Re: SV: Globalization as Social Darwinism, Workers' risk aversion,good policy and personal greed

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Dear Per:

        Thanks for your comments. I too am concerned about the problem of 
workers
putting all their eggs (job, pension and health insurance) in one basket
that comes with US style employee ownership. I also agree with you that
workers have more clout in larger and more diverse funds. That is why I
made the proposal called "Stock Quid Pro Quo for WTO", which is listed in
the COG homestead email archives. I would like your comments on that idea.

        Best regards,
Deb
At 09:20 AM 1/5/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Workers are not risk-averse by nature, but by need. When you have very 
>narrow economic margins you cannot and should not take high risks. If you 
>like Bill Gates has billions to spend there is no limit for the risks you 
>take take without risking the future of your family.
>One serious drawback to the ownership solution proposed by the most 
>enthusiastic Kelsonians is that the workers cannot spread their risks. It is 
>one thing to have your job in one company and your savings on the 
>stockmarket or in a 401K. It is quite another thing to have your job, your 
>savings, your heath insurance etc placed in one single company. That is 
>foolish risk management.
>In my view workers should have their basic security ensured by government 
>regulated insurance and savings schemes that guarantee a sound risk 
>management of this capital. But they should also have a share in the company 
>they work - individually owned and collectively managed like in the ESOP 
>funds - to give them leverage on company policy decisions and to give them a 
>fair share in the added value of the company they help create by working 
>there. 
>Even here it would be wise to provide for some mechanism that spreads the 
>risk if the value of the worker's share in the ESOP fund tends to make his 
>economic situation too dependent of the well-being of his employer.
>As I have have tried to put forward before: There is no simple solution 
>which takes care of all the problems of the world. The best solution is 
>often a compromise, where you try to combine the good points of different 
>ideas and try to avoid their averse effects as far as possible.
>After having seen hundreds of nature films I think we should leave the law 
>of the jungle to the animals and continue our struggle to create a society 
>where humans care for each other and not try to kill off the weaker 
>individuals.
>Best regards and a Happy New Millenium to all
>Per Ahlstrom
>
>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>Från:  Deborah Groban Olson [SMTP:dgo@esoplaw.com]
>Skickat:       den 5 januari 2000 08:07
>Till:  Homestead; Richard Ferlauto; Per Ahlstrom; Lynn Williams; Leo Gerard; 
>David Imbroscio; David Wheatcroft; Damon Silvers
>Ämne:  Globalization as Social Darwinism, Workers' risk aversion,good policy 
>and personal greed
>
>Dear Homesteaders:
>
>        I receive a lot books and articles related to our mission and our
>efforts to develop policy. I want to share with you my questions arising
from a
>law review article given me by Ted St. Antoine, a distinguished labor law
>professor at the University of Michigan, and from David Korten's book, When
>Corporations Rule the World. Both of these authors seem to share much of the
>world view stated in the COG mission. Yet each of them raises issues that
have
>not been discussed to date in the COG discussions. I am currently reading
>Korten's book The Post-Corporate World, and would like any thoughts you may
>have
>about that as well.
>
>Theoretical Questions:  
>Based on Duke Law Professor Paul Carrington's, 3 The Green Bag Law Journal1998
>article "The New Social Darwinism" in which he equates globalization with a
>resurgence of the Social Darwinist views of the pre-progressive era: 
>·       Is it unrealistic to propose that workers undertake the risk of being
>capitalists, because human nature amongst the working class is generally too
>risk averse?
>·       Is it wise for society to focus on a risky proposition such a
>ownership,
>as a major social underpinning? Will it create greater social unrest? 
>·       Is the risk of ownership any greater than the current periodic
>unemployment risk to the average worker?
>·       Is risk the  normal state of affairs for workers and humanity, so why
>postulate life-long jobs as a serious option (especially when they are
>disappearing in Japan)?
>·         
>David Korten's book When Corporations Rule the World, lays out an agenda for
>social change aimed at meeting the basic COG goals of a sustaniable and just
>civil society which includes: 
>·       a world-wide economic accounting system that counts all the
>environmental and social costs of production, 
>·       a tax system which actively encourages stewardship of resources and
>communities and removes taxes on productive work and basic consumption,  
>·       a legal system which eliminates corporate political contributions,
>requires the media to provide free air time for political debates, bans
>political advertising, replaces the IMF and WTO with a UN agency that will
>encourage more self-reliance and less debt by current debtor nations, and
>seriously limits the rights of corporations by removing their status as "legal
>persons" for some purposes and exercising the right to grant or revoke
>corporate charters and thereby set standards for corporate behavior in civil
>society.
>I like a lot of what Korten is trying to accomplish. However, much of it runs
>contrary to the narrow short-term self-interest motivations of many current
>players who have the power to make these changes. 
>Is there anything  about what we in the employee ownership community do or are
>proposing, that is any more likely to accomplish these ends than what Korten
>proposes? 
> Does employee or broadened ownership provide more room for accommodation
>between greed and accomplishing our mission?
>
>Best regards,
>Deb Olson
>
>Deborah Groban Olson
>Project Co-ordinator
>Capital Ownership Group Project
>Ohio Employee Ownership Center
>Kent State University
>c/o Shared Equity Strategies, Inc.
>3163 Penobscot Building 
>Detroit, MI 48226
>(313) 331-7821 or (313) 964-2460
>(f) (313) 331-2567
>email: dgo@esoplaw.com
>web site: http://cog.kent.edu  <<Fil: ATT00002.html>> 
>