Capitalism could be hugely improved via worker representation on board of directors

[Jhhnn]

Keep spreading lies. Government has no right to tell corporations who to hire and put on the board.

Corporations exist as legal constructs, which, of course, means that they are creations of govt. As such, the government of the people has every right to determine everything about them within constitutional parameters. They exist because govt allows them to exist.

It comes down to the philosophical reasons for allowing that existence. In Germany, they take the attitude that such entities exist for societal purposes other than making money for the stockholders & execs. Not so much in this country, particularly when the right fringe starts yapping.

In Germany, they say "Let's work this out together." In the US, they just say "It'll trickle down" whether it really does or not.

That difference shows a profound disrespect for the skills & contributions or working people here in the US, and an even deeper disrespect for the idea of social responsibility in general among the financial elite & their devotees.

 

[Michael]

I am probably wasting my time with the Marxists here, but there already are plenty of companies in the USA with workers on their Boards.

I am sure this has been studied and research done and conclusions reached. Why not present that?

As for posters like Jhhnn, they make claims as to what the policies in Germany mean without any actual thought of proof, just the same old and tired and Marxist platitudes. The German system exists for a reason and a little historical study will show it is not for the reasons claimed.

Michael

 

[Jhhnn]

The German system exists for a reason and a little historical study will show it is not for the reasons claimed.

Michael

So exquisitely vague yet seemingly authoritative.

If Germans didn't believe that corporations "exist for societal purposes other than making money for the stockholders & execs", why does their system demand greater responsibility in a structural way?

Or are you saying that it doesn't?

 

[Michael]

Corporations exist in Germany under German law for pretty much the same reason they exist everywhere else. Not for what you claim (inside and outside Germany - both of your claims are false). It is your claim, you prove it. I know it is a false claim, so have fun.

Michael

 

[werepossum]

It would seem to be a cultural thing. Americans are fiercely independent. This country was formed and populated by people trying to get away from something. Being forced into cooperative relationships with other people doesn't seem to come naturally to many of us, when compared to other first world nations.

Of course that's just pulled out of my ass, so who knows.

Well - we USED to be fiercely independent. Now we're fiercely dependent.

I think it's a wise decision for a company to make, but I would not support legislation mandating it any more than I would support legislation banning the Big Gulp. Only an idiot believes America's problems are caused by a lack of sufficient legislation.

 

[Agent11]

If I have plans to build a home that are up to code and highly customized to my exact specifications do you think I would take kindly to someone telling me I had to let the guys I hired to do the job my way have decision authority over altering my project?

 

[Matt1970]

Corporations exist as legal constructs, which, of course, means that they are creations of govt. As such, the government of the people has every right to determine everything about them within constitutional parameters. They exist because govt allows them to exist.

It comes down to the philosophical reasons for allowing that existence. In Germany, they take the attitude that such entities exist for societal purposes other than making money for the stockholders & execs. Not so much in this country, particularly when the right fringe starts yapping.

In Germany, they say "Let's work this out together." In the US, they just say "It'll trickle down" whether it really does or not.

That difference shows a profound disrespect for the skills & contributions or working people here in the US, and an even deeper disrespect for the idea of social responsibility in general among the financial elite & their devotees.

I think you should actually read the constitution. If you did you wouldn't be saying such nonsense as businesses exist because govt allows them to exist and they are creations of govt.

 

[werepossum]

If I have plans to build a home that are up to code and highly customized to my exact specifications do you think I would take kindly to someone telling me I had to let the guys I hired to do the job my way have decision authority over altering my project?

I don't think anyone other than the hard left fringe is saying they should have decision authority, just a voice in the process. One advantage is that the workers (through their representatives) have an understanding of why decisions were made. Another advantage is that sometime the guys doing the job can actually tell you when you're doing something stupid. I'm always open to hearing from contractors on my projects. Sometimes their ideas are just flat wrong or flatly self-serving, sometimes they have an alternative that presents them with an advantage without harming my firm or my clients, and sometimes they'll reveal something I didn't know (or just flat out missed) that keeps me from doing something stupid or at least allows me to do something better. Just tonight a contractor gave me some information I didn't know that will save the client close to five grand, for a two-hour phone call and a few hours redesign.

 

[Veliko]

If I have plans to build a home that are up to code and highly customized to my exact specifications do you think I would take kindly to someone telling me I had to let the guys I hired to do the job my way have decision authority over altering my project?

It's almost as if you haven't bothered to read either the OP or the links provided in the OP and instead used the title to create a phantom bogeyman in your head.

 

[schmuckley]

While I often find myself at odds with Matt1970 and his views, he at least does present his views in a clear manner with purpose. I may not agree with him on almost anything, but I don't in general think of him as an idiot or insane. I'm fairly sure Pray is just a troll account with the intent of making Christians look bad. And if he's not, he's is an absolute nutball.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Corporations exist in Germany under German law for pretty much the same reason they exist everywhere else. Not for what you claim (inside and outside Germany - both of your claims are false). It is your claim, you prove it. I know it is a false claim, so have fun.

Michael

Which explains the different structure not at all. Why would they employ such a different structure to achieve the same ends?

Both societies allow corporations to exist to serve those societies, they just have different ideas of what that means. If Germans didn't think corporations should serve everybody including workers to some degree or another, they wouldn't have unions as part of the BoD. If Americans thought they should, then we'd do something similar.

When American corporations decide to offshore production, they just do it. In Germany, they don't necessarily get to make that decision in the first place, due to BoD composition.

 

[JTsyo]

Does anyone know why in the US management and labor are Adversarial while in other countries (like Germany) labor and management are co-operative?


The Opening Post clearly works in Germany, yet in the US management always tries to screw labor and vice versa. What's exceptional about Germany and lacking in the US?

Also I think it is part of the problem with how unions act. Instead of siding with what is right, they will back workers even when they are dead wrong. Companies will want to get rid of deadweight but unions will support all workers. Calling a strike of even productive workers if the company just wants to release the lower tier employees. Had unions be willing to release the bad apples, then they could clean up their image in management's eyes and the public's. But of course the more people in the union, the better for the union leaders.

For management's side, they are more interested in profits than their employees. With private small companies there was more of a link between the two but with corporations, that personal touch is gone.

 

[Phokus]

It's ironic- i've pointed out myself on here several times how Germany is majorly (almost shockingly for many) different from the US and even other European countries.

I've challenged people to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKSin4JN4

But of course it's longer than a 2 second clip of someone's cat doing tricks, so people don't know how to cope.

Most of the leftwing twats posting on this board would blow a gasket if our society moved toward becoming anything like much of Germany's system.

In that video, you'll hear Germans themselves explain to you why they don't go for trying to create Google, Apple, Microsoft, but rather their businesses play it very safe and are a lot more protectionist.

There's a LOT I like about German society- but we in the US don't live in it. Trying to transplant all of their ideas, without also adopting much of their cultural attitudes that go along with it, won't necessarily work. I'm all in favor of adopting what does work. (And that's not putting janitors and make-believe business people at the helm of the company.) Heck, I'd be all for us becoming a LOT like Germany. But we won't, unfortunately.

What, i watched that video last night and the only bad thing was the social exclusion of immigrants. I think YOU need to watch the video you moron.

 

[nehalem256]

Also I think it is part of the problem with how unions act. Instead of siding with what is right, they will back workers even when they are dead wrong. Companies will want to get rid of deadweight but unions will support all workers. Calling a strike of even productive workers if the company just wants to release the lower tier employees. Had unions be willing to release the bad apples, then they could clean up their image in management's eyes and the public's. But of course the more people in the union, the better for the union leaders.

For management's side, they are more interested in profits than their employees. With private small companies there was more of a link between the two but with corporations, that personal touch is gone.

Prior to the 1959 strike, the major American steel companies were reporting high profits. This led McDonald and Steelworkers general counsel Arthur J. Goldberg to request a major wage increase. But industry negotiators refused to grant a wage increase unless McDonald agreed to substantially alter or eliminate Section 2(b) of the union's national master contract.[6][7][8][1]
Section 2(b) of the steelworkers' contract limited management's ability to change the number of workers assigned to a task or to introduce new work rules or machinery which would result in reduced hours or lower numbers of employees. Management claimed that this constituted featherbedding and reduced the competitiveness of the American steel industry
....
In the long run, the strike devastated the American steel industry. More than 85 percent of U.S. steel production had been shut down for almost four months. Hungry for steel, American industries began importing steel from foreign sources. Steel imports had been negligible prior to 1959. But during the strike, basic U.S. industries found Japanese and Korean steel to be less costly than American steel, even after accounting for importation costs. The sudden shift toward imported steel set in motion a series of events which led to the gradual decline of the American steel industry

What is amusing is that unions basically did the exact same thing corporations are accused of doing and screwed over their long term prospects. I mean even without the strike does preventing more efficient steel production seem like a good idea long term?

So part of the question is, is there something intrinsic in American culture that contributes to this short sighted screw you attitude, and unions would just use the BOD to milk more benefits for themselves? Or would giving workers a spot on the BOD help both the shareholders and workers BOTH work together to build a better long term future?

 

[JTsyo]

Check out this link for companies that are worker owned. Some of these have been around for decades and employ thousands of people. Now we would also need a list of companies that have failed to make valid conclusions but at least this shows it's not a 100% failure idea. An analysis of how these companies fare might lead to better insight of whether this is something we could have to implement across all companies.

 

[Matt1970]

Check out this link for companies that are worker owned. Some of these have been around for decades and employ thousands of people. Now we would also need a list of companies that have failed to make valid conclusions but at least this shows it's not a 100% failure idea. An analysis of how these companies fare might lead to better insight of whether this is something we could have to implement across all companies.

I worked for an employee owned grocery store chain for 2 years in college. After 2 years I owned a $3 stake in the company and got to vote on 2 proposals. We weren't exactly involved in the day-to-day decision making.

 

[berzerker60]

What is amusing is that unions basically did the exact same thing corporations are accused of doing and screwed over their long term prospects. I mean even without the strike does preventing more efficient steel production seem like a good idea long term?

So part of the question is, is there something intrinsic in American culture that contributes to this short sighted screw you attitude, and unions would just use the BOD to milk more benefits for themselves? Or would giving workers a spot on the BOD help both the shareholders and workers BOTH work together to build a better long term future?

Workers should 'milk more benefits' for themselves when companies are extremely profitable. You blame the unions in this case, but they just wanted raises to match their increased productivity that resulted in those high profits. They're not blameless, but management deserves at least as much of the blame, letting their greed destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs. Managers aren't entitled to massive profits and for the workers to just roll over and thanks the managers for the super generosity of allowing them to generate huge profits they don't share in.

 

[Pulsar]

One of the problems capitalist economies seem to face is that a corporation's focus can be purely upon short-term growth for shareholders at the expensive of the corporation's long term viability, or job stability for employees.

Now, sometimes short-term is exactly the purpose of a corporation - nothing wrong with that - and I think we all agree that corporations do not exist simply to provide employment to the citizenship, but I think the financial crisis of '07-'08 did wonders to highlight the worst excesses of short-term thinking. I think it's in society's interest to curb this sort of destructive excess.

So - could we steal a good idea that's been proven elsewhere? Ever since hearing about the German legislation regarding Mitbestimmung (co-determination), I've thought that a major improvement to the stability of large organizations could come from their concept of employee representation on the board of directors.

The effect of this model on the largest type of organization (500 - 2000 employees) would be that employees would vote to elect one-third of the board of directors. The hope would be that general strife and relations between management and employees would be reduced due to the greater representation at the highest levels, and that the worst excesses of short-term thinking would also be checked.

Here's a related Wikipedia article as well:

Wikipedia - Co-determination



Some other interesting reading material on this topic:

- BLS - Foreign Labour Developments (PDF)
- ADBInstitute: Employee Representation on the Board of Directors

Benjamin Franklin once said: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

This is more of that same train of thought.

We have what... 1/3 of this country's possible working population on some form of government benefit? And those people vote distinctly for the party that continues to promise them increasing benefits?

And now, we're going to suggest taking essentially union member, and putting them on the board of directors? Haven't we already seen unions have the ability to essentially bankrupt companies if they choose to do so, because while a board's responsibility is to the shareholders, the union's responsibility is to getting as much money from the company as possible?

Very bad idea.

 

[halik]

I would imagine if that was in the shareholder's best interested, it would exist already...

 

[Michael]

Which explains the different structure not at all. Why would they employ such a different structure to achieve the same ends?

Both societies allow corporations to exist to serve those societies, they just have different ideas of what that means. If Germans didn't think corporations should serve everybody including workers to some degree or another, they wouldn't have unions as part of the BoD. If Americans thought they should, then we'd do something similar.

When American corporations decide to offshore production, they just do it. In Germany, they don't necessarily get to make that decision in the first place, due to BoD composition.

That is another false claim on German corporate law. Also false claim on what German companies have done in terms of outsourcing. Also false in terms of what American companies can "just do" regardless of Board composition. False claim on German board composition as if every BoD needs to include workers and incorrect understanding of the actual structures. False understanding and invalid claims on basic German law governing corporations.

You obviously don't know the laws of any of the countries being discussed, you just want to blather your Marxist opinions.

Michael

 

[Matt1970]

That is another false claim on German corporate law. Also false claim on what German companies have done in terms of outsourcing. Also false in terms of what American companies can "just do" regardless of Board composition. False claim on German board composition as if every BoD needs to include workers and incorrect understanding of the actual structures. False understanding and invalid claims on basic German law governing corporations.

You obviously don't know the laws of any of the countries being discussed, you just want to blather your Marxist opinions.

Michael

There isn't much he gets right.

 

[Michael]

The German (and Swedish) system does have some benefits. It does co-opt the workers into the management decision process and results in more labor peace in countries where unions are fairly strong. The workers never have voting control of the. Board, that belongs to the owners - the shareholders. There also is scant evidence of any efficiency gains.

Lots of German companies have closed factories or outsourced production.

Lots of German corporations are less than 500 people in size and do not include workers.

The OP is fine in terms of a discussion topic, but the typical Marxists who are using it to spout their normal talking points are a complete waste of time. The original link even has studies showing no overall efficiency or management gains have been measured from the arrangement.

Michael

 

[berzerker60]

I would imagine if that was in the shareholder's best interested, it would exist already...

It's not necessarily in the shareholder's best interest. It's (arguably) in the company's best interest. Those are different things. Shareholders can be short-term, wanting short-term gains by exceeding expected profits/targets, and not giving a shit about where the company will be in 20 years. This can lead to things like under-funding pensions and other long-term obligations in favor of pumping stock prices through dividends now. That's disastrous long-term, but serves share-holders who aren't in it for the long haul.

 

[Tango]

It is one of the most important policies that allowed Germany to obtain extremely good economic results in the aftermath of the complex reunification.

 

[Zaap]

What, i watched that video last night and the only bad thing was the social exclusion of immigrants. I think YOU need to watch the video you moron.

LOL typical lefty loon. Guess you waxed over the exclusion of women in their workforce, their stagnant wage system, their shunning of debt, their intolerance for lazy twats like yourself. Yes and they don't allow others to stomp into their country and demand that Germany turn itself into the very places those people left, and turn decent jobs into "jobs Germans won't do." Basically all the things lefty loon amnesty "what's a border!?" twits do to undermine our labor system.