Every company should be owned by its employees
Every company should be owned by its employees
Central States Manufacturing as a model for employee-ownership.
You're viewing a single thread.
So I get the idea that companies shouldn't be slaves to shareholders or the whims of a few people, but would the employees owning the company mean they are shouldering financial risk? Like if my company goes bankrupt I just lose my job, I am not responsible for covering their losses.
There would still be limited liability. Furthermore, they can share risks with investors, and self-insure against risk as well @general
Insurance FTW; investors defeat the whole purpose.
Why do investors defeat the whole purpose? @general
Do investors not own part of the company? They can hold the company hostage in exchange for their capital, even if they can't vote.
btw you seem to be outputting
[@general](https://lemmy.world/c/general)at the bottom of your posts.Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !general@lemmy.world
Can you give an example in the case where investors hold non-voting preferred shares?
I'm not sure how cross posting works from Mastodon to Lemmy. I thought I had to do that to get boosted by the group
I think the liability would still be limited. If a company goes bankrupt it’s not like they’re going after shareholders’ personal assets to pay creditors.
Are you under the impression that private business owners have to cover losses..? Like that’s what a LLC is, a limited liability company. If it goes bankrupt the private owners are only liable for a part of it.
If a private business owners goes bankrupt, he just has to, gasp, find a job.
If a worker loses their job they might go fucking homeless.
What about not reaching bankruptcy level, but just funding losses for a bit, or funding expansion into new locations, equipment, etc
That doesn’t come out of your personal bank account tho… that all comes out of the company’s account.
And if not, we’re talking about smaaall time businesses owners. They are not relevant to this.
I think what he's getting at is you lose both your job and your shares (which are presumably part of your retirement) if the co-op goes tits up. It's more risk.
They are. It also means that if the company goes under or starts doing poorly, they'll lose it all.
Imagine if you told people you put half of all your savings into the stock market. "Good job. That can really work for you"
Now imagine telling them you only put it in a single stock, with no diversification, you won't be able to sell until you're 59 1/2 years old, amd when you do sell, you have to spread the sale out over 6 years. "Wut?"
Like the article says. This company is a unicorn. Very few companies end up doing so well compared to the ones that start out. Employees that have been there over 15 years have over a million dollars in the stock options account (article claims). That's of course far from typical of a company structured this way. I'd imagine that if anyone just bought $20,000 of their stock 15 or 20 years ago and left it there until now, they may also have over a million dollars worth by now. You could sell it all whenever you'd like doing it that way.
There are 2 risk reduction strategies commitment-based and diversification based. The diversification-based strategy is the usual spread your eggs across many baskets strategy, but there is also a commitment-based dual strategy where you put your eggs in a few baskets and watch over them carefully.
Workers in coops can share risks with investors with non-voting preferred shares and other financial instruments. They can diversify by investing in other worker coops non-voting shares
Ok but now you've just reinvented the regular stock market. Line must go up.
Yes, but in the same way that proportional representation is just reinventing democratic process.
A lot of problems in our world today is created by shareholder model. People in Dubai owning and voting on the future of a company that sells drinks is more likely to be okay if that company drains a lake in Missouri than the people in Missouri would. They're ok to stagnate wages if profits are returned to share holders. They're ok if benefits are cut. It all stems from the idea that the people who make those decisions are making them as technical employees of the share holders. Because that's essentially what these companies become when they go public. The executives work for share holders. Those share holders have no connection to the way the company runs or makes choices. It's like a sociopath there no moral decion making by design.
By making companies employee owned you bring the local people to the table to help make decision. You place the executives and board ina position where they have to appease share holders and if a portion of those are employees you will begin to solve a lot of our current issues. Pay, workers rights, health benefits.
Likewise the employees also are more invested in the profits of the company. It goes both ways.
I think you're focusing too much on voting rights. Even if investors don't vote on the actions of a company, they have a financial interest in seeing that company grow, which incentivises unethical but profitable actions by the company. Worker owned or not.
It's actually at the heart of this. I haven't said it but think about ethical business decision making. How does a business make decisions. How are the decision makers working for. Why do they not make ethical choices.
Share holders do not care about the workers getting higher wages. They are not impacted if a company cuts corners and destroys the environment in someone else's backyard. They don't care if Nestle drains a lake in Missouri. The people who care about that are locals.
What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals. That's what these cooperatives and other models do. They include locals and put them in those relationship with the executive level where the executives need to make locals happy along with other shareholders. It injects more ethical decision making into business decision making. More than exist now.
This model works in place like Spain where it has led to decade's success during even economic downturns and is reflected in how happy the people are in areas that use this type of model.
What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals.
That's what I'm saying, dude. Sure, the locals have the voting rights. But there's also a huge pool of external investors who want to see the company make more money. They act as a leveraging effect on the value of the stock, for voters (employees) and non voters alike.
If the company decides to do something good like switch to 100% renewable energy, investors sell and everyone's stock loses value. The employees see their retirement fund tank.
If the company decides to do something bad like outsource all their labor to children in the 3rd world, investors buy and everyone's stock rises a lot.
Every decision that the company makes, they'll have the investors in mind.
This is a purely hypothetical concern that may have already been addressed...
Is there any mechanism that can align local co-op incentives with global problems? So would the factory worker in Missouri care just as little about climate change as the investor in Dubai?
Doubtful, it's not a solution but it is something I think could be better than having an Elon or Bezos at the helm of these things and praying that the next huge monopoly man may be benevolent. Even though benevolence is filtered out of businesses at a much lower level before a company goes public.
The hope would be that the people in Dubai are also represented. Since they are represented there would be more effort needed to decide to make choice.
And nothing says the people in Missouri wouldn't just be happy draining their own lake. Point would be that they're at least getting a say and will have to actually face their community rather than some executive.
It's a step towards something better rather than a panacea
Not quite. Voting rights over firm governance are non-transferable/inalienable. The employer-employee contract is abolished, and everyone is always individually or jointly self-employed.
Incorporating social objectives should be done at the level of associations of worker coops
Ok, but you've still introduced a profit motive, which is inevitably corrupting. Most extant shares of most companies today are non voting shares.
Lots of ways to do this. But overall the idea isn't that the only investment you can ever make is in the company you work for. What could happen is some shares are public and the rest are held by employees. Employees would own enough to reserve more power in decision making so that the employees have greater say in direction of the company. It also means private Business can also be private. Just make it so that if any company wants to go public they should be employee owned or similar.
Employees with stock face the same risk as any other stock owners: that the value of the stock will become zero, or just grow poorly.
But they can diversify to reduce their total risk.