worker ownership questions

[Brian Kohler <bkohler@cep.ca>]

One of the frequently-cited examples of "worker ownership" are the
labour-sponsored investment funds in Canada (often referred to as
"solidarity funds" after the original and largest of the species, the
Quebec Federation of Labour Solidarity Fund).  I myself am a supporter
of these funds, but they do raise some interesting questions:

Although successful in attracting workers' investment (through
attractive tax exemptions) and investing in industries that traditional
private capital would not necessarily be attracted to, they are, as has
been pointed out, an indirect form of worker ownerwhip.  To workers in
the mill or whatever, the day-to-day distinction may not be all that
clear (other than the continued existence of their jobs).

Labour-sponsored investment funds also pose a couple of additional
questions:
How does labour avoid becoming undistinuishable from our present
employers?
Does full participation in the financial markets diminish our "right" to
criticize it?

On a more general note, the following are a few random thoughts on the
broader question of worker ownership.  Should we discuss:
What is the appropriate structure for worker ownership, e.g.
corporation, cooperative, society, etc.
How should enterprise-level decisions be made?  To what extent will all
workers participate (or not) in them?
How should the implied conflicts of interest (e.g. should we invest in
new production equipment that will increase our market share but may
eliminate jobs; should we import raw materials from the lowest cost
supplier, etc.) to be handled?
Will worker ownership lead to the same kinds of production pressures as
"piece work" with the usual effects on safety and environmental
protection?  What about these health and safety, and environmental,
matters?  Who holds liability?
What of distribution of profits? Losses?
What if the worker-owned enterprise turns out to be a sunset industry
e.g. asbestos?

Anyone?