $100.  If the company wants to pay you solely in stock, that's fine, if it's their choice.  I wouldn't force it on any company and if the employee wants stock in their company if they work at Starbucks for example, then they can buy the stock on their own if they want it. 

They may not know how, but I do think that schools should teach people how to invest so it enables the individual to get out of poverty and to own part of a business.
Topic's author
#5
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
-->
@Alec
It should be up to the company
I agree.

#6
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Trent0405
idk about this one, so basically everyone's gonna get paid the same? then there'd be no incentive for structure and there'd be no such thing as supervisors or ceo's just workers and thats not a very good idea

Topic's author
#7
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I mean it has worked fine in some instances. Worker owned companies which have gotten off the ground outperform non worker owned companies(Source). But these companies "are almost impossible to get off the ground."

#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Day to day existence for most people extends way beyond the work place and a comfortable existence requires financing.

To facilitate the individuals greater needs isn't it therefore vital that a workers company remains profitable irrespective of structure....Cooperation.

Nonetheless, equitable output of reward obviously requires equitable investment of both financial investment and effort/time. All embodied within a

clearly defined and legally bound contract.

Of course there is also the simple argument that the incentive to succeed would be more so within a company where success or failure is of equal responsibility rather than in a situation whereby responsibility is always ceded to hierarchy.


#9
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Day to day existence for most people extends way beyond the work place and a comfortable existence requires financing.
topic is companies

To facilitate the individuals greater needs isn't it therefore vital that a workers company remains profitable irrespective of structure....Cooperation.
irrespective? structure is one of the best ways to assure co operation

#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Topic is worker owned companies.
And there is far more than just "the company" that will affect and incentivise worker performance.

Workplace structure, especially where security is relatively assured and responsibility is always ceded to hierarchy, can just as easily lead to institutionalisation and a lack of motivation.

I was merely suggesting that where there is an obvious and necessary link between performance and all areas of personal success, then motivation will always be paramount to the worker, irrespective of company structure.


#11
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Bad idea I think.

Too many people in charge will lead to lengthier meetings and people getting less done. Another obvious problem is that who is going to tell everyone in the company what to do if the company is worker owned? Are they going to simply agree to have a boss thus saying we relinquish our positions to make it not a worker own company? I guess that will happen. 

#12
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@zedvictor4
you can't count on someone to be motivated, you're placing a bit too much trust in the honor or your average workplace employee. with structure, you're going to have to work or you'll get fired. without a structure what if someone decides to just not work? who's going to fire them? 

#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Trent0405
Worker-owned companies already exist. It's called collectively taking out a small business loan with multiple co-signers and assuming all risk if the business fails.
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Work or get fired.

Work or fail.




#15
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@zedvictor4
whos gonna fire you?
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WaterPhoenix
If you fail, your out of a job anyway.

Though as I initially stated the job isn't the primary motivation.

Money is the primary motivation. 
#17
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@zedvictor4
let me ask this again, who's the one putting you out of a job?
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WaterPhoenix
If a company fails due to a lack of worker motivation then your out of a job. Your putting yourself out of a job. The basis of the company is largely irrelevant.

So answer me this:
What do you regard as being the motivation to be successful within a job.



#19
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@zedvictor4
nonononononono oml, if everyone else is fine and doing their job and you're the only one slacking off who's gonna fire you?

What do you regard as being the motivation to be successful within a job.
money a promotion

#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
 if everyone else is fine and doing their job and you're the only one slacking off who's gonna fire you?

Depends.

Shitty labor laws and shitty management =  Nobody fires you.

Shitty labor laws and good management = Nobody fires you.

Good labor laws and shitty management = If you suck dick nobody fires you, if you don't then management gires you.

Good labor laws and good management = Your manager fires you.
#21
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
ur basing this off the assumption that there is a management
#22
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Yes. That is how organizations work.
#23
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
no, there's no incentive to become a manager in worker owned companies, because everyone gets payed the same right?
#24
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
What I am saying is that large organizations have managers. This includes but is not limited to companies. Who owns the organization is not relevant to that point.
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Nope. Even in worker-owned companies, people are paid according to their their skill-set, longevity, and responsibility, and possibly by more factors. Bernie hasn't quite got his meathooks into us that deep. plus, not every employee has an equal ownership stake in the company. It is still a free-market economy, after all.
#26
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@fauxlaw
no what? did you even read the sources that trent posted
#27
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
no ones gonna be owning the company if it's worker run.
#28
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
did you even read the sources that trent posted

Yes. Nowhere in the links is it said that every worker-owned company also practices income equality. They do mention that employees can buy stock. Is each employee purchasing an equal number of shares? Do you want to prove that?
#29
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
You're just putting together random words at this point.

Name one organization that doesn't have managers. Name one company that isn't run by workers. Name one company that isn't owned by someone.
#30
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
I think the false assumption people have here is associating worker-owned companies as some communitarian structure. Worker cooperatives still have a hierarchy and management, the difference refers to a greater deal of self-management to workers and more worker ownership of stock shares. There's several examples of successful worker cooperatives. The end result is typically better working conditions and more equitable ownership of shares and company profits, I really don't see any problems with this.