Economic Democracy

[SPECTRE1]

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/


Economic Democracy
It is in the workplace that wealth is created, income differences are first established and where we are most likely to be subjected to hierarchical ranking. But businesses do not have to be run as profit-making cash-cows where the employees simply serve the interests of rich external shareholders; there are already vast numbers of organisations that work in a different way.

Despite the demutualisations of the 1990s, the UK still has 63 building societies with over 2,000 branches and 38,000 employees, 650 credit unions, 250 friendly societies and 70 mutual insurance companies. There are 170,000 charities with a combined annual income of over £44 billion. The Co-operative Bank has £40 billion of assets and was recognised as the most ethically responsible bank, while Triodos functions well with a pay ratio of only 1:7.7 between the lowest and highest paid staff.

The Equality Trust believes that greater economic democracy is essential in order to transform our economy, reduce income differences by bringing pay differentials under democratic control, redistribute wealth and create the foundations for a healthier, happier and more sustainable society.

What is economic democracy?
Economic democracy exists when the units of economic organisations are owned and controlled by the people who work in them, and/or by those who use their services – people who have a genuine long-term interest in the organisations and the communities in which they operate rather than remote shareholders whose overriding interest is short-term financial gain. There are many different ways for employees to control a business and we believe that economic democracy in all its forms should be tried and evaluated until it becomes clear which work best.

I was surprised that poor income distribution has a strong correlation to many things such as drug use, homicides, prisons, and education. People are fighting, killing, and snitching on each other over the scraps the top one percent throw at us to survive...Pathetic...

 

[SPECTRE1]

Income Equality can be fixed by implementing the following at publicly traded companies by employees. Congress needs to implement laws that makes it easy for employees to create funds for ownership that advocates for increased pay and benefits.

Some countries by law, require companies to give board seats to employees where you can have say in the selection of the CEO, their pay and benefits, general direction of the company.

Instead of sticking all your money in a 401k, mutual fund, bank account and being an absentee owner which want to decrease your paycheck to increase profits...

The employees can collectively gain partial active ownership to
1. increase pay and benefits,
2. get rid of asshole management,
3. block layoffs,
4. block jobs moving overseas,
5. decrease employment at will.

The cost to buy shares would be the same as Union dues that gets wasted lobbying Congress. Use Wall Street to create a cooperative for your benefit. If you leave, take your money and hopefully stick that money in a similar fund with your new employers. I am going to walk out of job crap is not going to work anymore, when there are millions of people lined up to replace you.

Is a company going to fire you for want to buy shares? You aren't going to force a Union contract on them, I don't see why they would care and the other shareholders wouldn't be pleased if they were trying to block people from buying stock...It is a simple, surprised nobody is doing that instead standing outside with a picket sign...Unionization has plummeted, Companies fire people all the time for trying to form a Union.

 

[QueEx]

Cointelpro,

What are "units of economic organisations " ???

`

 

[SPECTRE1]

Cointelpro,

What are "units of economic organisations " ???

`

I think that is a fancy way to say stock shares...

I was surprised that poor income distribution has a strong correlation to many things such as drug use, homicides, prisons, and education. People are fighting, killing, and snitching on each other over the scraps the top one percent throw at us to survive...Pathetic...



In any event, this method that can turn any publicly traded company into a cooperative by employees for higher pay, avoidance of double taxation, job stability.

 

[QueEx]

I think that is a fancy way to say stock shares...

I was surprised that poor income distribution has a strong correlation to many things such as drug use, homicides, prisons, and education. People are fighting, killing, and snitching on each other over the scraps to survive...



In any event, this method that can turn any publicly traded company into a cooperative by employees for higher pay, avoidance of double taxation, job stability.

When do employees transform the publicly traded company into the employee cooperative ???

Will they have an absolute right to the purchase private property of others, i.e., rights in the nature of eminent domain ???

And, who will set the price of the shares ???

 

[SPECTRE1]

When do employees transform the publicly traded company into the employee cooperative ???

Will they have an absolute right to the purchase private property of others, i.e., rights in the nature of eminent domain ???

And, who will set the price of the shares ???

It is a broken system that needs to be fixed...

Employees buy the shares of the company through an Employee Union Investment Fund for what they would pay in Union dues. It won't be a 100% employee owned cooperative, more like an employee mutual fund that only buy shares of the company they work for and advocates for higher pay and benefits with the selection of board members. In contrast, an employee cooperative doesn't have management, however this method will still have management - except pay differences will be minimized. There wouldn't be any need for eminent domain or seizing of assets.

The CEO is there to maximize share price by increasing EPS, to boost their pay by underpaying employees, moving jobs overseas. However, having this type of substantial ownership will cause the CEO to think about the satisfaction of employees to ensure their continuance of buying company stock or selling shares. In the end, EPS will no longer be the primary indicator of job performance for a CEO.

Hypothetically, I figured in 10 years the employees of Walmart could be the largest shareholder in the company and put people on the board that represent their interests. Instead of whining on TV, when the market cap of Walmart was $30 -$50 billion, they could have came in and controlled a substantial portion, getting paid $15 dollars an hour plus benefits, blocking layoff attempts that are designed to meet EPS targets. Additionally, Walmart paid $5 billion in dividends last year that was double taxed, when it could have gone to employees/owners as higher pay.

Another example is Ford that was selling at a $1 per share, the Union could have formed a mutual fund and bought up a substantial part of the company. You could have had a lasting control over the company and basically thrown out the Union contract. My question, Why stick your money in a bank account, 401k, or mutual fund that doesn't advocate for your increase pay and benefits on the job? These investment vehicles want you to get paid less to boost EPS for higher share price. I don’t want to invest in something that wants to decrease my pay…

Focus your investment into a fund that will advocate for your pay, rather than doing the opposite or encouraging companies to move overseas.

In summary, you need to balance the ownership of companies with employee ownership with short term investors looking for share price appreciation and dividends. These investors will now look at EPS and how the company treats their employees to ensure future stock purchases by employees.

Employee of these companies need to step up with a nominal amount of their paycheck instead of begging for a Union contract that the company will squirm out of by building factories overseas, using cheap non-union suppliers, or other methods.

Yeah I am rambling, but the current system is just stupid, this should have been done a long time ago for many companies…Wealth distribution would not be so out of wack in this country.

 

[SPECTRE1]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dGkQAuRqQ0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is what people should do to the 1%

 

[humble]

This is a fascinating thread brother!

 

[nittie]

When do employees transform the publicly traded company into the employee cooperative ???

Will they have an absolute right to the purchase private property of others, i.e., rights in the nature of eminent domain ???

And, who will set the price of the shares ???

This is a very intelligent question lol. It's interesting how you make a differential between employee and company why do you assume there is a difference shouldn't they be one? Isn't that the reason why people are protesting on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Fuckallyall]

IS there anything stopping this from happening now ?

 

[SPECTRE1]

Some Unions charge $1000 a year in dues to build up a huge strike fund and political activity. Employee should treat the money as paying Union dues, and not think about the share price, you just want voting stock and a greater voice in the company. You are also providing liquidity so that you can continue to get paycheck...

It is win win for the shareholders and employees since you are giving shareholder liquidity in the markets and they are only paying capital gains taxes of 15 percent. Employees get higher pay or benefits, pay much lower taxes, and get voting stock (pick board members that hire and fire the CEO and decide pay).

Otherwise just paying dividends to shareholders that have a 57% tax and lower pay to employees is lose-lose. The government wins big out of this deal.

If the company decides to layoff a bunch of employees to get their bonuses, and have the rest working 12 hours a day, you can suspend stock buys or even sell stock. The shareholders that bought up shares off your misery, will now look at this news differently from the company.

 

[QueEx]

IS there anything stopping this from happening now ?

As I think you may be alluding, theoretically no, if its publicly traded or, in the case of non-publicly traded, ownership is offering shares for purchase.

 

[QueEx]

It's interesting how you make a differential between employee and company why do you assume there is a difference shouldn't they be one?

Am I assuming or is it, in large part, factual ?

Are you saying company and employee should be one and the same:

• Whether or not the company is offering pieces of ownership for sale ?
  
  • whether or not employees purchase shares ?
    
    
    

    Isn't that the reason why people are protesting on both sides of the political spectrum.

    
    Which people are you referring to; and what are the sides of the political spectrum ? (Otherwise, the question is too indefinite for a response).

 

[nittie]

Am I assuming or is it, in large part, factual ?

Are you saying company and employee should be one and the same:

• Whether or not the company is offering pieces of ownership for sale ?
  
  • whether or not employees purchase shares ?
    
    
    
    
    Which people are you referring to; and what are the sides of the political spectrum ? (Otherwise, the question is too indefinite for a response).

• • 
    
    
    Maybe I shouldn't have said you are assuming but the definition of company is the question and how we interpet it determines how much power a corp has. Thats why people on both sides are protesting. Tea Party mad about bailouts, Wall Street Occupiers mad about corp greed liberals and conservatives mad about how corporations are defined both seem to believe that corporations have too much power.