I would like to get your opinion about employee owned companies.
I do prefer working for companies that are employee owned. This means that employees can invest in the company and that no shares are owned by external investors. The financial incentive is often the stable dividend rather than making profits due to risen share price.
For me, working at these type of companies is still way better than working for a publicly traded company where profit often feels like the only purpose (to please the share holders). However, I got a bit reluctant to invest in the employee owned company as a employee because I find the system a bit unfair:
- I find it a capitalistic implementation where the more you are willing (or able) to invest, the larger your cut of the profit. Everybody worked just as hard for that profit so why should you be able to get more if you got more shares.
- To get a management position, you often have to buy a significant amount of shares "as incentive to do your work as a manager I was always told". Of course, they have more responsibility but they already get a higher salary for that. Why also get a bigger part of the profit?
- On the management part, if there is also a voting system linked to the amount of shares you have, it also means that the management has a significant (majority?) saying in things. Legally the company is owned by the employees but not when it comes to decision making ( if employees are consulted via their shares).
What are your opinions on this and would you participate? Of course, not participating will not have consequences for the system because others will just buy those shares, but by participating you show support for an, in my eyes, unfair system.
True, they invest more and take more risk. But are investment systems not a capitalistic feature and thus will be rejected by anarchists?
Why even have the principle of stocks? People have a contract at the company. You can calculate the profit sharing based on the ratio of contract hours + salary compared to the total.
Also, one argument in favor of a co-op is that the employees can prevent a buyout by other companies or investors. Why use a company structure that give employees all control for example via a worker cooperative
Why would investment be considered capitalistic? Any neighborhood, shop, union, or council would invest in their futures if they're smart. There's all kinds of investment. I think the only kind anarchist would eschew would be the ones revolving around usury. The favorite of capitalists. Basically what's being discussed.
Absolutely. Everyone should be paid fairly for their labor. Anything else would involve usury. Repayment of investment shouldn't be connected to wages in any way. You invest in your company and community because they already benefit you. Anything above wages and debt should be minimal and targeted towards maintenance and reinvestment. Chasing excess profit is absolutely the reason things are unaffordable and people can't afford to live.
Yeah, a metro line is an investment, new equipment is an investment, building housing is an investment…
Investment is just the act of putting finances into a position with risk. When done collectively to meet a perceived need investment is good, the problem is that many treat it as a mechanism to exert power and demand personal and perpetual profit
Let's say I run a bakery.
Even if you put aside capitalistic characteristics like stock, etc., you need a way to quantify the "cost" of the equipment, the property, etc.
The only way it would be equal is if, for example, everyone brought their own table from home or everyone equally built the oven, and so on. But that's not going to be realistic.
Shares sort of makes sense even in an anarchist system. Let's say you bring a table from home. That could be worth 10 shares or something and then when you leave you could be compensated for, say 15 shares for the amount that table brought.
My original point is that I've wondered how co ops and the like deal with risk and paying for that risk. As I'm navigating a layoff, I've been debating starting my own business but would very much like to run it as a co-op but it doesn't seem right to me that someone that comes in after the business is running to get compensated the same for someone who risked more (e.g. early members, etc.)
I clearly need to do more research into this if I plan on making any serious headway with my business
I figure it would be a time bank. you're in the cash flow immediately because that's compensation for your labour but you need a certain amount of hours to buy into the initial or underlying capital expenditure should the business ever need to sell assets. Don't know if this would be the exact same for everyone or diminishing with so called shares in the capital as more stakes dilutes the final value so people who put an hour in early would never get that hour out at the end.
you and me both brother.
I think there are ways you could provide financing/loan money with defined terms and/or interest rates, so the co-op has debt in your name with a defined risk/reward structure. If you're successful and new members join, there is simply debt in your name in the balance sheet still. At a risk/reward level that hopefully everything thinks is appropriate.
I think entrepreneurship and financing mechanisms can be decoupled from capitalism. In addition to your money being put at risk, it is your time and labor after all at the beginning, and it's not compensated at that time. You could record your hours in setting everything up, it's effectively back wages IMO.
Edit: ofc entrepreneurship and financing methods have existed well before modern capitalism, my point remains!