• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: 10 Reasons To Sell Your Company To Your Employees

On Aug 6, 4:28 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:01 am, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Nearly 20 years later, I am fully convinced that the conversion to
> > employee ownership has been a critical factor in the long-term success
> > of our company..."
>
> > = = =
>
> > Sharing the Reins: 10 Reasons To Sell Your Company To Your Employees
>
> > In 1987 I sold my business, South Mountain Company, to my employees
> > (and myself). My sole proprietorship became an employee-owned
> > cooperative corporation. It was a hinge point in the history of the
> > company. Ownership has become available to all employees, enabling
> > people to own and guide their workplace. The responsibility, the
> > power, and the profits all belong to the group of owners.
>
> > Shared ownership and control is our method at South Mountain. "Every
> > employee, an owner" is our intention. More than half of our thirty
> > employees are full owners. Each time another comes in, and each time a
> > new management invention encourages more voices to be heard, we move
> > steadily toward the goals of democracy, fairness, and transparency.
> > This is not about a sense of ownership or a sense of control. Corey
> > Rosen of the National Center for Employee Ownership once said that
> > giving employees a "sense" of ownership is like giving them a
"sense"
> > of dinner. This is the whole meal.

> > 1. Maturity. Once the entrepreneurial leap of starting a new business
> > has been achieved without constraints, and a viable company has been
> > established, restructuring to employee ownership can be a natural part
> > of the maturation process.

> > 3. Freedom. The potential loss of control for the founder is more than
> > balanced by the new-found freedom that comes with shared
> > responsibility.

> > 4. Participation. If you keep the entry fee low enough (we keep ours
> > to "the price of a good used car") full participation will be
> > encouraged.
>
>   Well that's not an advantage, it's just something that makes
> something that may
> or may not be advantageous easier.

He is saying his almost twenty (20) year experience has been that this
participation has been advantageous.

Similar remarks on some of the other points.

As for " If you invested the money took the risk that made production
possible you did actually create it and there's nothing wrong with
taking it." Saying the rules of the game would be more just if the
rules were different, is not the same as saying, anyone on planet
earth who (partly forced to, partly by choice) participates in the
system is "unjust". That's elemetary, but a critical distinction.

But it's a distinction people who want to defend the status quo love
to pretend not to see.

That way, if you have as much as 37 cents in the bank, you're
"complicit" and "have no right to criticize" our system

(by the same logic, Andrei Sakharov would be a 'hyporite' for having
received benefits (education, research labs) from the system he wanted
to change) or else,

That or else, "see??? he's saying anyone who has $1 invested in any
stock in any company is eeeevil.." when that's not what he's saying at
all, rather, saying that a different, more just system could and
should be created (in one case, a different system of ownership of
companies; in our case, more fundamental changes to the economy)

On a deeper level, regarding "If you invested the money took the risk
that made production possible you did actually create it and there's
nothing wrong with taking it."

we hear this (false) argument ad nausium, but let's ask this question:
"suppose the system we lived under made it possible for me to take a
50% risk, of losing one penny, and if I win, I own 90% of the world's
wealth. If those were the rules, and if I won, would that be just?"

If you say "yes", 99.99% of the world disagrees with you; if you say
"no" then stop pretending you disagree on logic and admit you merely
disagree on the numbers needed for the rules of the game and/or a some
particular result of the rules of the game, to be "just" or "unjust".
Ok, then one can have a discussion about number etc. I will be on your
side against any fanatic maoist or the like who says anyone who earned
one dollar of profit should be shot at dawn. I will maybe not be on
your side on other examples..and one could have   a discussion of what
is and what is not just. But let's end the nonsense about "Anyone who
gains any amount of money after having taken any level of risk or
anything, under any rules of the game, is JUST and FAIR because, hey,
they took some risk man!"

But as for any corporate feudalists (who call themselvse
"libertarians"), yeah, sure, keep fighting mild reformers like him, in
favor of the totalitarian, anti-freedom "market" system. Meanwhile,
we'll  keep pushing for true workplace democracy rather than merely
mild reforms.

http://economicdemocracy.org/workplacedemocracy.html

Thank you, and goodbye (we will be traveling and away from email. By
usual rightwing "logic" we have no right to criticize anything since
we are using the roads and highways and thus "benefiting from the
system" and are thus "hypocrites" (in the sense Sakharov "was")
who
have no right to criticize any element or our Glorious
"Capitalist" (really, corporate feudalist) U.S. and World Order (TM))
>
> > I understand that employee ownership is not the only way to encourage
> > more responsible and more democratic business practices. But it's
> > clear to me that at South Mountain, due to employee ownership, we've
> > become, at once, better problem solvers and better dreamers. There's a
> > lot to be said for ownership and the responsibility it encourages. As
> > someone once observed, "In the history of mankind, nobody has ever
> > washed a rented car."
>
> > John Abrams is the president of South Mountain Company, an employee-
> > owned build/design firm on Martha's Vineyard. This article has been
> > adapted with permission from his new book, The Company We Keep:
> > Reinventing Small Business for People, Community, and Place (Chelsea
> > Green Publishing) in which he explores the role of small business in
> > promoting community, creating social equity, and maintaining
> > ecological balance.
>
> >http://businesstalking.com/management/43928.php
>
> > = = =
>
> > Note: While Mr. Abrams is to be commended, and employee ownership is a
> > positive step, nevertheless it is not the same thing as worker
> > democracy without a President, etc. For background on economic
> > democracy in the workplace, see
>
> >http://economicdemocracy.org/workplacedemocracy.html
>
> > (A page from the website founded in 2000 by the poster of this
> > article, econdemocr...@gmail.com)
>
> > For examples, see
>
> >http://www.geo.coop/taxonomy/term/172
>
> > See alsohttp://www.usworker.coop/front
>
> > = = = =
> > STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
> > IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
> > = = = =
>
> > = = = =
> > Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
> > FOR MORE INFORMATION:http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/(peace)http://eco
nomicdemocracy.org/...)
> > Andhttp://EconomicDemocracy.org/(general)
>
> > ** New email:econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com
>
>   And the one big reason not to?  Concentration of both employment
> risk and investment
> risk in one area, allowing the failure of one company to destroy an
> individual's income and
> wealth base at once.
>   Another big reason not to do it is objectivity of investment
> decisions, people at Enron for
> instance believed up until the day it failed that it was a good
> investment because they saw
> a small part of the company (the part they were in) doing well.  They
> did not really attempt to
> and certainly did not succeed in, objectively valuing the company.
>   Nevertheless employee ownership of some, most or even all of the
> company can be beneficial
> in some cases.

Antworten