4 ms·

Cooperation is easy when everybody cooperates and has the same goals. Even in a 100% privately owned company with strict hierarchy and egomaniacal CEO. The prob

by Xirdus 2mo ago

Cooperation is easy when everybody cooperates and has the same goals. Even in a 100% privately owned company with strict hierarchy and egomaniacal CEO. The problems start when the goals stop aligning or people stop cooperating. And it doesn't sound like you paid any thought to what happens then in a democratic setting. For example, those bolt tighteners. The joint vote by the tire balancers, CNC operators and facility maintainers has beat the opposition and a resolution was passed that excludes bolt tighteners from annual bonus. Or the bolt tighteners have joined with delivery drivers and passed a rule requiring a certain number of bolts in all new designs whether they make sense or not. Or a hundred other ways in which people can use their vote to put their own self-interest above the shared good. What are the main forces that keep a democratic workplace like the one you described from collapsing due to bad votes and bad rules?

wredcoll 2mo ago
> What are the main forces that keep a democratic workplace like the one you described from collapsing due to bad votes and bad rules? The same forces that keep autocratic ones from collapsing due to incompetent owners making bad decisions, which is to say, nothing at all. I'm too lazy to look up actual stats, but its well known that "most" businesses fail, and if you extens the timeframe long enough they all fail, so this isn't really a problem I need to solve. A more real problem, if you need one, is probably involving investment to create the company, but that's heavily dependent on the surrounding systems to begin with so where are we stopping this thought experiment?
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  It feels like you are saying that you are aware that most democratic workplaces would become highly dysfunctional in a short time, and you are okay with it. But then the question is - what exactly is the benefit of workplace democracy if it ends up with high dysfunction just like fully capitalist companies do?
shimman 2mo ago
You're looking at this at the wrong angle, a better lens would be: "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" I think optimizing for collaboration, rather than dominion can only be seen as a good thing to allow humans to thrive. Also why are you assuming that parliaments would be the dominating collaboration structure? Your imagination is vastly limited if you're only looking toward western examples. At the opposite end, maybe a question to ask yourself if the current system is leading to good outcomes and for who because the vast majority of Americans are suffering as the result of our current neoliberal economic system that was forced upon us with no consent from the governed. Alternatives should be explored and giving voice to workers seems like the simplest thing we can do. People should be allowed to have a voice in the direction of their employment. Exit is not sufficient. Things can be better, only if we allow it to.
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  > "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that? If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless. The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information. I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system. Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?

by Xirdus 2mo ago

wredcoll 2mo ago

> What are the main forces that keep a democratic workplace like the one you described from collapsing due to bad votes and bad rules? The same forces that keep autocratic ones from collapsing due to incompetent owners making bad decisions, which is to say, nothing at all. I'm too lazy to look up actual stats, but its well known that "most" businesses fail, and if you extens the timeframe long enough they all fail, so this isn't really a problem I need to solve. A more real problem, if you need one, is probably involving investment to create the company, but that's heavily dependent on the surrounding systems to begin with so where are we stopping this thought experiment?

Xirdus 2mo ago
It feels like you are saying that you are aware that most democratic workplaces would become highly dysfunctional in a short time, and you are okay with it. But then the question is - what exactly is the benefit of workplace democracy if it ends up with high dysfunction just like fully capitalist companies do?

shimman 2mo ago

You're looking at this at the wrong angle, a better lens would be: "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" I think optimizing for collaboration, rather than dominion can only be seen as a good thing to allow humans to thrive. Also why are you assuming that parliaments would be the dominating collaboration structure? Your imagination is vastly limited if you're only looking toward western examples. At the opposite end, maybe a question to ask yourself if the current system is leading to good outcomes and for who because the vast majority of Americans are suffering as the result of our current neoliberal economic system that was forced upon us with no consent from the governed. Alternatives should be explored and giving voice to workers seems like the simplest thing we can do. People should be allowed to have a voice in the direction of their employment. Exit is not sufficient. Things can be better, only if we allow it to.

Xirdus 2mo ago
> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that? If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless. The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information. I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system. Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?