2 ms·

I’m not convinced that worker ownership is necessarily better either, not in a global sense at least, not when we emit into the same beleaguered environment. C

I’m not convinced that worker ownership is necessarily better either, not in a global sense at least, not when we emit into the same beleaguered environment. Consider a worker-owned coal mining operation. It will have the same self-preservation drive that works to the detriment of all the rest of us.

feet 4y ago
I understand that, but when the decisions are made by more people there is a greater chance of some of them speaking up and saying "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy the environment" instead of when decisions are made by a few behind closed doors with consultants being paid to provide cover It also allows the workers to have the knowledge of what's going on, in the case that the organization does decide to destroy the environment we then have more people who know the facts behind the decisions and can speak out to regulators
- pawsforthought 4y ago
  Fair point. At least some kinds of awful corporate decision-making would surely be much less likely under worker ownership. For example, 3M and PFAS contamination. It’s a stretch to imagine workers local to the factories and very directly bearing the brunt of it, would go along with it.
- hakfoo 4y ago
  The big issue is "stakeholder mismatch". A worker-owned coal mine has workers who are going to say "keep the place open forever to pay our rent", but also workers who will say "I'm dying of black lung" or "the river my kids like to swim in is purple from runoff" which will help moderate the decision making process. Maybe they stay open, but do a better job of managing emissions, because they're accountable to people who are directly impacted. Maybe they are more directly aware that there's N years of viability left in the coal business and start looking to bootstrap alternatives sooner. When the stakeholders are predominantly outside investors, there's no reason for them to ask about mitigration or the long term. If they realize that coal is dead in ten years, they personally aren't impacted, they just have to hype the price long enough to sell the asset to some other sucker. Their kids aren't swimming in waste products, so go ahead, funnel it directly into the river. I always figured the strongest mix was to find a way to manage that represented the worker stakeholders and the consumer stakeholders (the ones who are going to walk away after you shrinkflated the product to death). Solve their needs, and capital will get its money back.

feet 4y ago

I understand that, but when the decisions are made by more people there is a greater chance of some of them speaking up and saying "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy the environment" instead of when decisions are made by a few behind closed doors with consultants being paid to provide cover It also allows the workers to have the knowledge of what's going on, in the case that the organization does decide to destroy the environment we then have more people who know the facts behind the decisions and can speak out to regulators

pawsforthought 4y ago
Fair point. At least some kinds of awful corporate decision-making would surely be much less likely under worker ownership. For example, 3M and PFAS contamination. It’s a stretch to imagine workers local to the factories and very directly bearing the brunt of it, would go along with it.
hakfoo 4y ago
The big issue is "stakeholder mismatch". A worker-owned coal mine has workers who are going to say "keep the place open forever to pay our rent", but also workers who will say "I'm dying of black lung" or "the river my kids like to swim in is purple from runoff" which will help moderate the decision making process. Maybe they stay open, but do a better job of managing emissions, because they're accountable to people who are directly impacted. Maybe they are more directly aware that there's N years of viability left in the coal business and start looking to bootstrap alternatives sooner. When the stakeholders are predominantly outside investors, there's no reason for them to ask about mitigration or the long term. If they realize that coal is dead in ten years, they personally aren't impacted, they just have to hype the price long enough to sell the asset to some other sucker. Their kids aren't swimming in waste products, so go ahead, funnel it directly into the river. I always figured the strongest mix was to find a way to manage that represented the worker stakeholders and the consumer stakeholders (the ones who are going to walk away after you shrinkflated the product to death). Solve their needs, and capital will get its money back.