role options for workers and unions in ESOP'S

["Don Ward" <donrward@hotmail.com>]

Tim MItchell:

Thank your for your reply to my questions. It goes to show that each of us 
brings our own hopes, desires and goals for ownership.

This is not just true for the United States probablly, but it may be. Even 
though I was a manager my entire business career, I functioned best when I 
felt I had some degree of control over my work. In the 1960's in the States 
a movement began, which began to teach that all, or most workers felt that 
way. The other part of the theory was that  as workers gained this control 
their committment to the work improved and the attendant fallouts of better 
quality, improved productivity etc. resulted. An underlying component was 
trust. Companies spent millions of dollars hiring consultants to implement 
programs. They had a lot of different names job improvment, job enlargement, 
quality circles, total quality management and most likely others. Then when 
the ESOP concept came along, it seemed icing on the cake. Not only could an 
employee make a contribution, he or she became an owner of the means of 
production and could even take on decision making traditionally reserved to 
management. My own non union ESOP company only went part way. Most of our 
problems then came up when our managers forgot that our employees were 
owners too.

I have previously reported that in meeting with Dan Bell's clients, many of  
the union officials sounded more like management than the guys with white 
shirts and ties who had the title. I visited with one of his clients outside 
Dayton, Ohio. That Company recently hired a new president. Everyone, 
interviewed the candidates. I forgot how the selection was made, however 
there was some input.I think a union was involved so it would have been 
involved too.

When I worked, I always felt that work was a pretty awful way to spend ones 
tome. However, the more control one had over their own job the less awful it 
became.

I am not certain that this desire for involvment is a universal need. No 
doubt the needs of the economic man or woman can be enhanced by ownership of 
some of the wealth at the place there work, even though  management is 
limited to the few at the top.

However, I think there is some merit in having the workers to be more than 
mere cogs in the process. I  still do not know the details of thea horrible 
train wreck in England last week. If the rail system had not been sold off, 
would safety been a higher priority. In a private company who is 
responsible?

Your model of privitazition and ESOP seemed to exclude the union and the 
workers from management functions, Would that change if the union put up 
part of the cash to finance the deal, as I have seen others from our group 
discuss.

I may have beat this to death. However, I did want to put it on the network 
in case others have other thoughts. Obviuusly, ESOP's can take many forms.


Don Ward

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com