Rights and Interests.
I want to declare about their interests and its rights.
1. What I don’t like capitalism.
I refuse to touch on spiritual matters as they consider relevant to their individuality. Although I believe the profit from the labor of others is immoral, I also refuse to touch the moral issues, because it does not lead to anything good.
But I want to declare openly that I don’t like to be a simple application to the workplace. My welfare depends on how things are going at the company where I work. And private property deprives me of a chance for these things to influence. I have only good to do their job. I would argue that that’s not good enough and that because of its vital interest in the welfare of the enterprise I have the right to greater influence on his fate.
In the end, thanks to the work in your company I have the opportunity to have a family, raise children, do not know the need and all that. What is the most important thing, the possibility of which should provide any economy, whatever form of ownership it neither prevailed.
As is known, this principle was fully recognized in politics is called democracy – people whose livelihood depends on how things are going in their country, have the right to influence the management of the country to change the leadership, to demand a change of policy, etc.
2. What I would suggest.
I propose to spread democratic principles to manage the trade regardless of the form of ownership. This implies:
– Regular management reports on the financial and market position of the company. And false information in such reports should be treated as a criminal offence. You need to ensure maximum transparency and financial management activities.
– The results of the reports on the current situation, the team should have the right to influence the payment of premium, indexation of salaries, the allocation of funds for social projects, etc.
– Regular reports on future plans, including intentions about taking loans, intention of new products, intentions to change organizational or personal structure of the company. And withholding any information, even under the pretext of commercial confidentiality, be considered a criminal offense. It is necessary to exclude the possibility of abuse arising from the official or property status. Even if the user, say, is going to evade taxes by transferring funds to offshore zones, this should only occur with the consent of the team, while maintaining control over the funds.
It may be recalled that the possibility of such a control already exists in joint-stock companies. This control is provided to the people who loaned the company money (through buying shares). I don’t see why investment should give more rights than the investment of labor.
– The results of the reports on future plans, the team should have the right to reject proposed projects, to prevent climbing in debts, and to renegotiate employment contracts of senior officials. In extreme cases the team should have the right to initiate the process of transfer of the business to another owner if the current activity is unsatisfactory. That would eliminate a direct interest, it could be that the new owner can become neither a single employee of the company and that the transfer must be in clear for everyone (except team members) auction, the proceeds from which (perhaps less well-known taxes) should go to the former owner.
3. Open-ended questions.
Like any utopia, this certainly has its drawbacks. A glance shows that the concept of “team” should be limited numerically. It is unlikely that these principles apply to the enterprise, where there are only 2 employees and the owner. As it is unlikely that these principles apply, say, to the teams of service personal economy.
I expect, however, dismiss claims that people can be manipulated thereby achieve the desirable for any group of results. I agree, Yes you can. But what system can’t? If people allow themselves to be manipulated, and even to the detriment of their own interests, they no system will help.
Another complex issue is how the majority decisions of the team. Here it is possible to develop a scale of importance. For example, questions about the awards can be solve by a simple majority, and the issue of transfer to another owner by a majority of not less than 3:1.
The third complex issue is the question about dissenting minority. Yes, for the disgruntled minority, the prospect of choosing between acceptance of what is happening and the resignation may not be pleasant. However, since we are talking only about the company, not the state, the transition to another company cannot be considered as something terrible. Unfortunately, to come up with a system that will satisfy all the polls, it is impossible.
This system is undoubtedly designed for highly conscious people, able, say, to refuse a salary increase in favour of the development of the enterprise. But it happens all the time, so I don’t see anything impossible. The Central idea of the system is awareness – people must know the position and have the opportunity to influence change in the direction that they (and not the owner or Manager) is considered desirable. Yes, they can make mistakes. But the more accurate information they have, the more chances to make a rational decision.
Conclusion.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat the rationale of my proposal. It is based on my right to participate in the management of production, stemming from my interest in its successful functioning. And I claim that my right to influence the course of Affairs at the enterprise extends right up to the change of ownership.
