The Economic Advantages of Corporate Democracy

[DonaldFG]

Older citizens like me may remember reading professional magazines back on the 1970s and 80s in which occasional articles discussed the advantages of a corporate business model with an all powerful CEO. Blunt statements were made regularly about how much more efficiently companies operated when all "important decisions" were decided by one person - essentially a dictator. Yes, the term "dictator" was actually used to describe this! All debate was eliminated allowing the decision to be made and the company could move on with its business. At the time, I could not help thinking of the nerve and arrogance of these articles, especially considering that just a few decades earlier we fought a world war against fascism, a government where a dictator controlled everything.

Well, with the growing financial resources of huge companies, we have now witnessed what happens when these "dictators" gain such power. Not only do they completely dominate their own companies, but they also gain political power. And with this political power, we see the government being taken over by corporate agendas and leaving the people without representation. This is a picture of government not of the people and of dying democracy.

Is this type of corporate organization really accomplishing what corporations were formed to do? By their own admission, they were formed to serve the public. Let's take a little time to consider a different corporate structure - a structure that already exists and is doing well I might add. What happens when, instead of a few people at the top making the big decisions, these decisions are made by the employees themselves?

An inspirational example of what I am referring to is the Mondragon Corporation. Mondragon is a conglomerate of worker owned business cooperatives (originating in Spain) that are managed bottom-up, meaning the important decisions are made by the workers themselves. Management basically handles the details of what the majority of employees decide. Of course, this business model has to deal with much the same problems as any corporation; it just takes a little longer since the decisions are not made by one person. This business model has been so successful that it has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry that includes manufacturing, service, retail, and its own banking system. This has become a classic example of democracy at work. People can cooperate to do great things!



So, what are the advantages of the majority of employees making the important decisions? Consider this:

• Would an employee controlled company manufacture a product containing ingredients that are toxic for its workers, its customers, or the community? No!
• Would this company decide to move its manufacturing plant to Mexico or some other country for cheap labor? No!
• Would this company have a major layoff? No!
• If a manufacturing step was risky or dangerous, would this company fail to properly inform and protect employees involved? No!
• Would this company design products with planned obsolescence (inferior on purpose)? No!

You can probably add several items to this list if you think about it.

Economist Richard Wolff discusses these things in this 10 minute video. Professor Wolff has a way of clearly, concisely and bluntly stating economic truth.

 

[Jomama]

There are some great employee owned businesses but they survive based on good corporate governance. I have no faith in the wisdom of hoards.
Would the employees eventually act like locusts and kill the business? Probably.
In 2009 would the company have cut costs to insure survival? Probably not.
Would the company invest earnings in new technology vs. higher wages, probably not.
Would the company stay competitive with a world of 'dictator' driven competitors? Probably not.

Have you ever worked in a Union shop? Probably not

 

[DonaldFG]

There are some great employee owned businesses but they survive based on good corporate governance. I have no faith in the wisdom of hoards.
Would the employees eventually act like locusts and kill the business? Probably.
In 2009 would the company have cut costs to insure survival? Probably not.
Would the company invest earnings in new technology vs. higher wages, probably not.
Would the company stay competitive with a world of 'dictator' driven competitors? Probably not.

Have you ever worked in a Union shop? Probably not

As a matter of fact, yes! I was in a union for a couple of years.

On the wisdom of hoards, check this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/c...-intelligence-study-says/stories/201101100243.

And this:
Group IQ - The Boston Globe.

Yes, the "hoards" do have wisdom. All our greatest experts have a say if people are willing to listen. And most folks want to hear the facts - the real facts when it comes to the common good. There is no common good from dictators - only theirs.

Mondragon answers all your silly statements with glorious examples.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Older citizens like me may remember reading professional magazines back on the 1970s and 80s in which occasional articles discussed the advantages of a corporate business model with an all powerful CEO. Blunt statements were made regularly about how much more efficiently companies operated when all "important decisions" were decided by one person - essentially a dictator. Yes, the term "dictator" was actually used to describe this! All debate was eliminated allowing the decision to be made and the company could move on with its business. At the time, I could not help thinking of the nerve and arrogance of these articles, especially considering that just a few decades earlier we fought a world war against fascism, a government where a dictator controlled everything.

Well, with the growing financial resources of huge companies, we have now witnessed what happens when these "dictators" gain such power. Not only do they completely dominate their own companies, but they also gain political power. And with this political power, we see the government being taken over by corporate agendas and leaving the people without representation. This is a picture of government not of the people and of dying democracy.

Is this type of corporate organization really accomplishing what corporations were formed to do? By their own admission, they were formed to serve the public. Let's take a little time to consider a different corporate structure - a structure that already exists and is doing well I might add. What happens when, instead of a few people at the top making the big decisions, these decisions are made by the employees themselves?

An inspirational example of what I am referring to is the Mondragon Corporation. Mondragon is a conglomerate of worker owned business cooperatives (originating in Spain) that are managed bottom-up, meaning the important decisions are made by the workers themselves. Management basically handles the details of what the majority of employees decide. Of course, this business model has to deal with much the same problems as any corporation; it just takes a little longer since the decisions are not made by one person. This business model has been so successful that it has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry that includes manufacturing, service, retail, and its own banking system. This has become a classic example of democracy at work. People can cooperate to do great things!



So, what are the advantages of the majority of employees making the important decisions? Consider this:

• Would an employee controlled company manufacture a product containing ingredients that are toxic for its workers, its customers, or the community? No!
• Would this company decide to move its manufacturing plant to Mexico or some other country for cheap labor? No!
• Would this company have a major layoff? No!
• If a manufacturing step was risky or dangerous, would this company fail to properly inform and protect employees involved? No!
• Would this company design products with planned obsolescence (inferior on purpose)? No!

You can probably add several items to this list if you think about it.

Economist Richard Wolff discusses these things in this 10 minute video. Professor Wolff has a way of clearly, concisely and bluntly stating economic truth.

Its 100% stupid and liberal to talk about corporate democracy as if we don't have it here wherever we want. Its perfectly legal and wonderful to pay your employees anything you want, to give them anything you want, and to consult them about anything you want. Its also perfectly legal to start a new company with any distribution of salaries, profits, and management that you want in order to compete with and clobber old fashioned Republican corporations.

You don't see it much only because its a very very stupid liberal idea.

 

[DonaldFG]

Its 100% stupid and liberal to talk about corporate democracy as if we don't have it here wherever we want. Its perfectly legal and wonderful to pay your employees anything you want, to give them anything you want, and to consult them about anything you want. Its also perfectly legal to start a new company with any distribution of salaries, profits, and management that you want in order to compete with and clobber old fashioned Republican corporations.

You don't see it much only because its a very very stupid liberal idea.

Care to answer this, why does it work so well if it is sooo stupid?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its 100% stupid and liberal to talk about corporate democracy as if we don't have it here wherever we want. Its perfectly legal and wonderful to pay your employees anything you want, to give them anything you want, and to consult them about anything you want. Its also perfectly legal to start a new company with any distribution of salaries, profits, and management that you want in order to compete with and clobber old fashioned Republican corporations.

You don't see it much only because its a very very stupid liberal idea.

Care to answer this, why does it work so well if it is sooo stupid?

too stupid it doesn't work well. Thats why 99.9% of businesses are not organized that way even though they are perfectly free to organize that way!!

 

[DonaldFG]

Its 100% stupid and liberal to talk about corporate democracy as if we don't have it here wherever we want. Its perfectly legal and wonderful to pay your employees anything you want, to give them anything you want, and to consult them about anything you want. Its also perfectly legal to start a new company with any distribution of salaries, profits, and management that you want in order to compete with and clobber old fashioned Republican corporations.

You don't see it much only because its a very very stupid liberal idea.

Care to answer this, why does it work so well if it is sooo stupid?

too stupid it doesn't work well. Thats why 99.9% of businesses are not organized that way even though they are perfectly free to organize that way!!

You can't simply say, "It doesn't work well." I've shown one huge example that does, and there are many others.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its 100% stupid and liberal to talk about corporate democracy as if we don't have it here wherever we want. Its perfectly legal and wonderful to pay your employees anything you want, to give them anything you want, and to consult them about anything you want. Its also perfectly legal to start a new company with any distribution of salaries, profits, and management that you want in order to compete with and clobber old fashioned Republican corporations.

You don't see it much only because its a very very stupid liberal idea.

Care to answer this, why does it work so well if it is sooo stupid?

too stupid it doesn't work well. Thats why 99.9% of businesses are not organized that way even though they are perfectly free to organize that way!!

You can't simply say, "It doesn't work well." I've shown one huge example that does, and there are many others.

dear, less than 1/100 of 1% of the economy. If it worked everyone would have been trying it for 300 years and it it would be dominant today rather than 1/100 of 1% today.

Do you understand now?

 

[Jomama]

Wisdom of the Hoards; Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt

Strong Authoritarian Leadership; Iran, China, Saudi Arabia,

Representative Republics; US, Canada, Israel, France, UK

 

[DonaldFG]

You can't simply say, "It doesn't work well." I've shown one huge example that does, and there are many others.

dear, less than 1/100 of 1% of the economy. If it worked everyone would have been trying it for 300 years and it it would be dominant today rather than 1/100 of 1% today.

Do you understand now?

You don't understand political power, apparently. When the greedy get power, they do what suits them. They don't worry about others or the common good. This is the way a barbaric society functions. Dictators will not relinquish their power easily.

I tried to explain it in this previous post:
CDZ - True civilization should be our goal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[DonaldFG]

Wisdom of the Hoards; Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt

Strong Authoritarian Leadership; Iran, China, Saudi Arabia,

Representative Republics; US, Canada, Israel, France, UK

And these representative "republics" are quickly coming under the dictatorial control of huge multinational corporations. There is no sanity there. It's all about profit making greed for resources. And the "hoards" suffer. No wonder they react. Everyone needs to stop and take a breath, and think.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can't simply say, "It doesn't work well." I've shown one huge example that does, and there are many others.

dear, less than 1/100 of 1% of the economy. If it worked everyone would have been trying it for 300 years and it it would be dominant today rather than 1/100 of 1% today.

Do you understand now?

You don't understand political power, apparently. When the greedy get power, they do what suits them. They don't worry about others or the common good. This is the way a barbaric society functions. Dictators will not relinquish their power easily.

I tried to explain it in this previous post:
CDZ - True civilization should be our goal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

dear, there are a million new businesses formed a month here. Each is 100% free to form a cooperative BS business like you want but none do. Its the most obvious idea in the world but none elect to do it. They don't consult the greedy and ask if they should do it. They are 100% free to do what they want and they don't want to a cooperative BS business.

What does that teach you??

 

[bripat9643]

Older citizens like me may remember reading professional magazines back on the 1970s and 80s in which occasional articles discussed the advantages of a corporate business model with an all powerful CEO. Blunt statements were made regularly about how much more efficiently companies operated when all "important decisions" were decided by one person - essentially a dictator. Yes, the term "dictator" was actually used to describe this! All debate was eliminated allowing the decision to be made and the company could move on with its business. At the time, I could not help thinking of the nerve and arrogance of these articles, especially considering that just a few decades earlier we fought a world war against fascism, a government where a dictator controlled everything.

Well, with the growing financial resources of huge companies, we have now witnessed what happens when these "dictators" gain such power. Not only do they completely dominate their own companies, but they also gain political power. And with this political power, we see the government being taken over by corporate agendas and leaving the people without representation. This is a picture of government not of the people and of dying democracy.

Is this type of corporate organization really accomplishing what corporations were formed to do? By their own admission, they were formed to serve the public. Let's take a little time to consider a different corporate structure - a structure that already exists and is doing well I might add. What happens when, instead of a few people at the top making the big decisions, these decisions are made by the employees themselves?

An inspirational example of what I am referring to is the Mondragon Corporation. Mondragon is a conglomerate of worker owned business cooperatives (originating in Spain) that are managed bottom-up, meaning the important decisions are made by the workers themselves. Management basically handles the details of what the majority of employees decide. Of course, this business model has to deal with much the same problems as any corporation; it just takes a little longer since the decisions are not made by one person. This business model has been so successful that it has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry that includes manufacturing, service, retail, and its own banking system. This has become a classic example of democracy at work. People can cooperate to do great things!



So, what are the advantages of the majority of employees making the important decisions? Consider this:

• Would an employee controlled company manufacture a product containing ingredients that are toxic for its workers, its customers, or the community? No!
• Would this company decide to move its manufacturing plant to Mexico or some other country for cheap labor? No!
• Would this company have a major layoff? No!
• If a manufacturing step was risky or dangerous, would this company fail to properly inform and protect employees involved? No!
• Would this company design products with planned obsolescence (inferior on purpose)? No!

You can probably add several items to this list if you think about it.

Economist Richard Wolff discusses these things in this 10 minute video. Professor Wolff has a way of clearly, concisely and bluntly stating economic truth.

Democracy is a dumb way to run any operation. It puts the dumbest 51% of the employees in charge. Mondragon is not nearly as Democratic as you think. Do imagine the workers vote on every new model of washing machine they produce? No, most of the important decisions are made by professional managers.

 

[TC_Triple3]

Democracy is a dumb way to run any operation. It puts the dumbest 51% of the employees in charge. Mondragon is not nearly as Democratic as you think. Do imagine the workers vote on every new model of washing machine they produce? No, most of the important decisions are made by professional managers.

That's exactly what I want to do! I want to put MY capital at risk by starting a new enterprise and then leave ALL of decision making to a majority vote of my employees. What could go wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

Democracy is a dumb way to run any operation. It puts the dumbest 51% of the employees in charge. Mondragon is not nearly as Democratic as you think. Do imagine the workers vote on every new model of washing machine they produce? No, most of the important decisions are made by professional managers.

That's exactly what I want to do! I want to put MY capital at risk by starting a new enterprise and then leave ALL of decision making to a majority vote of my employees. What could go wrong?

There you have the reason why no such additional enterprises like Mondragon have started up. Who would invest in such a guaranteed loser?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Democracy is a dumb way to run any operation. It puts the dumbest 51% of the employees in charge. Mondragon is not nearly as Democratic as you think. Do imagine the workers vote on every new model of washing machine they produce? No, most of the important decisions are made by professional managers.

That's exactly what I want to do! I want to put MY capital at risk by starting a new enterprise and then leave ALL of decision making to a majority vote of my employees. What could go wrong?

There you have the reason why no such additional enterprises like Mondragon have started up. Who would invest in such a guaranteed loser?

Well there are probably 30 million businesses world wide each year that go bankrupt.
And all of them I'm sure would have saved themselves if they had only know of or thought of the Mondragon co-op concept. What a pity!

 

[DonaldFG]

Well there are probably 30 million businesses world wide each year that go bankrupt.
And all of them I'm sure would have saved themselves if they had only know of or thought of the Mondragon co-op concept. What a pity!

Well, let's see. The Mondragon concept is basically a group of local folks who see a need for a particular product. So, they form a company and start making it. They all agree on major company decisions and policy. And they all do whatever is necessary for the company (and themselves) to succeed.

The dictator CEO concept either runs a company he or she started directly or gets appointed to run an established business. If the CEO and upper management can't make enough profit to satisfy themselves, they move the business to another country or shut it down. Screw the workers.

Oh, and in the CEO run company also the product or products may or may not be really needed by the people, so long as the people can be convinced that they need it

 

[bripat9643]

Well there are probably 30 million businesses world wide each year that go bankrupt.
And all of them I'm sure would have saved themselves if they had only know of or thought of the Mondragon co-op concept. What a pity!

Well, let's see. The Mondragon concept is basically a group of local folks who see a need for a particular product. So, they form a company and start making it. They all agree on major company decisions and policy. And they all do whatever is necessary for the company (and themselves) to succeed.

The dictator CEO concept either runs a company he or she started directly or gets appointed to run an established business. If the CEO and upper management can't make enough profit to satisfy themselves, they move the business to another country or shut it down. Screw the workers.

Oh, and in the CEO run company also the product or products may or may not be really needed by the people, so long as the people can be convinced that they need it

So what happens if the Mondragon concept produces products that "aren't really needed by the people?" What if they can't produce enough revenue to continue operating? Shut it down and screw the workers?

 

[TC_Triple3]

So what happens if the Mondragon concept produces products that "aren't really needed by the people?" What if they can't produce enough revenue to continue operating? Shut it down and screw the workers?

Exactly! There is no law or regulation preventing workers from forming their own cooperative companies. Where are they? If this is the answer we should be swimming in them. Socialists want their workers utopia and use Mondragon (which has been around for decades and is obviously successful) to promote this agenda. Since companies like this aren't the norm they will seek to create them by force. As always, the 'I know better than you and will make choices on your behalf' mindset is at work.

There is a reason everyone isn't an entrepreneur. Some are born with this skill set, others can learn these skills over time. The truth is that most companies are started by WORKERS! They gain experience in the work force, save their money, and start new ventures because they believe they can exploit the weaknesses of their former employer or competitors, and be successful.

Another truth is that most company decisions ARE made by workers! They're called managers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, so long as the people can be convinced that they need it

too stupid!! Freedom works!!! Thats why people cant be convinced to buy Pet Rocks but can be convinced to by food, clothing, and shelter!!

See why we have to be positive a liberal will always be slow?