For anyone that is interested, my viewpoint is that humans should have representative democracy at every level possible. From neighborhoods, to workplaces, to districts, to counties, etc. I believe that the more say we have, the more autonomy we can develop as a people and we can build a better word. Not a perfect world but a better world.
So, what about Democratic Workplaces? Surely, some philosophers smarter than I have come up with the same or a better idea but this is my idea.
WORKERS ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS
In my vision, the workers are the shareholders and the only shareholders. This differs from the current structure. In the current structure, public companies can sell their stock to anyone with the money. As such, these random rich owners can buy a certain aEmount of the company's assets, and as such, they are the shareholders. Companies then work to the whim of building a profitable company for these distant shareholders of whom have no value to the actual company itself.
With this system, let's say you are given a certain percentage of stock shares for every 40th hour you work. Naturally, full-time employees would gain more stock than their part-time counterparts, in a more rapid succession, but everyone is valued equally. Since full-time employees put in more time, it is perfectly fair for them to accrue stock at a faster rate.
Because employees are the sole shareholders, the employees receive the dividends when and if the company profits. This is advantageous for many reasons. As an invested employee who is looking to maximize their earnings, everyone is more likely to work together to make money for the company. This means everyone will be equally invested in being productive employees, providing customer service and competitive, quality products. This is because employees will want the public to come to their business, so they can not only keep their jobs but make a profit together.
Once an employee resigns or is terminated, their shares are sold back to the company and they can cash out, allowing new employees to obtain the stock.
COMPANY CHARTERS
Company charters are sort of the Constitution of a corporation. In order to create an effective model of governance, each company would develop a charter that is created for and by the personnel, who are also the stakeholders. The charter would establish the groundwork of governance to provide guiding principles to all: such as a mission and vision statement, creation of managerial and leadership roles, the employee handbook, etc.
The charter would be a living document and reviewed at least once a year at conventions. During conventions, representatives from all over the company would be involved in crafting amendments and building a stronger, more time appropriate charter.
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
The way democracy would work in the workplace would vary based on the size of the company. Let's say a company has 100 employees or less, in total. If that is the case, every employee would have a personal say in the operations of the company. In other words, every employee is equally a board of directors member. When decisions are being made, such as spending a certain dollar amount on advertising, bringing in a new consultant or remodeling the bathroom, it would have to be done election style, so all 100 (or less) employees can vote. Certain employees may be designated in specific roles based on expertise and that might make them more apt to suggest or propose items to be voted on in their area of expertise but anyone could do so. Instead of leaders, these experts would be looked at more of guides.
Once companies grow and get beyond 100 employees, it will become more difficult and cumbersome to have each individual in direct decision making. Instead, the model would go more into representative democracy which is more effective in larger quarters. Based on the charter, certain items might still be matters of direct democracy in which a decision of that magnitude might still have to be made by all employees.
Let's use Target Corporation as an example of a large corporation, so we can easily imagine what I'm talking about. Target has over 350,000 retail employees across the nation. That's a pretty large number. We're not even talking about corporate or distribution employees. There are 1,934 retail locations across the country. Let's imagine it this way:
Each store location would need to have representatives to serve the worker's total interests. Store employees would vote on representatives to serve as Worker Liaisons. With technology, it would be easy for people to participate in conventions no matter where they live. Let's say the charter requires that for every 100 employees in a location, there must be 2 representatives and that the representatives must be non-managers, full-time employees. They would have a set number of terms and an outline of responsibilities to their fellow store employees. A board of directors would also be elected (by the employees) and this board would create policies and procedures that are in-line with the company charter, mission and vision. The representatives that were elected by the store personnel would then vote on the actions, based on their understanding and interpretation of their fellow store employee's wishes. Examples of policies could be: human resources policies such as training, development, pay rates, benefits, termination policies; marketing protocols; philanthropic giving; everything from uniform appearance and scheduling requirements. In other words, the board of directors is like your company steering committee and the representatives are like the congress, taking to vote.
But also imagine a worker's initiative. In a worker's initiative, an employee of any type could launch a petition to steer the company in a different direction based on their imagination and goals, so long as their initiative is in line with the existing company charter. Any employee could be empowered to create this and then would take the lead on spreading it throughout their field location. Let's say the requirement is 60% of their fellow store employees must sign the petition for it to "pass". If that's the case, once it passes, it then moves through the entire company, through an electronic channel. If 60% of the company employees vote to approve it, then it would become policy and procedure. Let's put the example in real time:
Jim at Target Store 580 thinks that the company should utilize a new cleaner for the registers that is proven to have less chemicals and is more effective and even cheaper. Jim is just a regular cashier but is excited about the idea, so he launches the petition through an internal portal and his fellow employees are sold. 80% of store 580 votes in favor of this and as such, the petition is opened up to the entire company. Within a few months, Jim's passionate petition with facts and data listed gains traction and wins 60% of the company employees approval. As such, the board of directors is required to implement the new procedure within a reasonable amount of time. Now the company is utilizing this new cleaning supply, thanks to Jim's dedication and thoughtfulness.
Let's say Jim had not created the initiative but instead went to talk to one of the elected representatives, Kelly, about his idea. Kelly likes the idea and pitches it at the next governance meeting (let's say they happen monthly). Kelly enters a resolution to change the cleaning products at the store-level. The required number of representatives from across the company like her presentation and vote in favor. As such, the board of directors has been given direction to implement this procedural change.
This allows for two forms of representation and is all dependent, truly, on how passionate one is about their belief. In the first scenario, Jim was so confident in his idea he circumvented the elected representatives and went on his own: it was a risk because obtaining 60% approval of every Target employee is quite a feat. In the second scenario, Jim thinks its a good idea but would rather it go through the channels of representation. Kelly liked it and went with it and happened to be successful.
MANAGERS?
Yes, there would still be manager's, depending on the way the company's organizational chart is determined by the charter. Maintaining the Target example, the Guest Service area where the cashiers and customer service employees work would still have a Guest Services Manager to supervise, schedule, perform evaluations and administrative tasks. These tasks are necessary and not everyone has the leadership skills to monitor and run departments or stores. Remember, as shareholders, the goal is to be productive and profitable for everyone, so that means proper management and direction.
However, a charter could exist that allows employees to "demote" their manager if they're not happy with the performance. Whereas a department manager writes out employee evaluations, the employees of each department (and the whole store for store management) would evaluate their managers. If the managers score poorly, there could be protocol to remove them from their position. For example, let's say the Guest Service Manager receives a 20% approval rating in 2018. The company will provide the Guest Service Manager with training and leadership classes to build his skills and manage his team more efficiently. Let's say in 2019, he receives 25% approval rating. Better but still poor. The second step is to transfer the manager to a different Target store and provide more training: maybe a new environment will allow for better management. But let's say in 2020, at the new store, he still receives a 25% score. By this time, the company has discovered that he is just not an effective Guest Service Manager and he will now be moved back to a non-manager position for now.
Company's could determine this based on their charters that the worker's crafted, so smaller companies, for example, may have more intimate ways to evaluate employees.
WAGES AND BENEFITS
No, I don't believe in the model of everyone being paid an equal wage. I believe that wages should be, at minimum, a livable wage. However, employees of the company will ultimately decide the wages of each job classification based on their interpretation of it (in compliance with legal minimums). If Cashiers are paid $15.00, Customer Service Reps might be paid $18.00 and Guest Service Managers might be paid $25.00. But regardless of how employees are paid, everyone receives equal value in stock, so their dividends would be dependent on length of service (how many hours they've put in).
Employees would have a say on benefits. Let's say that the addition or removal of benefits would require direct democracy no matter the company size because it is a decision that impacts everyone, both in the form of dividends and the form of compensation packages.
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
No, I don't believe in the absence of executives/experts either. Not everyone is a marketing genius, a human resources expert, a real estate mogul or accounting guru. That's just a fact. People are allowed to be experts at things. It makes good sense for the shareholders (the employees) to ensure that qualified people are managing departments that bring the company success. Let's say Target had several executive positions: President, VP of Human Resources, VP of Marketing, VP of Finances, VP of Real Estate, VP of Procurement, VP of Operations, etc.
Perhaps the board of directors would recommend/nominate experts based on the minimum qualifications of the position, whether it be an active employee or someone from the outside. Each nominee presents their qualifications to the elected company representatives and as such, the representatives can vote on them. Every year, executives are evaluated by the representatives based on pre-determined metrics in the charter. Is the VP of Finances making good decisions based on our criteria? Is the VP of Human Resources utilizes the best technology to manage payroll and benefits? These are things that would be looked at, as the financial health of the company is everyone's business.
Naturally, the smaller the business is, the more involved everyone can be in a direct way. As companies grow, it makes sense to create governance that is sensible and representative. It makes it feasible and it makes it profitable. Profit doesn't have to be a dirty word anymore; because the worker's are obtaining the profit. It's not fat-cats sitting at the board of directors (they earn just as many shares based on a 40 hours of work as anyone else) that make all the decisions and keep the money. There's no wall street share. It's just simply for worker's, by worker's.
If the company isn't profitable, then the worker's will be the ones scrambling to create decisions: they'll oust poorly performing managers and executives, they'll demand new contractors in procurement and they'll vote new representatives to represent their region.
Would such a thing be perfect? Absolutely not. There's no such thing as perfect.
Non-profits would run similarly as far as governance but I suppose employee's couldn't be shareholders since they don't produce shares and profit (unless they do and I don't know about it). Nonetheless, perhaps, the score evener in that case would be more benefits or higher wages to make up for loss dividends and pensions.
Debate is welcome.
