Re: I was talking to the Ukrainians about you.

["Tim Mitchell" <pentim@netspace.net.au>]

Don

Re your specific questions which I think you were addressing to me.

Democratic capitalism? Its a very broad expression and somewhat imperfect.
In the context of ESOPs, I submit that it just means that in some
circumstances, where worker/owners are involved, it will be appropriate from
time to time for them to use the additional leverage vested in them by right
of being shareholders to advance their cause through association. Where that
association is formalised by way of a union, the coordination of shareholder
power is a service that unions will be required to provide if they are to
fulfill their members' expectations.

Re Why would the average union official want the headache of ownership?

I concur, its a paradigm shift, for "dyed in the wool" union officials. But
times change and globalisation is creating new demands. Just as the soldier
of today is a very different creature to his counterpart in the trenches of
WW1, the union official that represents the ESOP members of the future will
need skills that are relevant to that environment. But these skills will
always be the table cloth that covers  the core services that unions
traditionally provide, ie re terms and conditions of employment.

I don't see why ESOPs mean employees assuming management functions, at least
in large scale companies. Management are a distinct entity who are there to
provide a return for the owners. When their employees are also owners with
voting rights, this should be a reminder to act diligently, professionally
and justly but still in the interests of the shareholders at large.

I don't see that the traditional tension between organised labor needs to be
buried or that we should pretend that in an ideal ESOP company that tension
will disappear and that unionism will become redundant. On the contrary, it
would be hoped that ESOPs would assist labor - management relations and
reduce some of the negative non-productive aspects that can occur in these
relations, but that the power to take assertive action on both sides
remains, residual, and always able to be called upon if necessity requires
it - a bit like the US nuclear stock pile which is kept in reserve to
maintain world peace - it seems incongruous but it works.

Cheers

Tim




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ward <donrward@hotmail.com>
To: EOpriv@cog.kent.edu <EOpriv@cog.kent.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 06,October, 1999 07:37
Subject: I was talking to the Ukrainians about you.


>Tim Mitchell,
>I met some Ukranain city officials the other evening. They were in
>Louisville, Ky. to learn how American cities manage public service
>departments. The subject of privitizing those services came up. I told them
>about you and your work in Australia. It seemed like I was talking to
>another planet.  They had difficulty in grasping why a government would not
>want to provide those services and provide many at no cost. WE also talked
>about Employee Ownership. I totally lost them on that.
>
>Also, I somehow got into your discussions about looking for labor union
>mqanagement models for the work you are doing in New South Wales. Actually,
>I would think that if an United States model would work, Dan Bell could
help
>you a lot.
>
>I moved from Northeast Ohio, Dan's organization is based there, in 1971. It
>was cold, businesses were failing  or moving out and everything was
rusting.
>A popular folk singer of the time even wrote a song about the river that
>flows through Cleveland, the largest city in that part of the world. The
>river(it had the native american name Cuyahoga) was always catching on
fire.
>The song went something like "burn on big river, burn on."  I got a job in
>Louisville Ky and grabbed it.
>
>About five years ago I began to meet with clients of Dan and his
>organization up in the same country I escaped from so long ago. My purpose
>was to more involve our employees ( we were a
>non union ESOP company) more in their safety. There for the first time, I
>met union officials who were stockholders in ESOP companies. Many of them
>talked more like management than the management reps, the ones with the
>white shirts and ties. Again, Dan would know more of how that paradigm
shift
>took place. If there are comparable conditions,probably saving jobs, Dan
>would know.
>
>I have two questions;
>
>You talked of democratic capitalism? How do you see them blending together?
>
>Why would the average union official want the headache of ownership? I n
>northeast Ohio it is ownership or no company, no jobs and therefore no need
>for a union. Dan would know that. In the United States aboout 1935,
>President Roosevelt got a law passed to give unions the right to organize
>workers and bargain collectively for them. The law specifically excludes
>management. As ESOPS gain more power and employees assume management
>funcions will there come a time when they can no longer have the
prot3ection
>of thart law. WE call it the  "Wagner Act". This may not be true in your
>country.
>
>Hope you get this and you will be the first to when the Ukranians do begin
>to privatize governmental functions.
>
>Good Luck
>
>Don Ward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>