Employee-owned companies

[rah]

Benevolent dictators have always been one of my preferred choices for governing. Unfortunately when they pass away or step down, what replaces them is seldom as benevolent.

[kentonio]

Benevolent dictators have always been one of my preferred choices for governing. Unfortunately when they pass away or step down, what replaces them is seldom as benevolent.

I guess you need a rock solid set of core rules in place which prevents them from actually changing the system of governance. Then again sooner or later someone would always find a way to break it I guess. We may need to just wait for our new robot overlords to take over.

[rah]

Dictators don't have to follow rules by definition.

[kentonio]

Dictators don't have to follow rules by definition.

They were supposed to back in Roman times weren't they? I thought the idea was that it was power given supposedly temporarily to rule with the power able to be taken away when required.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I agree with having a management structure, but why a bigger part of the pie for them?

To make a bigger impact vs their enlarged salaries, you need to keep them motivated too.

In a typical company, about 20% of the profit generated goes back to the staff in terms of bonuses. It would be much more rewarding if they scooped it all instead, but the same/similar differentiation of top vs bottom should exist in my view in order to keep everyone motivated appropriately with the system, especially the guys on the top whose decisions make or break the company.

For the guy at the bottom getting 25k$ instead of 5k$, making 50% on top of his pay instead of 10% would still be a great improvement over the regular state of affairs.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

While I've always liked the concept of governing through representation by random selection, I always get tripped up when it comes to the concept of minimum requirements to be eligible for selection.

Do you want that person with an extremely low IQ to be making decisions?
Or do you believe that their participation is necessary for true representation?

Random selection would give you exactly that - random results, which in the case of bad coin flip, will result in bankruptcy.

Management chain based on merit is what should be the case, whatever the ownership structure.

[pchang]

Random selection would give you exactly that - random results, which in the case of bad coin flip, will result in bankruptcy.

Management chain based on merit is what should be the case, whatever the ownership structure.

EVIL CAPITALIST!!!! Don't you understand? All men are created equal. Therefore, there are no idiots. Just people wrongly disadvantaged by THE SYSTEM

[pchang]

Waitrose have a CEO who can make executive decisions. However, if the majority of the employees can get behind an ouster vote, they can remove him from office. Thus, they have quick decision making, but eventually, the majority can remove him.

[ricketyclik]

... especially the guys on the top whose decisions make or break the company.

As opposed to the people who actually perform the functions necessary to have a product/service to sell?

[pchang]

As opposed to the people who actually perform the functions necessary to have a product/service to sell?

Good leaders are harder to find.

[ricketyclik]

They certainly are. In Aus they generally outsource decision making to expensive consultants, thus avoiding responsibility for the decisions all together.

[Egbert]

They certainly are. In Aus they generally outsource decision making to expensive consultants, thus avoiding responsibility for the decisions all together.

I think the emphasis is on outsourcing the "responsibility".

"Allocation of blame" and "covering backside" being the prime managerial responsibilities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I tend to like Publix, but it tends to be a pricey grocery store. I prefer to go to Kroger, which isn't worker owned, but is supportive of its workers unionizing.