6 ms·

Democracy can be improved by having democracy in the workplace. Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being

by baursak 10y ago

Democracy can be improved by having democracy in the workplace. Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being barked down. If you disobey, you're out. People in Western democracies are no longer putting up with non-democratic control of their political institutions, but are completely oblivious to non-democratic control of their economic institutions and are perfectly willing to take orders where and when it matters most -- every day, 9 to 5. When employees can directly vote and democratically elect the CEO/CFO and other executive and managerial positions, across the wide range of industries and in majority of organizations, it will be a huge win for democracy, and that will spill into a much more engaged population politically as well. Also, at that point, employees are no longer employees.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
You don't have democracy in the workplace because democracy is inefficient. A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the market will soon get outcompeted by one that has its shit together. We can tolerate authoritarian regimes in companies, because they're small (relative to countries) and compete in a heavily regulated space. If you want to leave or they fire you, you can generally find a new workplace. Companies play thier game by selling stuff (and doing accounting magic). On the other hand, when two countries enter fierce competition, it's called "war". People on both sides end up dying. Even a less fierce competition ends up being miserable for everyone. The game has no bounds. And you can't easily quit it and move elsewhere. That's why we prefer countries to be run with inefficient democratic process - because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable.
- baursak 10y ago
  > A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the market will soon get outcompeted by one that has its shit together. That already happens anyway. You don't need to have a democratically governed workplace for constant political shifting and backstabbing to occur. > If you want to leave or they fire you, you can generally find a new workplace. Which will also be non-democratically governed, so that doesn't work. > because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    >> because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. > Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree. Honestly, I think you could. Actually, this is something I was thinking about a lot in context of employee rights. Making workers happy - good office conditions, paid leaves, healthcare benefits, regular schedule, etc. - is a cost for a company, and creates inefficiencies that, if eliminated, would let the company do more while spending less[0]. So many companies are indeed happy to make employees as miserable as they can get away with[1]. Enforcing worker rights is purposefully introducing inefficiency, in order to avoid the market optimizing away all human values. So let me rephrase my original point: you can get away with much more efficiency in companies than in countries without making a lot of people miserable. -- [0] - subject to dynamics of market competition, in which all the gains you earn by introducing a change are quickly cancelled out when competitors follow suit. [1] - not a problem for companies that don't need specialized workers for which there's more demand that supply - i.e. not a problem for most companies and a huge problem for most people.
    - gizmo 10y ago
      Interestingly, Thiel (of all people), has argued that companies in a monopoly position tend to treat their employees well, focus on fundamental research, and focus on delivering the best products for their customers. He argues that businesses with a thin profit margin can't afford to do any of that and so are more brutal and authoritarian and they can't afford the long term investments necessary for real innovation to take place.
    - substack 10y ago
      Consider that in a private company, surpluses are paid out to executives and shareholders. How is that not "inefficient"? Meanwhile, workers are paid a subsistence wage of however low the company can get away with paying. In a worker-owned, worker-managed business, those surpluses could be spent on higher wages, lower prices, or increasing productivity. Without having to generate profits for investors and shareholders (who contribute no labor to the enterprise), wouldn't that make a firm much more "efficient"?
ihsw 10y ago
I would never work at a company structured like this and if you're implying we impose rules on companies to operate like democracies then that's even more dangerous than Trump.
- baursak 10y ago
  Do you mind expanding on why it's even more dangerous than Trump?
- brbrodude 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler#Semco_1990.E2.80.932004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler#Semco_1990.E2.8... Watch Ricardo Semler's TedTalk.
  - baursak 10y ago
    Thanks, this looks interesting, I ordered Maverick to learn more about Semco.
clock_tower 10y ago
I'd also add that this isn't nearly as insane as it sounds. Something quite comparable works well in Germany (see Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?), and to an extent this is just the principle behind co-ops on a larger scale. Distributed ownership of capital tends to lead to greater efficiency, better productivity, and better worker engagement, and it's a bipartisan issue: see syndicalism on the left, distributivism on the right.
zxcvvcxz 10y ago
> Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being barked down. If you disobey, you're out. People in Western democracies are no longer putting up with non-democratic control of their political institutions, but are completely oblivious to non-democratic control of their economic institutions and are perfectly willing to take orders where and when it matters most -- every day, 9 to 5. This sounds strikingly socialist. As a small business owner, the one who took the risk to start it, invested my own savings, and put things together so I could coordinate selling products with paying employees, you're damn right it's my regime. If I didn't think it would be mine, I never would have started it. The future rewards would be non-existent, relevant to being a cog somewhere else. And my customers would never get the added value of what I make from the business I never would have started. Instead of having increased ownership, autonomy, and earnings potential, I have to negotiate and play politics with other people who I know aren't as intrinsically motivated as myself? Forget it, that's entirely unrealistic. Think about what you're saying - this is not how value, wealth, and prosperity is created. Nobody is going to vote me out of being CEO, because if that were possible I wouldn't have put in the tough work (and created the value) that goes along with being a CEO. And the capitalist system works fine, because if these employees think I'm doing a shit job, they do have a vote: leave and start their own company. The parts that don't work are actually the more socialist parts of the system, such as bailouts for big behemoth, and regulatory barriers to starting competitors. Sorry pal, but surface-level idealism doesn't square with real-life incentives and rewards. What I'm in favor for is reducing regulations and other burdens so that you or any employees in general have the option of starting their own companies and competing with me. That's a much better way for them to "take" the value of my shares, rather than just voting it to themselves with no work done.
- gizmo 10y ago
  It sounds socialist because it is textbook socialism. Your assertion that value, wealth, and prosperity are created through the hard work and sacrifice by business owners is of course disputed by socialists. You're begging the question here. If you stipulate that value in society is created by the very process that socialists want to dismantle, then of course being a socialist is irrational. No real conversation can be had when you define socialism to be irrational from the outset. Further evidence that no real conversation can be had follows from your dismissive "sorry pal, surface-level idealism" remark. Why are you so snide and dismissive? Do you think it helps your credibility? (It doesn't.) Socialists argue that value is created by all working people, most of whom are not in it for the profit incentive. Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. By PhD students, who get paid poorly. By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. And there are no snide answers to this question that are remotely satisfying.
twoquestions 10y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Your workplace is the government that you're made to obey most of the time, and unless you have a lot of leverage your position is very similar to a Medieval serf. One benefit that I feel may happen, is to generate better buy-in for management decisions if the workers feel they have a hand in making said decisions. They might also care more about the health of their company, rather than maximizing the value they reap.
- brbrodude 10y ago
  As I've said in another reply, make sure to checkout Ricardo Semler's TedTalk. An awesome example. I won't post a link because everythings is blocked here, next week I'm back at a much more democratic company I've worked before, pretty satisfied.

by baursak 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

You don't have democracy in the workplace because democracy is inefficient. A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the market will soon get outcompeted by one that has its shit together. We can tolerate authoritarian regimes in companies, because they're small (relative to countries) and compete in a heavily regulated space. If you want to leave or they fire you, you can generally find a new workplace. Companies play thier game by selling stuff (and doing accounting magic). On the other hand, when two countries enter fierce competition, it's called "war". People on both sides end up dying. Even a less fierce competition ends up being miserable for everyone. The game has no bounds. And you can't easily quit it and move elsewhere. That's why we prefer countries to be run with inefficient democratic process - because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable.

baursak 10y ago
> A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the market will soon get outcompeted by one that has its shit together. That already happens anyway. You don't need to have a democratically governed workplace for constant political shifting and backstabbing to occur. > If you want to leave or they fire you, you can generally find a new workplace. Which will also be non-democratically governed, so that doesn't work. > because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  >> because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. > Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree. Honestly, I think you could. Actually, this is something I was thinking about a lot in context of employee rights. Making workers happy - good office conditions, paid leaves, healthcare benefits, regular schedule, etc. - is a cost for a company, and creates inefficiencies that, if eliminated, would let the company do more while spending less[0]. So many companies are indeed happy to make employees as miserable as they can get away with[1]. Enforcing worker rights is purposefully introducing inefficiency, in order to avoid the market optimizing away all human values. So let me rephrase my original point: you can get away with much more efficiency in companies than in countries without making a lot of people miserable. -- [0] - subject to dynamics of market competition, in which all the gains you earn by introducing a change are quickly cancelled out when competitors follow suit. [1] - not a problem for companies that don't need specialized workers for which there's more demand that supply - i.e. not a problem for most companies and a huge problem for most people.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Interestingly, Thiel (of all people), has argued that companies in a monopoly position tend to treat their employees well, focus on fundamental research, and focus on delivering the best products for their customers. He argues that businesses with a thin profit margin can't afford to do any of that and so are more brutal and authoritarian and they can't afford the long term investments necessary for real innovation to take place.
  - substack 10y ago
    Consider that in a private company, surpluses are paid out to executives and shareholders. How is that not "inefficient"? Meanwhile, workers are paid a subsistence wage of however low the company can get away with paying. In a worker-owned, worker-managed business, those surpluses could be spent on higher wages, lower prices, or increasing productivity. Without having to generate profits for investors and shareholders (who contribute no labor to the enterprise), wouldn't that make a firm much more "efficient"?

ihsw 10y ago

I would never work at a company structured like this and if you're implying we impose rules on companies to operate like democracies then that's even more dangerous than Trump.

baursak 10y ago
Do you mind expanding on why it's even more dangerous than Trump?
brbrodude 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler#Semco_1990.E2.80.932004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Semler#Semco_1990.E2.8... Watch Ricardo Semler's TedTalk.
- baursak 10y ago
  Thanks, this looks interesting, I ordered Maverick to learn more about Semco.

clock_tower 10y ago

I'd also add that this isn't nearly as insane as it sounds. Something quite comparable works well in Germany (see Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?), and to an extent this is just the principle behind co-ops on a larger scale. Distributed ownership of capital tends to lead to greater efficiency, better productivity, and better worker engagement, and it's a bipartisan issue: see syndicalism on the left, distributivism on the right.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago

> Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being barked down. If you disobey, you're out. People in Western democracies are no longer putting up with non-democratic control of their political institutions, but are completely oblivious to non-democratic control of their economic institutions and are perfectly willing to take orders where and when it matters most -- every day, 9 to 5. This sounds strikingly socialist. As a small business owner, the one who took the risk to start it, invested my own savings, and put things together so I could coordinate selling products with paying employees, you're damn right it's my regime. If I didn't think it would be mine, I never would have started it. The future rewards would be non-existent, relevant to being a cog somewhere else. And my customers would never get the added value of what I make from the business I never would have started. Instead of having increased ownership, autonomy, and earnings potential, I have to negotiate and play politics with other people who I know aren't as intrinsically motivated as myself? Forget it, that's entirely unrealistic. Think about what you're saying - this is not how value, wealth, and prosperity is created. Nobody is going to vote me out of being CEO, because if that were possible I wouldn't have put in the tough work (and created the value) that goes along with being a CEO. And the capitalist system works fine, because if these employees think I'm doing a shit job, they do have a vote: leave and start their own company. The parts that don't work are actually the more socialist parts of the system, such as bailouts for big behemoth, and regulatory barriers to starting competitors. Sorry pal, but surface-level idealism doesn't square with real-life incentives and rewards. What I'm in favor for is reducing regulations and other burdens so that you or any employees in general have the option of starting their own companies and competing with me. That's a much better way for them to "take" the value of my shares, rather than just voting it to themselves with no work done.

gizmo 10y ago
It sounds socialist because it is textbook socialism. Your assertion that value, wealth, and prosperity are created through the hard work and sacrifice by business owners is of course disputed by socialists. You're begging the question here. If you stipulate that value in society is created by the very process that socialists want to dismantle, then of course being a socialist is irrational. No real conversation can be had when you define socialism to be irrational from the outset. Further evidence that no real conversation can be had follows from your dismissive "sorry pal, surface-level idealism" remark. Why are you so snide and dismissive? Do you think it helps your credibility? (It doesn't.) Socialists argue that value is created by all working people, most of whom are not in it for the profit incentive. Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. By PhD students, who get paid poorly. By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. And there are no snide answers to this question that are remotely satisfying.

twoquestions 10y ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Your workplace is the government that you're made to obey most of the time, and unless you have a lot of leverage your position is very similar to a Medieval serf. One benefit that I feel may happen, is to generate better buy-in for management decisions if the workers feel they have a hand in making said decisions. They might also care more about the health of their company, rather than maximizing the value they reap.

brbrodude 10y ago
As I've said in another reply, make sure to checkout Ricardo Semler's TedTalk. An awesome example. I won't post a link because everythings is blocked here, next week I'm back at a much more democratic company I've worked before, pretty satisfied.