Trends, Characteristics, and Policy
Implications of
John Grummel and John Logue
List of Figures 3
Acknowledgements 4
I. Employee Ownership as Public Policy 7
What is to come! 9
II. Review of Employee Ownership Performance Literature 11
Introduction 11
Employee Ownership Program Evaluation 11
Before the GAO Study 12
The General Accounting Office Study 14
After GAO Study 15
III. A Survey of Employee Ownership Legislation at the State Level in the 1990s 19
Introduction 19
Trends in Employee Ownership Legislation 19
Trend One 19
Trend Two 22
Trend Three 24
Concluding Remarks 24
IV. Summary of State Employee Ownership Legislation 27
Introduction 27
Increasing Awareness: State Policies, Education, and Interdepartmental Awareness 27
Facilitating Employee Ownership 30
Providing Technical Assistance 31
Providing Financial Assistance 33
Encouraging Employee Participation 35
Concluding Remarks 36
V. The Ohio State Employee Ownership Program and Model State Program 37
Ohio Employee Ownership Program 37
A Model State Program 38
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations 40
Appendix I. Major Federal Legislation Concerning Employee Ownership 42
Appendix II. Summary of Specific Employee Ownership Legislation by State 44
Works cited 71
About the Authors 75
Figure 1: State Policy
Declarations Passed Concerning Employee Ownership 20
Figure 2: States which no longer have Policy
Declaration or Program 21
Figure 3: State Policy Declarations Concerning
Employee Ownership 28
Figure 4: State Policies Promoting Education and
Interdepartmental Awareness 29
Figure 5: State Policies Facilitating Employee
Ownership 30
Figure 6: State Policies Providing Technical
Assistance 32
Figure 7: State Policies Providing Financial
Assistance, by Type 33
Figure 8: Method of Financing 34
Figure 9: State Policies Encouraging Employee
Participation 35
The
contributions of numerous persons made this study possible. The work done by Cathy Ivancic on the
original study has been of the utmost importance in this follow up study. Stevie Rinehart, in the earlier 1990s also
contributed to this study by collecting data on state legislation and state
programs in an earlier attempt to update the original study. The most important contributors to this
study were those people throughout the United States that have been involved in
employee ownership programs that have provided information to the Ohio Employee
Ownership Center over the years. Their
assistance is greatly appreciated. John
Grummel would like to thank Kent State University for the opportunity to work
at the Ohio Employee Ownership Center and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center
for providing the opportunity to work on this project.
Preface
The focus of this study is on legislation
passed at the state level or what states have done concerning employee
ownership. There are three kinds of
employee ownership legislation in the United States. The benefits and
availability of these benefits vary by the type of legislation. At the federal level there are two types of
employee ownership legislation. The
first type is legislation that makes resources and services available to all
takers. This kind of employee ownership
legislation has primarily been federal tax legislation. There have been 19
pieces of federal legislation encouraging and promoting employee ownership
primarily through the tax code. The
benefits provided by tax breaks are available to all that would take advantage
of them. There is an extensive body of
knowledge concerning the use of federal tax breaks.
The second kind of federal legislation is
federal programs where responsibility for the operation of the program has been
delegated to the states. The benefits
are available to those states that choose to implement the program. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),
Title III and the Workforce Investment Act provide resources for preliminary
feasibility studies for those states that choose to implement the program. Thirteen states have taken advantage of
these resources. Nearly half of the
states of these states have state employee ownership programs
The third type of employee ownership
legislation is legislation that states choose to pass on their own. At the state level, 28 states have passed
employee ownership legislation. Compared
to what is known about employee ownership legislation (and its benefits) at the
federal level, much less is known about the benefits available at the state
level. Legislation at the state level
has manifested itself in a variety of forms from simple policy statements to
extensive programs set up to assist potential employee-owners at all stages of
an employee buyout. This study provides
an overview of the variety of employee ownership legislation at the state
level.
This study is of importance because it
provides information that could benefit those most often unaware of the
benefits available at the federal and state level. This includes primarily employees and retiring owners, but also
economic development departments, attorneys, employee ownership practitioners,
policymakers, and policy entrepreneurs.
The information provided here can help expand the set of alternatives
available to potential employee owners and the various groups that serve them.
For example, for employees, in a number of
different situations, such information can help save their jobs. In the case of shutdown, if Dislocated
Worker Unit (DWU) personnel, or the employees to be impacted by a closing
plant, are unaware of the resources available from the federal government the
plant will most likely shutdown when it possibly could have been saved. Job retention is also of importance to
economic development departments and policymakers. An added benefit is that employee ownership anchors capital in
the community, which reduces some of the uncertainty of economic development
created by capital flight. For retiring
owners, employee ownership provides a tax break to the retiring owner and
allows the business to remain open.
Much more is known about the benefits provided by federal legislation
than the benefits provided by state legislation. For attorneys, this resource can provide additional information
to retiring owners, employees to be impacted by possible plant closure, and
business entrepreneurs, among others, about the advantages and benefits of
employee ownership available at the state level.
This study is more than just an update of
the original studies that eventually led to the founding of the Ohio Employee
Ownership Center at Kent State University (formerly Northeast Ohio Employee
Ownership Center) in 1987. This study
not only updates the previous study, but it greatly expands upon the themes
presented in the earlier study. The
data for this study was collected over a two-year period of time. The first step was to review the original
study done concerning states’ employee ownership legislation (Ivancic and Logue
1986) and data that had been collected by the Ohio Employee Ownership Center
(OEOC) over the years since that study.
It was obvious from such a review that
much had changed and there was need for an update of the original study. After all this information had been
organized (and reorganized), a Lexis-Nexis search of state employee ownership
and worker cooperative legislation was done.
The next step was to mail letters to state government departments that
may/are/were involved in state employee ownership programs requesting more
information about their programs, for example annual reports and any other
information persons in these departments could offer. Thirty letters were sent
and there were 8 responses (27% response rate). The response rate was quite low due to the fact that a number of
programs had ended; policies lapsed, were repealed, or not utilized.
To increase the number of contacts, attempts
were made to reach these agencies and departments via telephone and electronic
mail. Similar efforts were used to
contact people formerly associated with employee ownership programs. When necessary, follow up calls was made to
collect more information than was contained in return letters. Nineteen electronic mail letters were sent
and there were 12 responses (63% response rate). 26 phone calls were made with 18 responses (69% response
rate). A second and third Lexis-Nexis
search, was done in February 1998 and March 1999, respectively, to keep as
current as possible concerning any new legislation.
The following study is the culmination of
this work.
I. Employee Ownership as Public Policy
Twenty-five years ago the concept of employee
ownership was virtually unknown in this country. But that has changed. An
estimated 11,090 companies employing more than 7 million Americans are at least
partially employee owned.[1] Perhaps 2,500 of these, employing at least
one and a half million workers, are majority owned. Most of these are
profitable companies sold to their employees by retiring owners, bought by
their employees to avoid other purchasers, or the companies partially acquired
by their employees through company contributions to Employee Stock Ownership
Plans (ESOPs). In Ohio, only a
handful--perhaps 5% of the majority employee-owned firms-were acquired by their
employees to avert shutdown.[2] Nationally, it is estimated that only 1 to
2% of employee owned firms were acquired to avert shutdown.[3]
Employee ownership owes its current
success not to utopian aspirations but to the tax code. Since ESOPs were first mentioned in the
Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, nineteen federal laws have been
passed affecting them. The most notable
was the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which
established tax deductibility of employer contributions to ESOPs. Since then a number of other measures have
established regulations for ESOPs and expanded their tax advantages.[4] Resources for employee ownership are also
available through JTPA and the Workforce Investment Act.
Twenty-eight states have passed employee
ownership legislation since 1974. The
type, and amount, of legislation has varied from nothing more than a simple
policy declaration encouraging employee ownership to legislation providing for
the encouragement, promotion, and facilitation of employee ownership. The allocation of resources to and
utilization of various types of programs, established by state legislation, has
also varied greatly from state to state.
The apparent function of the legislation also appears to have varied by
state, and over time.
Current law makes ESOPs beneficial to
practically everyone.[5] Employee shares are first taxable when sold,
generally at retirement when income and taxes are lower. Company contributions are deductible: and
until 1996 commercial lenders were permitted to deduct half the interest on
ESOP loans from their income; and businessmen who sell closely held companies
to their employees are permitted to defer capital gains taxes by rolling their
capital gains over into other corporate equities. In 1996, ESOPs became eligible to become tax-free by electing to
be treated as an S corporation.[6] These tax advantages have made ESOPs the
primary form for employee ownership. So
while there have been modest expansions in the other forms of employee
ownership such as production cooperatives,[7]
ESOPs have become one of the most rapidly growing forms of ownership over the
last two decades.
It is important to note at the outset,
that employee ownership is not a panacea for all the ills afflicting industrial
states. As one employee ownership
proponent points out “for every success, in the 1970s and early 1980s, half a dozen
or more buyouts failed.”[8] These failures were more often due to the
lack of timely and accurate information rather than due to market conditions.[9] However, as stated in one business editorial
“it is aone concept that can raise both corporate competitiveness and employee
wealth without gumming up the free market.”[10]
States have sought to promote employee
ownership as an alternative to plant shutdowns and as a strategy for broadening
ownership of capital. However, employee
ownership as a means to prevent shutdown is more often promoted for political
motives rather than economic realities.[11]
That being said, it is a form of
ownership that seems to be highly compatible with keeping jobs where people are
and protecting state and local economies against the capricious decisions of
distant conglomerates and multinational corporations.
State and local communities, as the
economy becomes more globalized have become more focused on methods of job
retention and creation. This point is
quite clear in the economic development literature. As accurately stated by one economic development practitioner:
“As the rate of capital and labor mobility
accelerates, and the global competition for investment tightens, local
communities become more vulnerable to external decisions that can dramatically
influence their economic well-being.
The complexity and rapidity of these economic changes threaten the
stability of local revenue sources….
This revenue imperative-the effort to increase the stability of the
local revenue base-prompts many local officials to seek new types of economic
activity to provide more local jobs.”[12]
Employee ownership provides an alternative
strategy that can greatly reduce the risk and uncertainty associated with
capital flight. Research has shown that
employee ownership not only helps retain jobs but can create jobs. Employee
ownership not only benefits the employees of the employee-owned firm but the
community at large. Firms build
relationships with other local firms that often tend to be customers and
suppliers. Local firms are not only dependent on the local consumer but other
local businesses. In light of this
complex relationship, the closing of a business not only impacts the employees
of the closing firm but other local firms with which the closing firm did
business.[13] Implementation of employee ownership at a
closing plant allows these relationships to continue.
This study covers several aspects of
employee ownership legislation and states’ role in utilizing employee ownership
as an economic development strategy. Section II presents a review of employee
ownership studies, specifically regarding performance and productivity. The evidence suggests that increased
productivity at employee-owned firms is correlated to the age of the ESOP. Earlier studies also suggest that not all
types of employee ownership are equal.
Section III examines trends associated with the passage of employee ownership
legislation since 1974. Particular
attention is paid to the amount of legislation, the type, and the location of
the states where the legislation passed.
Section IV presents an overview of state employee ownership legislation
passed to date. Section V presents an overview of the Ohio program and a
proposal for a model state policy program [or strategy] based on the overall
analysis. This model is built on the
success of earlier policies while at the same time attempting to correct for
earlier policy failures. Section VI
provides a synopsis of the paper and speculates on the future of employee
ownership as an effective economic development strategy.
II. Review of Employee Ownership Performance
Literature
There has been only one in-depth study concerning the
effectiveness of state employee ownership policy efforts.[14] However, there have been several exploratory
studies done on state employee ownership legislation.[15] One field of employee ownership that has
received much more attention, and is the primary focus of this review, are
performance comparisons of employee owned firms with traditional firms and the
impact of worker participation.
Concerning the performance of
employee-owned firms compared with conventional firms, the literature is much
more extensive. There have been at
least 25 such studies since the 1970s.
This literature will be presented in three parts. First, studies done prior to the 1987
General Accounting Office study will be discussed. Second, the findings of the General Accounting Office study on
employee ownership will be presented.
The GAO study provides a convenient dividing point for two reasons. First, chronologically, it was done at the
midway point between passage of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act
of 1974 and the present. Second and
more importantly, it cast serious doubt on the validity of earlier studies
leading to more rigorous studies concerning employee ownership. The third part will focus on studies
conducted after the General Accounting Office study.
Employee Ownership Program Evaluation
In 1990, the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) did an evaluation of the state employee ownership programs that were in operation at the time. For the purpose of this of this review the focus will be on the key findings of the Ohio employee ownership program.[16] The study found all the state programs were involved in outreach and networking. The Ohio program published a semi annual newsletter, put on an annual conference, and created a network of Ohio employee-owned companies. The annual conference was (and still is) the largest state conference on employee ownership. Ohio’s Employee Owned Network was deemed the largest and most successful project of its kind.
It was also found that the state programs were also involved with providing technical assistance to some degree. According to the study, the Ohio program appears to provide the right services to businesses and labor unions. The quality of these services was also found to be quite high. It was also found that the formation rates for employee ownership companies, in Ohio, grew faster than the national rate since the Ohio program was established. The relative rate of employee ownership plan after the establishment of the Ohio program increased by 18%, and for only private companies the rate increased by 45%. Lastly, state programs were also involved in research on employee ownership. Concerning the research function the most extensive research on employee ownership within particular states has been conducted by employee ownership programs.[17] Ohio’s program was found to be the most research intensive during this time.
Concerning early studies of
employee ownership, there was substantial evidence presented that firms with
significant employee ownership outperform “conventional” firms in a narrow
economic sense.[18] There were few studies disputing the
evidence of these findings.[19] Studies show that companies with employee
stock ownership plans (ESOPs) had twice the productivity increases of
comparable firms.[20] An analysis for the New York Stock Exchange
estimated that productivity in the U.S. would increase by 20% if American
companies made a serious effort to involve employees in decision-making at all
levels and reward them with the gains from this effort.[21] One study found that employee ownership by
itself was not necessarily related to increased productivity. However, employee ownership firms coupled
with employee participation were found to have higher productivity than do
employee-owned firms without employee participation.[22]
The evidence suggests that employee ownership is often more
conducive to higher rates of employment growth than are traditional firms. One study, in particular, reached the
dramatic result that, in companies where employees own a majority of the stock;
three times as many new jobs are
created per year as in conventional firms.[23] In addition, employee ownership seems
correlated with greater worker satisfaction.
Another benefit suggested by early studies is the increased performance
and value of stock of employee-owned firms compared to conventional firms. A 1985 study projected on the basis of the
performance of 147 ESOPs that the average employee making the median wage of
$18,000 in 1983 would acquire a share worth $31,000 in ten years and $120,000
in twenty. The former figure exceeds
the net worth of one half of American families; the latter exceeds the net
worth of all but the top fifth of families for 1985.[24]
An examination of ESOPs in Ohio in 1985-86 found that not all
ESOPs are equally beneficial.[25] Many companies, it was found, made small or
irregular contributions to their plans in effect limiting the benefit to
employees. Employee participation also appeared to be quite limited. The benefits ascribed to ESOPs in the early
studies (see above) were not as likely to materialize under such conditions.
The authors concluded that most benefits ascribed to ESOPs in the literature
are not necessarily the consequence of merely establishing an ESOP. In the few firms that were characterized by
high employee ownership, large contributions made to their plans, and high
employee participation were found to be more to likely to reap the potential
benefits than were firms that did not have these characteristics.
A similar study done in Michigan also found that employee
ownership had a positive impact on companies in several different ways.[26] It was found that there was an increase in
opportunities for employee involvement in decision making. It was also found that there was either
stable or increased productivity since the introduction of employee
ownership. The higher the level of
employee participation the more likely there would be increased
productivity. Lastly, it was found that
democratically structured firms were more likely to report greater increases in
productivity than firms without such structures in place were. This was also found to be true of majority
owned firms compared to minority owned firms.
The evidence from studies done prior to the GAO study suggest
that employee-owned firms have higher levels of productivity compared with
traditional firms. The evidence
suggests that this is especially true for employee-owned firms with higher
levels of levels of employee participation.
It was found during this time, however, that there was very little
worker participation in employee-owned firms-even in majority employee-owned
firms. One researcher noted, given the
evidence that employee-owned firms with greater participation seem to out
perform employee-owned firms without such structures, that “legislation
mandating significant worker participation in employee-owned firms would be a
move toward a more efficient and a more just society.”[27]
The General Accounting Office Study
The United States General Accounting Office administered the most
extensive study done on employee ownership during this time.[28] This study was important for two
reasons. First, this study raised a
number of questions about the validity of earlier employee ownership studies. Specifically, it called into question the
representativeness of the samples of employee-owned companies used in earlier
studies. Unlike earlier studies, the
GAO was able to draw on a much more representative sample of ESOP companies. Second, the study called into question the
assumption that employee ownership, by itself, was enough to bring about
increases in productivity and profitability.
Employee ownership was evaluated against both its explicit and
implicitly stated goals. Concerning the
goal of broadening ownership, the study found that ESOP plans do broaden
ownership to a very limited degree. In
1983, ESOP assets accounted for less than 1% of the total stock
outstanding. Concerning the goal that
ESOPs can be an alternative mechanism for financing capital growth, there was
little evidence that ESOPs were utilized to finance capital growth.
Although not explicitly stated in federal legislation as a
goal, the study examined the productivity of ESOP companies compared with
traditional firms. The study found that
there was little evidence to support the claim that the establishment of an
ESOP contributes to either profitability of productivity. Furthermore, the study found that there was
limited employee participation at employee-owned firm. However, it was found that participation was
the only factor that contributed to increased performance among employee-owned
firms.
Studies done after the GAO study studies find similar results
to the pre-GAO studies, but not necessarily with as dramatic results. These later studies suggest that
employee-owned firms have comparable profitability with conventional firms of
similar size but there was not necessarily a relationship between increased
sales and employee ownership.[29] Later studies provide more evidence
concerning the relationship between employee ownership and employee
participation.[30] Employee ownership has been criticized by
some for not exhibiting greater change once an ESOP is in place.[31] In response to these critics, one
author notes “they [the critics] make the theoretical assumption that because
companies are employee owned, they will therefore be expected to have higher
levels of employee participation.”[32]
A comparison of the differences between ESOPs, producer co-ops,
and traditional firms, found that co-ops seem to have equal of greater job
satisfaction than do both ESOPs and traditional firms. This seems linked to the level of worker
participation. It was found that there is
a lower rate of turnover at ESOPs than at traditional firms. It was also found that ESOPs and producer
co-ops were characterized by lower levels of absenteeism than were traditional
firms. The author notes that these
results have important policy implications because, currently, the federal
government, as well as several state governments, has policies that give
preferential treatment to ESOPs, but not necessarily to co-ops. Furthermore, virtually all of the
preferential tax treatments go to financial aspects of employee ownership. Worker participation, on the other hand,
gets little, if any, public policy support or any tax incentives. The author suggests that some minimal level
of participation be required.[33]
A similar study found that employee ownership was tied to
greater satisfaction when employees perceived that they were more
involved. Psychological ownership, or
perceived control, was considered a more important factor than actual
control. The evidence suggests that
increased value of ownership as well as higher levels of perceived influence
seemed to have a greater impact on organizational commitment than did lower
levels of perceived influence. Salary
was not correlated to employee attitude but was correlated with the financial
value of the ESOP. Workers who left the
firm often felt they had less influence than those who stayed, despite the fact
that they were owners. For those who
stay, perceived employee influence may be of more value than the financial
aspects, which are normally not realized till the worker retires.[34]
The effectiveness of employee ownership and participation on
productivity is contingent on various factors.
One study found that increased productivity appears linked to employee
participation in decision making (albeit restricted participation). This is contingent, however, on the level of
return employees enjoy. When employees
have no control rights, increasing employee return rights can have either
negative or positive effects on productivity.
This is contingent on the nature of the agency problem, unionization,
and other factors. Increases in
productivity are dependent on the level of control, with moderate to dominant
control found to be best, the amount of profit to be shared, and the
justification for the type of control implemented.[35]
Not all forms of employee participation, however, have been
found to be of equal benefit. Comparing
different types of employee participation,[36]
one study found that the most effective approaches to employee ownership were self-directed work teams and gainsharing programs. [37] The evidence seems to demonstrate that these
two forms of participation general produce significant improvements in both
productivity and employee attitudes.
The least effective types of participation were worker councils/employee representatives and quality circles. Quality of
worker life programs, employee ownership, and job enrichment were considered
intermediate in terms of effectiveness.
The effectiveness of employee ownership varied depending on whether
other forms of participation were introduced.
Comparing managerial buyouts (MBO) with employee buyouts (EBO),
one study found several interesting characteristics. Prior to buyouts, relative to MBOs, EBOs firms usually had a
lower value of assets per employee, poorer stock price performance, and lower
leverage. EBOs were also more likely to
have overfunded pension plans, more likely to be under takeover pressure, and
have less ownership by officers and directors.
After the buyout, however, cash-reducing compensation changes were
reported by only 2.6% of MBOs compared to 56% of EBOs. EBOs were as highly leveraged as MBOs but
tended to use a higher proportion of bank debt. It was also found that EBOs had a lower percentage of third party
and institutional investors and employees fail to obtain substantial control
rights early in EBOs. Lastly, EBOs did
not appear to differ from MBOs with regard to employment growth or long-term
outcomes.[38]
Comparing firms’ performance for pre- and post-employee
ownership, it was found that employee ownership seems linked to improved performance
within the individual firm over time.
The majority of employee-owned firms, in one study, had improved growth
and sales rates from their pre-ESOP to their post-ESOP period.[39] A similar study found that both ESOP and
profit-sharing plans increased productivity.
The productivity effects increased with the age of the plans. The rate
of relative growth in output, for publicly held firms, was about 1.8% for ESOPs
and 3.8% for profit-sharing plans.[40]
One study examining the impact of ESOPs on wealth and income in
Washington found that ESOP companies have significantly higher pay than did
traditional firms.[41]
Furthermore, employees at ESOP companies had at least one retirement plan where
as workers at traditional firms were much less likely to have any form of
retirement plan. In terms of equality
of economic opportunity, it was found that that employees at ESOPs than
employees in traditional firms.
However, there was greater economic inequality within ESOPs. The benefits of employee ownership were greatest
for the highest paid employees while there appeared to be little benefit for
the lowest paid employees. Employee
ownership, it was concluded does not necessarily bring about economic equality. However, unionization was found to diminish
the gap between the highest and lowest paid workers in ESOP companies.
The effect of employee
ownership seems to vary from firm to firm.
One study attempted to assess the effect of employee ownership, profit
sharing, and gainsharing on high tech firms.
The evidence suggests that there is a positive link between employee
ownership, profit sharing, and gainsharing on productivity. However, the study found that the positive
effect varied depending on the particular industry, type of plan, and even
human resource practices.
Summary and Implications
Although the majority of studies suggest that
employee ownership seems related to increased productivity, the results have
become more diverse as more (and better) studies are done. Increased productivity appears linked to the
age of the ESOP and may also be contingent on the level of employee
participation. The evidence appears to suggest that some forms of employee
participation are more effective than are others. Employee participation appears to be the one constant factor
attributable to increased productivity. Furthermore, employee ownership, it was
found does not necessarily entail economic equality. Employees at employee-owned firms, however, are more likely to
have higher wages than employees in traditional firms. The evidence seems to indicate that these
results do vary depending by industry type.
Given the mixed results concerning employee ownership and performance,
one researcher contends that “further research is [still] clearly needed to
determine what aspects of worker ownership, if any, are conducive or
nonconducive to productivity.”[42]
It appears that research on employee ownership has had little
influence on state policy and policy makers.
The research suggests that employee ownership can help retain jobs, yet
there is scant mention of employee ownership as a job retention or job creation
strategy. The business community
at-large seems to be much more aware of employee ownership research. But like state policy makers, many in the
private sector (business leaders, consultants, attorneys) are unaware of the
benefits available at the state level.
Given the research findings, there is one primary implication
for future policies. The one factor,
consistent through the research, is that when employee ownership is coupled
with employee participation, employee-owned firms outperform their conventional
counterparts. Not only does higher
levels tend to bring about improved productivity but increased job satisfaction. It seems logical then that requirements of
participation should be tied to financial assistance for employee buyouts. The effectiveness of employee ownership
programs indicates that such programs should also be part of future policies.
III. A
Survey of Employee Ownership Legislation at the State Level in the 1990s
The number of employees involved in some form of employee ownership, as illustrated in Section I, has been on the rise over the last two decades. This has been due, in part, to increased state involvement. This seems to be particularly true of states with proactive employee ownership programs such as Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. A variety of different types of legislation concerning employee ownership have been passed over the last 25 years at the state level. The purpose of the following section is twofold. First, there will be an examination of the trends associated with the passage of employee ownership legislation. Second, there will be an overview of the state legislation concerning employee ownership.
Trends in Employee Ownership Legislation
An examination of legislation passed at the state-level to promote, encourage, and facilitate employee ownership over this time period