3 ms·

Many German workers have experience with this system. I have had 3 years. It works pretty well in my view and creates some balance. It's probably not as much fu

Many German workers have experience with this system. I have had 3 years. It works pretty well in my view and creates some balance. It's probably not as much fun for management but that's Ok. It bugs me that in the US the only accepted stakeholders are the shareholders and nobody else counts.

anonsivalley652 7y ago
Do you have any familiarity with IG Metall? If so, how helpful do you think are they, or were, for organized labor? Also, worker-owned co-ops seem the only way out of shareholder rent-seeking and narcissistic management behavior because just giving workers input without a fair share of profits is still similar to keeping slavery but adding a suggestions box.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I was IG Metall. As a young person it felt a little restrictive but now I feel it strikes a good balance. You make good money, no abusive workplace practices and the companies are also successful. Win-Win for everybody.
  - anonsivalley652 7y ago
    Those of us who are Americans sorely need to rediscover general strikes and practical labor unions that don't go crazy with organized crime or utopian politics. Oklahoma was a socialist bastion, Henry A. Wallace got the DNC Bernie Sanders-treatment, strikers of the 19th century were summarily executed by Pinkerton and hired snipers like it was a prison riot, and decades of strikes/strike breaking and unionization helped usher in a brief post-WW2 era of prosperity. Now, poor and white-collar Americans argue unthinkingly and constantly for austerity, mindless deregulation and giving more money to only the rich (because of manufactured consent). I don't see how there's anything but misery, fear of major disease and destitution for 75-90% of Americans; and there aren't many good jobs for average workers because there's almost no manufacturing ecosystem like there is in China.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Generally speaking, workers councils are a good thing. In praxis, it depends. The main issue I have is, that sometimes worker councils are more looking at the workers council's interests then employees or the company's. Same for trade unions. I have had cases where workers councils blocked hirings to reserve a job ticket for one of there own because of the higher salary. Ignore the fact the guy was 100% council member and not at all qualified. Or where the council wanted one guy from middle management elected because that would have raised salaries for the whole council. Good thing, so, is the collective bargaining power. That usually increases salaries, in some industries more than in others, and improves overall working conditions. So I'd say it depends. Especially on the people on both sides of the table. Maybe every company has the council it deserves.
chrisseaton 7y ago
Most workers are granted shares in the companies they work in. Doesn’t that make them stakeholders already? They could band together and control the company if they wanted to and were granted or bought enough shares.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  The holdings of institutional investors (pensions, mutual funds, and so-called “activist investors” with a lot of cash) far outstrip the shares issued to employees as compensation. Plus, since it is seen as part of pay, many employees sell their holdings quickly. There’s no reason to suspect US companies would ever grant enough shares for employees to band together in this way. That would be anathema to management and board control of worker conditions and output. Regular employees are interested in the company’s shares insofar as the price is high, not as a means to influence company governance.
goatinaboat 7y ago
It bugs me that in the US the only accepted stakeholders are the shareholders and nobody else counts This isn’t quite true... the main stakeholders in a US corporation are the senior management. They will continue to receive lavish rewards even when shareholders, customers and employees alike are all getting shafted. Then when they have drained the last drop for themselves and the company expires, they go straight to the same jobs at another company and repeat.
pbourke 7y ago
> It bugs me that in the US the only accepted stakeholders are the shareholders and nobody else counts. Executives, too (or mostly)

anonsivalley652 7y ago

Do you have any familiarity with IG Metall? If so, how helpful do you think are they, or were, for organized labor? Also, worker-owned co-ops seem the only way out of shareholder rent-seeking and narcissistic management behavior because just giving workers input without a fair share of profits is still similar to keeping slavery but adding a suggestions box.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I was IG Metall. As a young person it felt a little restrictive but now I feel it strikes a good balance. You make good money, no abusive workplace practices and the companies are also successful. Win-Win for everybody.
- anonsivalley652 7y ago
  Those of us who are Americans sorely need to rediscover general strikes and practical labor unions that don't go crazy with organized crime or utopian politics. Oklahoma was a socialist bastion, Henry A. Wallace got the DNC Bernie Sanders-treatment, strikers of the 19th century were summarily executed by Pinkerton and hired snipers like it was a prison riot, and decades of strikes/strike breaking and unionization helped usher in a brief post-WW2 era of prosperity. Now, poor and white-collar Americans argue unthinkingly and constantly for austerity, mindless deregulation and giving more money to only the rich (because of manufactured consent). I don't see how there's anything but misery, fear of major disease and destitution for 75-90% of Americans; and there aren't many good jobs for average workers because there's almost no manufacturing ecosystem like there is in China.
hef19898 7y ago
Generally speaking, workers councils are a good thing. In praxis, it depends. The main issue I have is, that sometimes worker councils are more looking at the workers council's interests then employees or the company's. Same for trade unions. I have had cases where workers councils blocked hirings to reserve a job ticket for one of there own because of the higher salary. Ignore the fact the guy was 100% council member and not at all qualified. Or where the council wanted one guy from middle management elected because that would have raised salaries for the whole council. Good thing, so, is the collective bargaining power. That usually increases salaries, in some industries more than in others, and improves overall working conditions. So I'd say it depends. Especially on the people on both sides of the table. Maybe every company has the council it deserves.

chrisseaton 7y ago

Most workers are granted shares in the companies they work in. Doesn’t that make them stakeholders already? They could band together and control the company if they wanted to and were granted or bought enough shares.

techsupporter 7y ago
The holdings of institutional investors (pensions, mutual funds, and so-called “activist investors” with a lot of cash) far outstrip the shares issued to employees as compensation. Plus, since it is seen as part of pay, many employees sell their holdings quickly. There’s no reason to suspect US companies would ever grant enough shares for employees to band together in this way. That would be anathema to management and board control of worker conditions and output. Regular employees are interested in the company’s shares insofar as the price is high, not as a means to influence company governance.

goatinaboat 7y ago

It bugs me that in the US the only accepted stakeholders are the shareholders and nobody else counts This isn’t quite true... the main stakeholders in a US corporation are the senior management. They will continue to receive lavish rewards even when shareholders, customers and employees alike are all getting shafted. Then when they have drained the last drop for themselves and the company expires, they go straight to the same jobs at another company and repeat.

pbourke 7y ago

> It bugs me that in the US the only accepted stakeholders are the shareholders and nobody else counts. Executives, too (or mostly)