Democracy at Work: The Co-Op Model
Piggybacking off my previous thread, particularly this post, I want to move on from analyses of institutions and the problems of capitalism and towards solutions. I think part of the issue is that most people in the United States aren't aware that alternatives exist, much like they're very unaware of other country's policies (like free healthcare).
We blabber on about our love for democracy. Yet what can be less democratic than a capitalist corporation? Why is that acceptable? I see no reason to believe that a company cannot be run democratically in the same way the state is run democratically. Most importantly: it's been done and is being done, very successfully. So it's not a matter of speculation, or theory, or fantasy. Let me discuss a few interesting points about the most popular example: the Mondragon Corporation.
* Workers can hire and fire managers. (Let that sink in.)
* Workers determine, democratically, what the pay ratios between the top and bottom earners will be. It's currently set, on average, at 5:1 -- meaning that the top pay person can make only 5 times what the bottom paid worker can make. It's capped at that. (It varies, some are 3:1, some are 9:1, etc; this is the average).
There are other benefits (and problems), but it opens up doors which most people (including myself) didn't know existed until recently.
Working for a wage, within a company that views you as expendable, and which all decisions are in the hands of remote people you don't interact with, is not a natural law. There's no reason we have to organize our businesses this way internally. There's also no reason business has to play such a big role in society in general, especially in terms of owning the government -- which should be of, by, and for the people (supposedly).
We blabber on about our love for democracy. Yet what can be less democratic than a capitalist corporation? Why is that acceptable? I see no reason to believe that a company cannot be run democratically in the same way the state is run democratically. Most importantly: it's been done and is being done, very successfully. So it's not a matter of speculation, or theory, or fantasy. Let me discuss a few interesting points about the most popular example: the Mondragon Corporation.
* Workers can hire and fire managers. (Let that sink in.)
* Workers determine, democratically, what the pay ratios between the top and bottom earners will be. It's currently set, on average, at 5:1 -- meaning that the top pay person can make only 5 times what the bottom paid worker can make. It's capped at that. (It varies, some are 3:1, some are 9:1, etc; this is the average).
There are other benefits (and problems), but it opens up doors which most people (including myself) didn't know existed until recently.
Working for a wage, within a company that views you as expendable, and which all decisions are in the hands of remote people you don't interact with, is not a natural law. There's no reason we have to organize our businesses this way internally. There's also no reason business has to play such a big role in society in general, especially in terms of owning the government -- which should be of, by, and for the people (supposedly).
Comments (40)
Good thread and important points to debate about, but let me clarify two important key points that you should be aware of:
Mondragón comes from Erresate in Basque. I tell you this issue because if you search deeply in internet with the word in Basque you will find more information.
About the famous corporation: Basque Country signed a very important deal with the spanish government in 2002 where they let them have their own “taxation system”. Thanks to this, they develop an own work and economic plan, completely apart from Spain.
I am not saying with this Mondragón is a fake issue. I believe a lot in Basque people, they are heavy and responsible workers. But... we have to admit they have some advantages that other regions don’t.
About the healthcare system... yes we have universal “free” healthcare that are maintained with our taxes. I don’t know what to say about this. Sometimes I feel is not worthy at all. It is true that here any hospital will leave you in the street for not having an insurance but at the same time there are many folks who are using the healthcare system everyday without working.
Exactly right. I think both the accurate articulation of the problems of society (income inrequality especially, but also healthcare, education and student debt, general debt, stagnant real wages, environmental degradation, externalities, worker layoffs, etc), a keen understanding of how a corporation really works, and real world examples (like Mondragon) that embody the more abstract solutions -- these three things together can lead us forward perhaps to economic democracy. To add to this: labor unions.
This is only on the economic front. On the political front, which is equally important (if not more so), it likewise requires education, alternatives, examples of how to organize and what tactics work, etc.
Maybe a common feature of both is the simple fact that people need to wake up. I've referred to this in my Global Awakening thread, and this in part is what I meant. It means overcoming dogma and propaganda, and coming together with others for collective action.
Quite right: they are messy. There are problems, there are setbacks, there are dead ends, mistakes, wrong turns, infighting, even corruption. Some enterprises fail, some succeed. Etc.
But we wouldn't argue that because democracy in the United States is messy, that we shouldn't have it. It strive instead to make it better. Likewise, let's start with the same basic principle of democracy -- and apply it to the CORPORATION (which, after all, wouldn't even exist without gifts from the state, legal and otherwise). I think it would transform our society, and for the better.
Sure, sure. All very true and interesting. I use them only to demonstrate what's possible. They have their advantages, flaws, and their own (perhaps very convenient) conditions.
But it happens in the states as well. Ocean Spray is a good example. Very successful. Also a co-op. They contract in distribution with Nestle, I think, but still...
Quoting javi2541997
You're from Spain?
True, you get free healthcare -- and some people who don't work also get it. But isn't that how it should be, as a basic right?
Remember, too, that we don't turn people away in the US. So people who don't work and are without insurance, and can't pay a dime, still get treatment. The taxpayer has to make up that price anyway. This is often overlooked. Better to just make it free all around, and so you have far less debt, far better health outcomes, and far less expensive treatments.
Yes I am from Spain, I live in Madrid.
It is not only a basic right but a constitutional one. It is so reinforced and secured by the law. "Every citizen in Spain, doesn't matter their nationality, has the right of a public and universal wealthcare system" so, everybody here gets hospital attention without bills because it is maintained by public taxes.
Nevertheless, we also have some private hospitals that work even better.
Sometimes, public and universal wealthcare can be an oasis. It is not as good as it seems. It is true that is basic right that everyone deserves. But, at the end of the day the vaccines were developed by countries which also reinforce the private sector as UK and USA. What Spain has made about the pursuing of vaccines despite the public wealthcare system? Nothing... So the public expenditure is not good at all.
We have "free around" hospitals but our health outcomes are not better than yours honestly...
Why all the rich Spaniards go to the USA to treat their serious sicknesses as cancer? Most of them end up in Los Ángeles or Dallas. Think about it...
Everything free is not the solution.
Politicians, especially, blabber on about democracy. Most people don't -- not because they actually prefer totalitarianism (they don't) but because "democracy" is an abstraction. Besides, we haven't 'old style' democracy for hundreds of years, and when we did it was pretty much exclusively in New England. Most towns reluctantly gave direct participatory democracy up when village / city populations became too large. It's one thing for less than 100 people to attend a town meeting; 1000 people attending becomes too cumbersome.
Industrial democracy, where workers make the decisions about how the workplace will be operated and towards which end, is an alternative to capitalism. Given modern communications and computational facilities, I see no problem in the workers of many different industries planning and coordinating with other workers in other industries.
Of course this would not be simple. It isn't simple now, but it gets done every day, more less, better and worse.
And take it up to 10 000, 100 000 and million, then again you have different mechanics taking over. Representation becomes the norm and organized representation through political parties emerge. The issues get quite abstract: it's not about the old tree that might fall down next to the road 5 km form here. It's about services in general.
The American idea of democracy, as far as I understand it, is about obtaining a position of power through the majority of votes. This is how a capitalist corporation can be democratic.
The American idea of democracy appears to be essentially about the juxtaposition of obtaining a position of power through the majority of votes vs. obtaining a position of power through usurpation/brute force.
Seen this by me, as a foreigner, I also interpret it as a real open minded and free thinker country. It is not only about power due to votes. It is also about criticism and debating.
You all can criticize Joe Biden if you want due to their administration or whatever.
Can I criticize the king of Spain without public punishment? Oops... :zip:
And what power does that criticism have? None. It's not going to change anything. It's an idle freedom.
True, it could be an idle freedom. But we cannot expect that much of a country which live millions and millions of citizens. What can we do to control the people respecting at the same time the democracy? I guess this is only suitable in tiny countries with a good record of direct democracy like Denmark or Sweden (I am just guessing)
It is a viable system of corporate management, but it suffers the same pitfall of political democracy: mob rule.
Personally I wouldn’t want to work at a cooperative because I would have to conform to the decisions of the majority, whether I agreed with them or not. That, to me, isn’t “by the people, for the people”, but “by the majority, for the majority”.
But I’m sure it would be a nice place to work for the conformist.
The United States is also a much wealthier nation. Most of the technology that developed did not come out of the private sector, but the public sector. Much like computers, the internet, etc., came out of state-funded research and were later taken over and privatized by companies, large pharmaceutical companies are also in this group. They also are given massive amounts of money from the government in the form of subsidies and incentives.
Lots of nations have healthcare as a basic right. So does Germany. So does Australia. So does the UK. So does Canada, Japan, etc. I wouldn't say that has much to do with innovation or technology.
The US spends more on healthcare than any country on planet earth and has some of the worst outcomes. That's just factual.
Why do some rich Spaniards go to the USA? For the same reason rich people all over the world send their kids to Harvard and Yale. The USA has some of the best schools and doctors in the world -- if you can afford it. Likewise, Beverly Hills is pretty nice -- if you can afford it. So what?
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019
"Overall, while both systems produce similar results in terms of population health and service quality, there are major differences in health care cost and wait time satisfaction. This suggests that while both systems perform their functions adequately, there is still room for improvement on the part of the United States in providing higher quality health care at a more affordable cost."
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/847/
Just be happy with your plutocracy, then, and go back to sleep.
Indeed. There's many misunderstandings about this, however. Given years of indoctrination, even common sense notions become hard to see and understand. But I think discussing concrete examples can really help overcome the false consciousness that has its grip on most working and middle class people -- which prevents them from voting in this direction, joining unions, or advocating/acting for change in the workplace.
Then, your are giving more points to my argument. The American public administration works well and is profitable. It is so worthy paying the average or regular taxes because the State makes a good expenditure. Motivates the citizens and then develop a good economic system with products (Internet, Apple, Microsoft, Social networks, etc...) and wealth. I guess you are not disappointed of how your State works, right?
Quoting Xtrix
So, the flow of money wins at the end of the day. Richest citizens go to Harvard or American hospitals not only because they can afford it but because they know they are better. Simple. Where you see a big investment (whatever issue) you will see big changes and improvements.
As you shared previously, it is important to make an equilibrium both in public and private sector. Depending a lot in the State, sometimes is not so worthy, trust me...
Right, exactly. Easy.
It's simply moving democracy into the workplace.
Much like democracy in the political sphere, it does not mean workers vote on every little decision, or that someone who cleans the office has to share duties with someone in accounting. It also doesn't mean there are no such things as managers, supervisors, etc. It simply is cutting out what's not necessary: outside owners. There can still be investors, stocks can still be issued, etc., but the people making the decisions (the board of directors) and the people managing daily operations (CEO, presidents) are voted in by the workers, not by shareholders.
Yes, we know you're not in favor of democracy. You've made that clear many times. You prefer rule of the minority, the elites, over the majority. That's what we have in corporations, that's (almost) what we have in government (Republicans being a good example).
You prefer to conform to the decisions of a handful of people at the top, whether you agree with them or not. But that's because you're the Forum idiot, as demonstrated over and over again. (Forgive me for the frank accuracy.)
Quoting NOS4A2
No, just for those who believe in democracy over plutocracy, and prefer to have a say in where they work rather than take orders from corporate masters. But like I said -- each his own. We all know you prefer licking the ass of your masters, you "non-conformist" you. Be happy with that.
Is it that leftists can't come up with something that works because they're too fixated on ideals instead of reality? Maybe.
:rofl:
My opinion hit quite the sore spot. Sour grapes, no doubt.
I don’t conform to anyone’s decision unless I agree with it. If authority cannot justify itself and its efforts I refuse to obey, whether it is a boss or some collection of human beings. If I don’t like the situation in the workplace I bargain for different conditions, find preferable conditions, or better, make my own. That’s how autonomy works. Your autonomy, on the other hand, extends only as far as your vote, a mere entitlement for signing up, which is discarded the moment it conflicts with the majority. With no one to bargain with, no one to appeal to but some vote-tallying machine, you’ll pay lip-service to democracy and be content that your choice was treated like rubbish, no doubt. Meanwhile your conditions are decided by others.
By what strange alchemy does this happen?
That is a little too idealistic, I guess. You are talking about the means of ppl to reproduce themselves. Material conditions. It could be said, the only ethtically responsible opportunity to speak of "the society in general" is when it is about business.
Quoting Xtrix
Because it is formally one's own choice to sell one's labor to any single corporation. The argument of "freedom" is often brought when facing ppl doing things that aren't good for them. Referring you to Marx is too easy on this. By voting or working in such corporations ppl implicitely agree to and reproduce how things are handled. Which could be a strong ethical argument for an unconditional basic income if you ask me. On the other hand, again, this is way too idealistic. One would have to turn on the calculator to know for sure if it is an ethical argument or not.
How brave. Good for you.
So you’ve never worked in a company or held a job— or you’ve agreed with all the decisions they make. If you’re somewhere in between, as most people are, then you’ve certainly conformed to other’s decisions. You also do so now, in terms of political decisions.
But hold your delusions all you want.
Worker ownership and control = less autonomy, less freedom for workers. Got it. Straight from the inverted reality you inhabit.
“Your conditions are decided by others.” Yes, the fellow workers— democratically and with your input. As opposed to the same thing in a capitalist company, where the boards of directors make those decisions without any input at all from workers. But because you’re free to leave and get another job, the latter is more freedom? News flash: you can leave a co-op too.
:lol:
Lurched out of stagnation …
By the workings of NOS’s brain.
Plutocracy (or idiotocracy) is a helluva drug.
No you don't, you're just outright lying.
Harvey explains it. Mark Blyth is good too.
You can’t even fathom such an idea. What a drone.
Confusing having a vote with ownership, control and autonomy is little more than casuistry in my mind. In practice you own and control nothing, and your autonomy extends as far as the mark you make on a piece of paper, the parameters of which are decided without you.
The problem is, unlike yourself and 180proof, I am incapable of envy and don’t feel entitled to owning someone else’s business.
True -- as is also true when we vote for politicians. But that's a step above having no vote whatsoever. Furthermore, I'm not confusing the two. In worker co-ops, the workers are the "owners" (meaning they are their own board of directors). Plenty of real world examples; very successful (despite US laws making it much harder to form).
Mondragon (of Spain) is usually a standard example. A lot to learn from them. They're worker owned and partly worker managed (meaning they also hire outside mangers).
Quoting NOS4A2
No one is talking about envy or owning someone else's business. This is a matter of corporate governance -- how corporations are organized. There's no reason why workers shouldn't have more say in decision making (including where the profits go) -- i.e., on the board of directors -- since they are also major stakeholders in the company (along with bond holders, shareholders, the community, etc). There's also no reason that workers who run the factories can't also own the factories (for example, given the option to buy a plant that the corporation chooses to close).
Besides, corporations aren't legally "owned" by anyone.
Just the fact that your instinct is to consistently argue against anything that would be beneficial for workers, society, or the environment, is why I repeat the sentiment, however harsh, that this old, destructive ideology you embody needs to die off with you and your ilk. Because it's apparent you're never going to wake up -- the Cold War propaganda has too much of a hold on you.
The instinct you keep noticing is to argue against hollow statements. You'd get the same response here selling time shares in Narnia.
Actually the response has been quite good. You and NOS must be misunderstood defenders of truth. :wink: