31 ms·

How do co-ops handle downsizing/layoffs?

by whoopdeepoo 4y ago

guerrilla 4y ago
Denocratically
- missedthecue 4y ago
  So everyone votes for who gets the misfortune of being sent to the chopping block?
  - kqr 4y ago
    It's a bit sad that so many people think democracy means "voting to select the least bad option". The employees work together to find solutions that cut costs. That might involve sacking some people, but it might also involve people volunteering for a temporary pay cut, or renegotiating with a landlord, or a million of other things that reduce expenses. What never happens, though, is that the CEO "sends people to the chopping block" to protect his own bonus.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      See, from my perspective, democracy isn't a very good form of governance, and I don't understand why it should be applied as an end in and of itself in every area of life. This is in relation to co-ops, but also to the recent "democratization" drive in general. I think it's the least bad form of governance for states because it seems to result in atrocities and genocide less regularly, but when it comes to other systems, (such as businesses) centralization and hierarchies are far more efficient and the decision makers are generally much more informed with the relevant data. With democracy, you spread the decision making across a vast number of under-informed people, which seldom results in superior outcomes. Sure, incentives matter, I agree with you there. But the incentives aren't corrected when you add a democratic vote of all employees to the mix. The incentive alignment stay the exact same, where everyone is trying to save their own skin even at the expense of others or the firm as a whole. The only thing you've changed is reduce the liklihood of a data-driven decision, and increased the cost, complexity, and response time of dealing with dynamic and rapid changes affecting the organization.
      - kqr 4y ago
        > but when it comes to other systems, (such as businesses) centralization and hierarchies are far more efficient and the decision makers are generally much more informed with the relevant data. With democracy, you spread the decision making across a vast number of under-informed people, which seldom results in superior outcomes. See, I would argue the exact opposite. In a feudal hierarchy, the people making the decisions are usually the ones with the least relevant information -- or in the best case, with the most outdated information. Hierarchies are great at distributing information downward, but not particularly good at aggregating it upward. This is often for power gradient reasons: people enhance the truth to look better when communicating upwards. Even when people communicate honestly, there's a lot of context and nuance that gets lost as a message travels from person to person. In an actual democracy, you'll generally find that the people with the best view of the information and consequences of the decision (by virtue of being the ones affected by the decision) are the ones to make that decision. ---- Edit: I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from! In your typical corporate hierarchy, the people at the bottom usually don't care about understanding the information that is needed to make a decision -- because they won't be asked to have an input on that decision anyway. In a sense, the corporate hierarchy is a self-fulfulling prophecy. By dumbing down the role of the employees and preventing them from having any real responsibility, the employees turn into mindless ass-covering robots without responsibility, and then the corporate hierarchist uses the argument that "democracy doesn't work because employees are just mindless robots that cannot take responsibility." My experience is that when you give people authority over their own selves with a "I dare you to be responsible" what happens is that most people, well, are very responsible. People get together for common causes and sometimes they need to be reminded what that common cause is, but once they have that in mind, they're fairly good at cooperating productively.
        missedthecue 4y ago
        I don't think that giving everyone a vote makes them suddenly driven to inform themselves. For instance, in your average co-op do all the guys on the bottom rung understand what Return on Equity is and its relevance to long term strategy? I can't imagine that they do. But the C-Suite does. Look at democracy in governments. We have a lot of data about that. Giving everyone a vote certainly doesn't drive them to make informed voting decisions. After all, the average American seems to think that the president controls gas prices.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Sure, or you vote for our managers, who do that.

How do co-ops handle downsizing/layoffs?

guerrilla 4y ago

Denocratically

missedthecue 4y ago
So everyone votes for who gets the misfortune of being sent to the chopping block?
- kqr 4y ago
  It's a bit sad that so many people think democracy means "voting to select the least bad option". The employees work together to find solutions that cut costs. That might involve sacking some people, but it might also involve people volunteering for a temporary pay cut, or renegotiating with a landlord, or a million of other things that reduce expenses. What never happens, though, is that the CEO "sends people to the chopping block" to protect his own bonus.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    See, from my perspective, democracy isn't a very good form of governance, and I don't understand why it should be applied as an end in and of itself in every area of life. This is in relation to co-ops, but also to the recent "democratization" drive in general. I think it's the least bad form of governance for states because it seems to result in atrocities and genocide less regularly, but when it comes to other systems, (such as businesses) centralization and hierarchies are far more efficient and the decision makers are generally much more informed with the relevant data. With democracy, you spread the decision making across a vast number of under-informed people, which seldom results in superior outcomes. Sure, incentives matter, I agree with you there. But the incentives aren't corrected when you add a democratic vote of all employees to the mix. The incentive alignment stay the exact same, where everyone is trying to save their own skin even at the expense of others or the firm as a whole. The only thing you've changed is reduce the liklihood of a data-driven decision, and increased the cost, complexity, and response time of dealing with dynamic and rapid changes affecting the organization.
    - kqr 4y ago
      > but when it comes to other systems, (such as businesses) centralization and hierarchies are far more efficient and the decision makers are generally much more informed with the relevant data. With democracy, you spread the decision making across a vast number of under-informed people, which seldom results in superior outcomes. See, I would argue the exact opposite. In a feudal hierarchy, the people making the decisions are usually the ones with the least relevant information -- or in the best case, with the most outdated information. Hierarchies are great at distributing information downward, but not particularly good at aggregating it upward. This is often for power gradient reasons: people enhance the truth to look better when communicating upwards. Even when people communicate honestly, there's a lot of context and nuance that gets lost as a message travels from person to person. In an actual democracy, you'll generally find that the people with the best view of the information and consequences of the decision (by virtue of being the ones affected by the decision) are the ones to make that decision. ---- Edit: I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from! In your typical corporate hierarchy, the people at the bottom usually don't care about understanding the information that is needed to make a decision -- because they won't be asked to have an input on that decision anyway. In a sense, the corporate hierarchy is a self-fulfulling prophecy. By dumbing down the role of the employees and preventing them from having any real responsibility, the employees turn into mindless ass-covering robots without responsibility, and then the corporate hierarchist uses the argument that "democracy doesn't work because employees are just mindless robots that cannot take responsibility." My experience is that when you give people authority over their own selves with a "I dare you to be responsible" what happens is that most people, well, are very responsible. People get together for common causes and sometimes they need to be reminded what that common cause is, but once they have that in mind, they're fairly good at cooperating productively.
      - missedthecue 4y ago
        I don't think that giving everyone a vote makes them suddenly driven to inform themselves. For instance, in your average co-op do all the guys on the bottom rung understand what Return on Equity is and its relevance to long term strategy? I can't imagine that they do. But the C-Suite does. Look at democracy in governments. We have a lot of data about that. Giving everyone a vote certainly doesn't drive them to make informed voting decisions. After all, the average American seems to think that the president controls gas prices.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Sure, or you vote for our managers, who do that.