Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

[Dodds]

Since when?

They should at least.

Dodds- is your job dependent upon the workers whom you manage? And by that I don't mean that its a negative reflection upon you if the workers whom you manage do not work up to par, for whatever reason. I mean do they have the authority to terminate your employment? Or is that left with your supervisor?

Ultimately any managers job is dependent on the workers. Also do you mean in my role or in a socialist society?

"dictating" in others.

I disagree, you enter the agreement freely. There is no dictation.

[BobbyO]

Ultimately any managers job is dependent on the workers.

Sure- a manager's job performance is judged by the quality of the work put out by his department.

Also do you mean in my role or in a socialist society?

Both.

I disagree, you enter the agreement freely. There is no dictation.

A socialist would disagree that this is a correct characterization of work in a capitalist community.

[Dodds]

Both.

They are very similar. Lets not forget that socialism is a progression of Capitalism.

A socialist would disagree that this is a correct characterization of work in a capitalist community.

However a socialist would wan't their fellow workmates to maximize their earning potential.

[minorwork]

However a socialist would want their fellow workmates to maximize their earning potential.

I hear you there. Even a worker in the present system like I was wants the same. When encouragement to come up to the groups standards was rebuffed there were times when these would come to work to get dressed in their pit clothes only to find them cut to ribbons.

What do fellow workmates in a socialist plan do to encourage maximization of working potential? Canings?

[BobbyO]

They are very similar. Lets not forget that socialism is a progression of Capitalism.



However a socialist would wan't their fellow workmates to maximize their earning potential.

As the socialist manager would not want the workers whom they supervise to "maximize their earning potential" (and for that matter, neither would that be a goal for the workplace), the role of a manager in the socialist setting would be very different from that of the role of a manager in a capitalist system.

[Dodds]

As the socialist manager would not want the workers whom they supervise to "maximize their earning potential" (and for that matter, neither would that be a goal for the workplace), the role of a manager in the socialist setting would be very different from that of the role of a manager in a capitalist system.

I feel that this is just flat out wrong. Can you prove your assertion that a manager in a socialist system would not wan't to maximize output?

[Dodds]

I hear you there. Even a worker in the present system like I was wants the same. When encouragement to come up to the groups standards was rebuffed there were times when these would come to work to get dressed in their pit clothes only to find them cut to ribbons.

What do fellow workmates in a socialist plan do to encourage maximization of working potential? Canings?

I heard about an apprentice joiner who was nailed by his boiler suit to a roof in a Jesus pose.

Anyways the incentive in a socialist system is the most efficient and hardest working makes the most money. How to become this person is up to yourself.

[grandpa]

The Spanish miners' strike puts their rulers on even shakier ground
"It took a while for the Quebec student revolt to reach the Anglophone press. The same appears to be true of the Spanish miners' strike, which is only now appearing in the UK newspapers after more than two weeks of escalating strife."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-miners-strike

[Hermenutic]

I'll jump in at this point. I found this thought in the article. Thought it was a good one.

" What if, instead of pumping public money into the same-old private enterprise, public money powered up a new worker-owned operation, run by new rules for different outcomes? (Labor and community welfare, say, instead of profits to be skimmed off by top-level shareholders?)"

There are many things states could do to grow local economies strong and robust that do not employ the incursion of outside capital.

The state I live in and the neighboring state are going to allow their citizens to decide if they can be trusted with recreational marijuana. There is already a burgeoning and lucrative trade in legal medical marijuana through approved dispensaries.

The two states will allow cultivation for sale and recreational use if their citizens decide they can trust themselves with it. This will make the way for members of the communities, hard hit by lack of work and dead presidents in their wallet to change that scenario.

The biggest benefit I see in this is that the wealth generated will be generated locally. It will be long term and low impact. It will heal the economy from the inside out as those with the least all at once can buy things they could not buy. they will buy them locally. Cars, boats homes.

This kind of growth is truly healthy for a community and it is easy to see the difference of a company that may move in today and 30 years later leave an empty factory and unpaid taxes. The economy in this way grows from the inside out and anyone knowledgeable of how wounds heal they heal from the inside out.

There is also a trend toward worker ownership of companies. I've shopped in a really nice supermarket that was owned by the employees and it is a chain. I was told one might move in here. Those are options that could be benefited by federal funding.

We've seen how the accumulation of wealth in one location makes the financial edifice top heavy and we have seen what happens then.

[minorwork]

The Spanish miners' strike puts their rulers on even shakier ground
"It took a while for the Quebec student revolt to reach the Anglophone press. The same appears to be true of the Spanish miners' strike, which is only now appearing in the UK newspapers after more than two weeks of escalating strife."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-miners-strike

Weiner the people, the workers, the miners, and save the bankers for the workers, and people's benefit. Call it stimulus, because you can't trust where the people would put the money if it was give to them. Certainly wouldn't be those to who the policitians owe favors have contracted for.