From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 21:54:42 BST
Arlo stated:
>>I find it heartening that Pirsig makes the statement "an employee-owned
>>company is more moral than a privately owned company for the same reason
>>that a democracy is more moral than a dictatorship".
Dan responded:
>Now I ask this question because I fail to understand: why is it more moral
>for my employees to own the business rather than me? Would they put their
>blood, sweat and tears into the company the way I have? I tend to doubt
>it. That's why they're employees! Even my best most trusted ones. They can
>go home at the end of the day and forget business. I can't. The business
>follows me around. Would I sell my company to the employees? Sure, for the
>right price. You better believe it. But would they really be interested in
>being the owners? And the $64.000 question: Could they run it profitably?
>Again, I tend to doubt it. If they were cut out to be business owners they
>would be already, in my opinion.
Dan, excellent points, and let me take the opportunity to clarify my
personal position (keeping in mind that I am in the process of formulating
my opinions, I don't have any I am trumpeting here). I have nothing
fundamentally against privately owned business, certainly not one like
yours that operates with care and concern for its employees. But in your
situation, it does not appear the structure of your operation alienates the
activity of labor from the product of labor, at least not to a degree I
would call critical. Employee-ownership of companies I see as a potential
solution to bridge a huge gap in corporate structure between those
producing and the things they produce. Not a sole solution, and not one
that must exist in all labor activities.
Furthermore, I do not believe that employees should take ownership or be
given ownership of current companies. I'd like to think a grass roots
movement (in a leveled, free-market playing field- will discuss this later)
would create competitive employee-owned companies. I also feel that
employee-owned companies would, by virtue of being so, be local, community
grounded companies.
But returning to your example specifically, let me clarify several other
things.
"They can go home at the end of the day and forget business", doubtful. As
a real example, I have several friends who work plumbing and heating for a
business owner back home. They are constantly afraid of losing their jobs,
this fear is with them 24/7. Similarly, they pour a lot of blood and sweat
(not sure about tears) into their labor, because they realize that their
continuation depends on the continuation of the business. It is only
(perhaps) in positions where "ah, if I lose my job I'll just get another"
is it possible that you would likely see employees forgetting business. And
these positions (thinking primarily low-wage retail here, but there are
many other examples) are primarily those where one type of alienation is
strikingly profound (what I do is not me, what I make is not me, it has no
relation to me whatsoever and so I don't care).
"Could they run it profitably? Again, I tend to doubt it. If they were cut
out to be business owners they would be already, in my opinion." I agree,
it takes a certain skill to manage a business, and certainly not everyone
equivocally has this skill. We will always need those that attend to the
business, and those that attend to the production. What I advocate is a
more balanced and connected relationship between the business and the
production, and between the labor and the product. This is Marxist
thinking, to be sure, but one I feel resonates strongly with the theme of
alienation in ZMM.
When you say "I've always made sure my employees get paid first and get
paid on time. There have been times when I've literally gone hungry and not
paid my own bills in order to ensure that I've always made sure my
employees get paid first and get paid on time. There have been times when
I've literally gone hungry and not paid my own bills in order to ensure
that", it makes me honored to speak with you. Your statement is a clear
indication that the accumulation of wealth is not your highest good.
However, when many families I know personally lost their livelihoods in
textile factories (in Schuylkill Haven, PA in case you are curious) not
over the quality of their work, or the demand for product, or over asking
for ridiculously inflated wages, but simply because the factory owner could
increase his own personal wealth by moving across the border and paying
slave wages to a poor population lacking social protections, I am forced to
believe that there is a real problem in the system.
In your case, I don't think there is a problem.
Arlo
PS: I should say this too. I am not in favor of closing the borders. I have
no problem morally with a business moving to Mexico or anywhere else. My
moral objection is over the way we keep these nations in poverty so that we
have access to slave labor. Going to Tijuana (in an example I just wrote to
Platt) and paying workers a few cents per hour only keeps them poor and
powerless. Coke could easily pay decent living wages to its Tijuanese
employees, and still sell at a profit, just a "smaller profit". And that is
my beef with "capitalism".
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 07 2004 - 22:42:51 BST