PH509002@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tapio) (02/07/90)
>THE *PRIMARY* REASON THAT OUR BUSINESSES ARE NOT WORKER-OWNED COOPERATIVES >IS THAT WORKER-OWNED COOPERATIVES ARE LESS EFFICIENT AND UNPROFITABLE >THAN NORMAL BUSINESSES. >-Jimbo I'm sorry but this is a gross oversimplification. You're forgetting all the important factors - the nature, size and the purpose of the businesses in question. By definition, all small - scale owner operated businesses are just what you're describing. Does that mean that they are "unprofitable"? Vice versa, it seems that big companies sometimes run into problems just *because* there's virtually no input from the "worker" level - this, I think, is exactly what has happened to GM over the last decade or so. If you happen to have an inefficient management, the company is doomed. In Europe, there are various levels of worker involvement in many companies. It is very difficult to draw general conclusions about this without oversimplifying (:-)), but I think the results (in cases where the systems has been flexible and changable) are very promising - in particular for companies involved in "non-manual" labor. Another way of viewing this is to think about universities as companies producing basic research - or companies doing basic research. There's a very large degree of "worker involvement" needed indeed! So, please don't oversimplify a complex matter. -Tapio