mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/12/84)
rabbit!jj and I agree (more or less) on one thing -- the unwise
antagonism between unions and management, that benefits neither
the antagonists or society in general. JJ says that unions
control management; they do so only in an indirect sense, in that
management often finds it difficult to do something sensible for
fear of automatic rejection by the union. Unions also are impotent,
in the sense that they have no real control over the companies.
They can't initiate changes of procedure or policy.
In many of the so-called socialist countries of Western Europe (those
with strong business environments), unions DO have some say in the
management of companies, sitting on the Boards of Directors, and
participating in policy-making. Furthermore, workers are often
shareholders rather than just being paid to be there for 40 hours
per week. Their income depends directly on company profits. So they
influence the success of the company both by good work and by having
a share in the management.
Is this socialism? I think it is, and I think it makes a lot more
sense than automatic enmity between management and unions as a matter
of principle.
The game isn't win-lose. It's either win-win or lose-lose.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtbwm@ccieng2.UUCP ( Brad Miller) (04/16/84)
OK, how about this. Assume a voting preferred class of stock. Any employee of a company is given enuff of said stock such that current dividends == current annual salary. Now the employee has a stake in the company, and has a voice that is proportional to the number of shares he has. The company can raise or lower salaries accross the board by changing the dividend on the stock. The stock is returned to the company upon termination of employment. Comments? Brad Miller -- ...[rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm