Worker Ownership - What's the Point?

[Brian Kohler <bkohler@cep.ca>]

This discussion seems to be having difficulty getting going.  In order
to avert a premature death, I am going to try to provoke a reaction by
reviewing the reasons why, (in my opinion), we are even talking about
it, and why (in my opinion) there may be reluctance to really deal with
it.

Perhaps, many of us are actually more comfortable with the traditional
organization.  After all, in that situation, labour has a clearly
defined "adversary".  Problems can be blamed on "the management".  We
don't have to seriously challenge the established economic order.

Never forget that entire concept of worker ownership is subversive, in
our society.  This is because one of the traditional goals of capital is
to control the means of production, and thereby to (generate and)
accumulate wealth primarily for the benefit of the owners.  In a
worker-owned enterprise, the means of production and the wealth so
generated return to the workers.  In our globalized economy, worker
ownership may be even more anti-establishment than it would have been,
say, 40 or more years ago.

However, worker ownership has at least a chance of being more effective
than traditional organizations.  Given a large enough group of people
actively involved in problem solving, someone might actually know the
solution.  Keeping workers actively involved in problem solving is far
easier when they believe that they will be fairly rewarded for their
contribution.  Worker ownership does this.  Worker ownership provides
everyone involved in the production process with stimulation, and reward
- both financial and emotional.

Worker owned organizations must be more participative and "flat" than
traditional top-down management.  Even to the point of appearing
chaotic.  Personalities being what they are, safeguards must be built
into the system to prevent individuals emerging as little dictators, or
whatever.  Then, despite equality of "ownership", we will have
re-created inequality of control.

Consider the traditional functions of (effective) management and how
they might apply in a worker-owned organization:

1. To set objectives and convince or coerce everyone to work towards
those objectives.
 - In a worker-owned enterprise, there should be greater consensus on
the direction. But consensus does not arrive automatically.  As a
minimum, there must be basic agreement on the decision-making structure
and there must be a high degree of respect amongst the decision-makers.

2. To monitor overall progress and pay attention to crucial details;
both of which may be difficult for those on the "shop floor" to see.
 - It is actually more likely for details to be missed in a top-down
organization.  True communication is possible only between equals. 
Between "bosses" and "subordinates", communication often consists of
pleasant lies.  It is for this reason that e.g. disasters at sea occur
with greater frequency than one would predict - no-one dares to question
the captain, or tell the captain that they are wrong.  In authoritarian
organizations there will always be a problem for decision makers in
perceiving and assessing reality. Subordinates actually are rewarded for
concealing problems from the decision-makers.  But if true communication
can only exist between equals, how do we retain a feeling of equality
within a worker-owned enterprise?  Will some people always try to
dominate others?

3. To motivate people to do unpleasant but necessary tasks.
 - In a worker-owned enterprise, the drudgery can be a temporary
assignment rather than a career ending dead-end job.  Can they be shared
fairly?

4. To deploy the right people for each task for best productivity. 
 - Certainly deploying people with their consent will lead to higher
productivity than otherwise.  How are capabilities assessed and how is
the consent of an "equal" obtained?

5. To ensure personnel, capital, materials, tools, equipment etc. are
available to accomplish the objectives.
 - In modern global corporations the marshalling of resources is largely
an effort to defend turf and expand empires.  This ought to be less of a
problem with worker-owned enterprises: the entire organization is the
"turf" of everyone.  Unless it is within human nature to stake out
territory and defend it.

The defining structure of our society and our age is the corporation. 
Is this the best structure for a worker-owned organization?  I submit
that it is not; but the best structure for a worker owned enterprise has
not yet been defined.  And yet it must coexist and compete with
corporations.

A question to be answered is whether worker-owned enterprises will be
able to deal with individuals whose contribution is marginal, or even
negative.  Will worker-owned enterprises be organized (unionized) and if
so, how will the union (an organization controlled by members who are
also "owners") deal with potential issues of discipline and discharge?

Many people today seem to relate to their work as a problem rather than
a source of fulfillment. Can worker-owned enterprise return a feeling of
joy to the workers in them?

Is the ultimate question to be answered on worker-owned enterprises the
question of power?  Can the economic power of "the boss" be eliminated
without replacing it with the political power of an elected or
self-appointed "leader"?  What about coercive power?  What about
psychology and the fact that the most charismatic individuals are not
always the most capable?  Or that there are individuals, very capable
and skilled ones, who do not relish making decisions?

How will worker-owned enterprises (seeming to imply local control)
market their products in the global economy?  Are global marketing
co-operatives the answer?  How would they be structured?

Readers, please, this discussion needs you to jump in with your ideas,
no matter how semi-formed or even outrageous they may be.  After all, I
just did!

Brian Kohler