| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: HOMESTEAD: Myth of Employee Ownership
Title: Re: HOMESTEAD: Myth of Employee Ownership
There are pros and cons to both coops and ESOPs. The attraction (and danger) of the ESOP model is that it can be designed in many different ways, to suit many different needs. It also provides reasonable mechanisms for entry and exit for workers, which is not always the case with coops. It also makes it easy for workers as a body to participate in normal business deals, partnering with conventional businesses.
I have said it before and says it again. There is no single ideal solution that can suit everybody and every situation. Labor and local communities need a toolbox with a wide variety of tools to cope with problems and exploit opportunities in the modern economic environment.
Per Ahlstrom
Sweden
Från: Chick Hurst <chickhurst@shaw.ca>
Svara till: homestead@cog.kent.edu
Datum: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:56:14 -0700
Till: homestead@cog.kent.edu
Ämne: Re: HOMESTEAD: Myth of Employee Ownership
I find a discussion of this type interesting. I am gathering that the study of the worker co-op model has not been considered. I would suggest it be undertaken. Not only is it far superior to that of the United ESOP concept where the workers don't get proper representation but in fact it has proven throughout the world to work and very successfully. Where we get messed up is in the thinking that everything has to be corporate.
In addition, because co-ops are owned by the employees, thy are owned by the people who are busy building the community. If you and your town are trying to build your town you are not about to pack up and all move to Mexico just because they have a better tax plan or the bottom line may be better because suddenly, in Mexico, you are prepared to lower your standard of living.
Chick
----- Original Message -----
From: LynnRWilliams@aol.com
To: homestead@cog.kent.edu
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: HOMESTEAD: Myth of Employee Ownership
I would like to agree with John Medaille's observation that an employee owned operation requires a change in values, which I would describe in terms of democratic governance practices at every level of the operation.
I don't agree with the implication (that may not have been intended, I may be over-reacting, if so please excuse) that this can't be accomplished in a union setting. It's correct that it certainly wasn't accomplished at United Airlines. There wasn't an adequate vision there, there wasn't sufficient involvement or agreement with the whole idea, and truth to tell, no one is managing a major airline successfully at the moment, at least no one comes to mind. The only successful airlines in the U.S. or Canada are little ones that work for less. This WalMart idea of working for less isn't a great foundation for the American Dream or any of its lesser versions.
There are, however, a number of employee owned union represented operations that are doing quite well. I was hearing about one the other day, Market Forge in Boston, that frankly I thought was long gone. We had management experts there who insisted that they needed a new plant, far away from where the workers lived, the workers stubbornly resisted, the end was supposed to be near, I hear now they are still in the old plant, still can get to work in a reasonable fashion, and the enterprise is succeeding.
I am not familiar with the systems known as Value Based Mangement or 21st Century Economics, but if they are somewhat similar to Open Book Management I would expect they are not entirely incompatible with a truly democratically governed employee owned entereprise with union represented worker-owners.
Lynn Williams
|