4 ms·

It's legally their job to represent only the workers. And they legally have no way of knowing, what's really going on economically. They may be informed about t

It's legally their job to represent only the workers. And they legally have no way of knowing, what's really going on economically. They may be informed about the financial status, if the company is big enough for a economic sub-committee. But they can't make any decisions on that. They aare there solely to represent the interests of the workers. See paragraph 80 Betriebsverfassungsgesetz. Your example only shows, that your workers council is unhappy with the provision based system, because it's unfair. Regional targetting would make it even unfairer. The solution is easy: abandaon the provisions and let the people do their jobs.

gyulai 7y ago
If they have seats on the supervisory board, then they have wide-ranging legal powers to know about everything that's going on in the company. And thanks for pointing me to paragraph 80 of the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz. I read it just now, and "representing the interests of workers" is totally not what it's saying. It's saying: They should ensure that legal & contractual provisions that exist in order to further workers' interests are observed. That's totally not the same thing. -- Because a law doesn't become law unless the needs of both workers and employers have been considered. And a contract doesn't become a contract unless both workers and employers have agreed. And their role is simply to ensure compliance with those provisions. Where there is no provision, they have no mandate. For example, coming back to my example: There is no legal provision that protects workers from repercussions if there is documented evidence that they have been lazy, so the workers council has no mandate to try to protect lazy workers, yet for some reason they do. The legal duty of the supervisory board is to watch out for the company's best interests, period. Even those board members who are sent there by the workers council are, in theory, bound by that duty. I'm not against trade unionism. Trade unions exist so that workers don't suffer from reduced bargaining power when making contracts with employers. But still: Employers and employees are separate economic entities with separate interests who engage with each other over a market interface, with each looking out for their own bests interests (and no one else's). Workers' codetermination is taking it one step further: You have a company that has certain interests. And you insert people into the decision-making process of that company who observe the best interests of an entity that is completely separate and has completely separate interests. Imagine the relationship between General Motors and Microsoft as an analogy for the relationship between General Motors and General Motors Employees. With GM having lock-in for Windows software, MSFT has a lot of bargaining power. But each of GM and MSFT look out for their own best interests when they negotiate licensing. -- That's trade unionism. Now imagine what it would be like if providing software licenses legally entitled MSFT to put people onto GM's board. This would mean GM would actually be hampered in its ability to make decisions that are in its own best interests (both as it negotiates with MSFT, but also as it does pretty much anything else). -- That's worker codetermination.

gyulai 7y ago

If they have seats on the supervisory board, then they have wide-ranging legal powers to know about everything that's going on in the company. And thanks for pointing me to paragraph 80 of the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz. I read it just now, and "representing the interests of workers" is totally not what it's saying. It's saying: They should ensure that legal & contractual provisions that exist in order to further workers' interests are observed. That's totally not the same thing. -- Because a law doesn't become law unless the needs of both workers and employers have been considered. And a contract doesn't become a contract unless both workers and employers have agreed. And their role is simply to ensure compliance with those provisions. Where there is no provision, they have no mandate. For example, coming back to my example: There is no legal provision that protects workers from repercussions if there is documented evidence that they have been lazy, so the workers council has no mandate to try to protect lazy workers, yet for some reason they do. The legal duty of the supervisory board is to watch out for the company's best interests, period. Even those board members who are sent there by the workers council are, in theory, bound by that duty. I'm not against trade unionism. Trade unions exist so that workers don't suffer from reduced bargaining power when making contracts with employers. But still: Employers and employees are separate economic entities with separate interests who engage with each other over a market interface, with each looking out for their own bests interests (and no one else's). Workers' codetermination is taking it one step further: You have a company that has certain interests. And you insert people into the decision-making process of that company who observe the best interests of an entity that is completely separate and has completely separate interests. Imagine the relationship between General Motors and Microsoft as an analogy for the relationship between General Motors and General Motors Employees. With GM having lock-in for Windows software, MSFT has a lot of bargaining power. But each of GM and MSFT look out for their own best interests when they negotiate licensing. -- That's trade unionism. Now imagine what it would be like if providing software licenses legally entitled MSFT to put people onto GM's board. This would mean GM would actually be hampered in its ability to make decisions that are in its own best interests (both as it negotiates with MSFT, but also as it does pretty much anything else). -- That's worker codetermination.