Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Should workers have a say in how the business operates or should the owner of the business have the sole decision? Why?
Do you think private businesses should be democratically operated?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
TheHermit
Well-Known Member
I didn't watch the video because it is two hours long, but are you referring to something like an ESOP? If so, I vote yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_ownership_plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_ownership_plan
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yep, pretty much exactly
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
I'm at an ESOP company.
The higher ups still make the decisions...
The higher ups still make the decisions...
That's because you don't actually own anything there. Work your day, and if company does well, you get stock options bought for by the company. Its a bonus, not ownership.
A poll about forcing private business owners to adopt "employee owned" programs. And surprise surprise, it comes from the same member who is always trying to get his neighbors to hand over their shit.
"The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterizes the system as follows:[15]
what was the question?
- An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[15]
- Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[16]
- Public pension plans.[15]
- Low barriers to free trade.[17] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[15]
- Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[15]
- Low levels of corruption.[15] In Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 11 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries.[18]
- High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[19] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[20]
- A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[21] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[15] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[15] At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
- Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[17] One key reason for public spending is the large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
- Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[22]
- Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[23] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).
- The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[24]
- The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation's 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[25]
what was the question?
Last edited:
I have had too many idiotic fellow co-workers and too many idiotic employees to ever want a democratically run business.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Nobody should ever trust their hard earned investment into their private business to total strangers...
WeedFreak78
Well-Known Member
How are we defining a "privately owned business". Privately owned? Or wholly privately owned and financially supported. My argument is, if your "privately owned company" takes or uses any ..ANY..Govt. offered financial incentives, tax breaks, zoning waivers..ANYTHING...other than using your own resources and complying with existing law and regulation, then, and only then are you a truly "privately owned company" and I feel you can run it however you like..don't like blue shorts..don't serve people wearing blue shorts.
Once you use Govt. assistance( again financing, tax breaks, take advantage of programs) you should be held adhering to democratic law. I don't think anyone should, on one hand take resources from a pool made of contributions from the whole of society, and then turn around and decide they don't want to serve a certain part of that society which contributed to their initial Govt. assistance.
Once you use Govt. assistance( again financing, tax breaks, take advantage of programs) you should be held adhering to democratic law. I don't think anyone should, on one hand take resources from a pool made of contributions from the whole of society, and then turn around and decide they don't want to serve a certain part of that society which contributed to their initial Govt. assistance.
I don't think that's what he means. He means democratically run, not run by the govt.
WeedFreak78
Well-Known Member
So the employees would all have a say in the decisions of the company? That I don't agree with.
On another point,ESOP's are a joke, pretty sure it's just a way for companies to not pay federal taxes. My buddy works for an ESOP, no matter what the employees want, management always makes decisions favoring them, and the low level employees are always losing something, benefits, raises, etc. no different than any other company, except it has a name that people can feel god about..
Bowelmover
New Member
Awesome. I'm going to go get a job at taco bell and tell them to stop being so stingy with the beef in my taco
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
We get them dolled out according to time with company. So many shares for so many years, etc.
We also have profit sharing like you describe, where we get extra money which comes as an extra check every 4 months. The size of that check also depends on seniority. The longer your time with them, the higher percentage you can get, up to a certain percentage.
I don't think this thread is really exactly about ESOP's. I know Pad said yeah, but they aren't all the same.
I don't think having everyone voting on who supplies the paper to our office is a good use of time.
Though we did get to vote on what coffees we wanted in the coffee machine. Got a whole bunch of samples of coffee and hot chocolate which was pretty good. I didn't vote. I don't drink coffee and felt it wasn't my place to vote on stuff I have absolutely no stake in.
We don't all vote on acquisitions, or who to get as a client, or how to handle that client. It seems counter productive on the surface. Hell, we don't even vote on new company policies.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The original question posed in this thread is problematic and contradictory.
If something is privately owned, in order to be privately owned the owner(s) would determine the use otherwise the ownership has been usurped and the business has ceased to be "private".
There is a possible exception...
In the event a private business is owned by multiple people, they could all voluntarily agree to make decisions amongst themselves by a democratic process, but the minute nonowners become involved it skews things mightily.
If something is privately owned, in order to be privately owned the owner(s) would determine the use otherwise the ownership has been usurped and the business has ceased to be "private".
There is a possible exception...
In the event a private business is owned by multiple people, they could all voluntarily agree to make decisions amongst themselves by a democratic process, but the minute nonowners become involved it skews things mightily.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i've never seen that from him, but i have seen you spam this 2012 fox news talking point endlessly for years now you dumb racist.
just shut the fuck up already.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Sky, you are as obsessed as CheeseDick was with his "legal to have, illegal to sell" obsession."The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks" characterizes the system as follows:[15]
Deleted the silliness
win/win.
what was the question?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but why did you join a white supremacy group?
see4
Well-Known Member
This is categorically false.
Bob and Sue own, Bobby Sue Bakery, they are proprietors and have 5 employees. They are a privately held business that serves to the public. One of their employees is the head chef and he/she makes all the decisions as to what this Bakery will bake with the exception of a few things that Sue wants. That head chef is a major decision stakeholder in the business but the business is privately held.