Syndicalists and Unionists i need your help

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok. so, some extremely exciting news.

i had been talking with my mother about co-operative businesses and worker control of a work place a few months ago. Recently she had been doing some training in a trade so she can open her own business and out of nowhere tonight, she said she liked the idea of democratically controlled wages. She went on to say that she doesnt want to take advantage of her employees and thinks that running her business in this fashion would make her and her co-workers happy.

i know this isnt completely radical or anything but i need some information on how to operate a business like this so she can figure out how to make it work.
are there any up to date examples in the U.S. and business models that could be copied a bit?
Any links and literature would be very helpful.

[Muzk]

It will go down in competition. (Or cost of workers) And, there are minimum wages for higher positions, not given by the law, but rather by how much they are worth on the market...

seriously I think she only wanted to make you happy :wub:

...and you're looking for professional advice on economical business planning... or something such as this... this is an internet forum... most of the people are underage, even less are high-end students in one of those areas

[rebelmouse]

muzk, I am totally disagreed with you. about everything you said, especially about competition.
competition will not win just because they get equal salaries inside of company.
she CAN make company together with people who thinks similar like she. surely it would be stupid that anarchist or communist make company together with neoliberal idiots, they would take company from her and she would loose. she must make company together with similar people. then they can create inside direct democracy even if on the paper is written that one person decide everything.
so, it is not big problem, just she must see, will she finance it alone or find people to finance it together. if they finance it together they can be shared company (company with limited responsibility, they are responsible with money injected in company, not with their private property if company don't succeed). I think in English it is LTD but I am not sure.

what kind of company she should open, it depends what type of business she wants to do. from type of company depend process of registration at bureaucracy and taxes and rules about director and workers.
even if there are rules that there must be one director, officially she can be director or owner but in reality they can decide everything together.

I had idea that movement should find steady financing with creating of companies which will finance movement. but it should be anarchist companies where people decide everything together and get equal salaries. one per cent of their salaries they would give for movement or simply the whole profit from company after they get salaries for normal life. I would create such company if I had money for it. but I would do it with people whom I know, so I can be sure, everything will be okay.
so, she should meet herself with similar people and offer idea. they must be agree about way of function before they start to do something together. then they can start to realize what they want.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, she has been employed witch certain private companies and for quite some time had to deal with the inefficiencies, prejudices, and lack of control over her work life that she is taking on the idea of cooperative ownership.

she wants to own it with her friend probably some other people. what she wants to open is a massage parlor or something like that. no actual production or anything.

is there any information of how to run a co-op? should i look at farmers co-ops?

[Absolut]

A little bit of googling gave me this: US Federation of Workers Cooperatives (http://www.usworker.coop/front). Ive never heard of them before, but the possibility of there being information there exist. Otherwise, Id suggest using Wikipedia: Workers cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) and try to find links to places thats relevant to you.

[Forward Union]

Ok. so, some extremely exciting news.

i had been talking with my mother about co-operative businesses and worker control of a work place a few months ago. Recently she had been doing some training in a trade so she can open her own business and out of nowhere tonight, she said she liked the idea of democratically controlled wages. She went on to say that she doesnt want to take advantage of her employees and thinks that running her business in this fashion would make her and her co-workers happy.

i know this isnt completely radical or anything but i need some information on how to operate a business like this so she can figure out how to make it work.
are there any up to date examples in the U.S. and business models that could be copied a bit?
Any links and literature would be very helpful.

She must renounce all control and ownership of everything and create legal co ownership of the business. Abolish all her own rights of ownership, and managerial aspirations. She ought to be just another worker in the collective.

All decisions about the running of the business will be made collectively by all members of the collective. This relieves any burdon of questioning 'how' to run the place, because the answer will be a matter of equal negotiation and discussion.

If she has any exclusive ownership over the employers then I wish her every failure and frnkly wont give you any advice on how to manage your mothers workers "in a nicer way"

[The Broke Cycle]

Maximum ratio.

If the top person in the company makes $10,000, and the maximum ratio is 10%, then the lowest the lowest person could make is $1000.

I love this idea.

[Forward Union]

you love the idea of exploitation and division of labour?

[The Broke Cycle]

you love the idea of exploitation and division of labour?

Oh no, the Purity Patrol is on duty!

:lol:

Honestly, I have never met a more naive bunch of ideologues in my life. You guys (at least 40% of this forum) are so ideologically rigid that you can't appreciate a good idea unless it fits into some sort of comprehensive societal framework: never mind transitional periods, or actual political organizing, let's just talk about how things should be and assume that they will get there without serious, long-term preliminary changes.

Maximum ratio is a good first step to getting CEO and worker wages closer together. Plain and simple.

Haha. God. "YOU LOVE TO STAMP ON THE WORKERS FACE WITH YOUR CAPITALIST BOOTS HUH!??~?!?!"~!1111"

[Rusty Shackleford]

Oh no, the Purity Patrol is on duty!

:lol:

Honestly, I have never met a more naive bunch of ideologues in my life. You guys (at least 40% of this forum) are so ideologically rigid that you can't appreciate a good idea unless it fits into some sort of comprehensive societal framework: never mind transitional periods, or actual political organizing, let's just talk about how things should be and assume that they will get there without serious, long-term preliminary changes.

Maximum ratio is a good first step to getting CEO and worker wages closer together. Plain and simple.

Haha. God. "YOU LOVE TO STAMP ON THE WORKERS FACE WITH YOUR CAPITALIST BOOTS HUH!??~?!?!"~!1111"


you dont need the maximum ratio for a fresh business if the "owner" is willing to have equal wages as co-workers. the one who is starting this business it NOT interested in profiting off of others. there will be no maximum ratio because it does not fit the goal for the business.


most of the people here are (im guessing) for a bottom up revolutionary change. workers taking the means of production from the capitalists, by force if necessary. most people here are not social democrats and the implementation of maximum ratio is something a governing body with a state would have to do to force CEOs to concede parts of their salaries. this is not revolutionary. this is why you will see some opposition to what you said. it may seem dogmatic to you but it is something completely useless if the factories(for example) are taken from the CEOs by workers.

Who was it? Bukharin who was advocating socialism at a snails pace? not quite sure.


Broken Cycle, i appreciate your input, but please, no need to criticize 40% of this community.

[Forward Union]

Oh no, the Purity Patrol is on duty!

:lol:

Honestly, I have never met a more naive bunch of ideologues in my life. You guys (at least 40% of this forum) are so ideologically rigid that you can't appreciate a good idea unless it fits into some sort of comprehensive societal framework: never mind transitional periods, or actual political organizing, let's just talk about how things should be and assume that they will get there without serious, long-term preliminary changes.


I'm not saying it's equally bad to a vertical managerial structure. In fact you'll find that im generally the least idological person here, something of a purist pragmatist. I'm just not sureto what alternative management structures have to do with the Revolutionary left, or why I ought to take time out of class based organising to help something that I would needengage later anyway.

Furthermore, I have a long term strategic industrial and community strategy. Neither of which involve alternative management structures as a basis of strengthening unions or Residents/Tennants associations.

From a purely pragmatic and materialist position, the idea that alternative managemnt structures in some way strengthen the power of the working class is evidently self-contradictory. Whats more, it does not increase confidence in our organisations or their politics. It's a serious diversion from actual organising and a hypocritical one at that.

Even if the boss conceded to the workers 100% of his/her power, and voluntarily created a workers collective, it's not something I would praise. It would contradict the political worldview we are trying to convince people of, and undermines some of our basic assumptions. It is in otherwords, against our political platform. And while it is certainly a good thing for the people involved, it does not provide a workable model for our general organising.

This is a fairly machine-politics appraoch to the situation, as opposed to the more moral position you are arguing, but as i conceded at the start, it is better for the people involved at least.

[The Broke Cycle]

you dont need the maximum ratio for a fresh business if the "owner" is willing to have equal wages as co-workers. the one who is starting this business it NOT interested in profiting off of others. there will be no maximum ratio because it does not fit the goal for the business.

Well that is certainly a nice idea, unfortunately she will be out of business within six months if she goes through with it.


most of the people here are (im guessing) for a bottom up revolutionary change. workers taking the means of production from the capitalists, by force if necessary.

That is what we should be aiming for. In the mean time, we should be pursuing policies that accustom people to the new system, and have a chance in hell of even being considered by the average, non-ideological North American.

As it stands, the vast majority of all classes do not support your point of view, or anything close to it. Furthermore, a sudden and quick comprehensive change of the economic rules that govern us will result in chaos, that can only be handled by (A) a revolutionary organization or (B) a government with some sort of democratic legitimacy.


most people here are not social democrats and the implementation of maximum ratio is something a governing body with a state would have to do to force CEOs to concede parts of their salaries. this is not revolutionary.

I find the idea that bosses cannot give themselves raises without first raising everyone else up very revolutionary. Just because it wouldn't fit into the framework of a comprehensive socialist system doesn't mean it isn't an idea worth pursuing for now.


Who was it? Bukharin who was advocating socialism at a snails pace? not quite sure.


Broken Cycle, i appreciate your input, but please, no need to criticize 40% of this community.

Well unless we are willing to use violence, and unless we gain the support of a sufficient number of military men or those trained with weapons, plus money to feed, clothe and resupply them, the only thing we can do is pursue incremental changes.

Trying to start a socialist business in this day and age will see you out of money instantly. You think any bank would loan money to an organization that gave all of it's workers equal pay and equal say? Not a chance. So unless she has some deep, deep pockets, her idea simply will not work. Period.

[The Broke Cycle]

I'm not saying it's equally bad to a vertical managerial structure. In fact you'll find that im generally the least idological person here, something of a purist pragmatist. I'm just not sureto what alternative management structures have to do with the Revolutionary left, or why I ought to take time out of class based organising to help something that I would needengage later anyway.

Because most of the population disagrees with your views, and unless they become accustomed to them, they will simply continue to disregard everything you say or do.

Policies such as maximum-ratio are achievable now, and in fact you can find people on all sides arguing for similar systems. That is why we should support and pursue them. To build momentum, and start having an actual influence on politics.


Furthermore, I have a long term strategic industrial and community strategy. Neither of which involve alternative management structures as a basis of strengthening unions or Residents/Tennants associations.

From a purely pragmatic and materialist position, the idea that alternative managemnt structures in some way strengthen the power of the working class is evidently self-contradictory. Whats more, it does not increase confidence in our organisations or their politics. It's a serious diversion from actual organising and a hypocritical one at that.

Well if your idea of pragmatic is pursuing your ideology wholesale, without any compromise with those who oppose you, you are doomed to failure or violent rebellion leading to failure.

Alternative management structures are a start. Nothing more, nothing less.


Even if the boss conceded to the workers 100% of his/her power, and voluntarily created a workers collective, it's not something I would praise. It would contradict the political worldview we are trying to convince people of, and undermines some of our basic assumptions. It is in otherwords, against our political platform. And while it is certainly a good thing for the people involved, it does not provide a workable model for our general organising.

Could you explain how this contradicts your platform?

[Forward Union]

Because most of the population disagrees with your views, and unless they become accustomed to them, they will simply continue to disregard everything you say or do.

Everyone wants what's best for themselves. We need to build organs that can effectively stand for the day to day interests of people (aka unions which can a defend wages, work hours etc, and residents association which can defend people from evictions) People don't need to accustomed to my ideas. The idea of getting more than 5 people to agree with me fully is ridiculous.


Policies such as maximum-ratio are achievable now, and in fact you can find people on all sides arguing for similar systems. That is why we should support and pursue them. To build momentum, and start having an actual influence on politics.

??


Could you explain how this contradicts your platform?

Because people are self-interested, bosses will not generally give up enough privilege, luxury, sex money and cars on behalf of an abstract idea. If you think that a couple of philanthropists being more democratic is "the start" of the end of capitalism, you're simply wrong.

Equally, workers will not rise up and die on behalf of an abstract idea. They will however stand up for themselves. We need to maneuver our organisations into a position where their self interest is made obviously in opposition to the self interests of the bosses (IE pay increases for workers being pay decreases for bosses) This is, in one respect, our platform. Philanthropist capitalists are an exception, not a rule. Promoting

[TheAnarchistSyndicalist]

A democratic control of wage is a Collectivist principle (Though it's great)... But a better solution would be revolutionary action to establish councils based on the voucher gift economy to educate the masses of Anarchist Syndicalist principles. A national revolt against the chaotic infastructure of state-run capitalist system is the only action we can take on bringing immediate liberty.

[Patchd]

Honestly, I have never met a more naive bunch of ideologues in my life. You guys (at least 40% of this forum) are so ideologically rigid that you can't appreciate a good idea unless it fits into some sort of comprehensive societal framework: never mind transitional periods, or actual political organizing, let's just talk about how things should be and assume that they will get there without serious, long-term preliminary changes.
No, your conception of a good idea is just a bit crap. How can starting your own business, assuming property rights over it and having the ability to employ and fire workers at your whim even be considered 'political organising'?

[The Broke Cycle]

No, your conception of a good idea is just a bit crap. How can starting your own business, assuming property rights over it and having the ability to employ and fire workers at your whim even be considered 'political organising'?

A revolution requires money. I would say that establishing equitable-but-still-profitable businesses to help finance that revolution is an excellent idea. That assumes, of course, that you are physically incapable of pulling food, medicine, weapons, ammunition, computers, etc. out of your ass.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

A revolution requires money. I would say that establishing equitable-but-still-profitable businesses to help finance that revolution is an excellent idea. That assumes, of course, that you are physically incapable of pulling food, medicine, weapons, ammunition, computers, etc. out of your ass.

So basically your saying your going to start a business, have control over the means to produce, hire workers for your business and somehow this is furthering class struggle. Getting a job within a workplace as a worker, not a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, and organising within that workplace, unionising it and spreading revolutionary ideas is much more helpful to any revolution. The working class has to support revolution for it to even be a revolution so buying all the things you have mentioned has no purpose if your not willing to participate in the prerequisite to revolution: Class struggle.

[Rusty Shackleford]

A revolution requires money. I would say that establishing equitable-but-still-profitable businesses to help finance that revolution is an excellent idea. That assumes, of course, that you are physically incapable of pulling food, medicine, weapons, ammunition, computers, etc. out of your ass.


Dude, you are missing the point of why i was asking for help. the person who is starting the business is NOT a revolutionary. has no real interest in revolutionary ideas beyond democratically decided wages and democratic management. this person has seen the ugliness of wage-slavery and sexism in the work place, and just wants a place where her and her co-workers can be happy. Democracy in the workplace is a means to that end. this is not about revolution.

on topic:

as of now its just an idea. we dont know the costs of opening up a place like this. were guessing $300,000. the problem is, if she funds this completely and it tanks she is worried about losing all the money. is there a way to try and convince prospective co-workers in trying to help start it?