It seems to me like a politically simple first step could be tax incentives or subsidized small business loans to legitimate worker-owned enterprises. The comparatively pleasant working conditions would probably attract an above average level of talent, creating positive momentum.

Thanks for your comment.

The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the American Daily which is published in Phoenix, Arizona on March 14, 2006.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/12389

John Steinsvold

Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism that Would Really Work

The World Has Changed

History has not moved along the path foretold a decade and a half ago by so many confident prognosticators. In particular:

* The socialist experiments have…

Lot’s of countries have laws that govern the behavior of a co-op. Since they’re someplace in between a for-profit and a not-for-profit corporation, there are usually tax advantages, but to get those advantages, you have to act like a co-op: i.e. no discrimination about who’s eligible for membership, one-person, one vote, election of board of directors, approval of budget by majority vote, a minimum of X number of meetings per year.

Essentially, it’s corporate governance rules, and they are pretty detailed for capitalist firms too.

I don’t think an Economic Democracy would have much trouble with the governance issue… but I really do think it’s up to the social movement to make democracy in the workplace real.

As a business expands its capital assets expand and so does the amount of capital assets tax it pays to the national investment fund to replenish and GROW the fund.

This is outlined in some detail in “After Capitalism” that you can get through SolidarityEconomy.net (or at your local bookstore).

Great question about the role of government. I think there’s an equally – if not greater – important role for civil society to make workplace democracy real. It can’t just be enforced.

It’ll be interesting hearing David’s take on all this.

“Yet, ‘workplace democracies’ have a very high labour cost because salaries are established through staff consensus and not as a function of demand and supply.’

Not quite. At the end of the year, there is a definite amount of profit, realized via the ‘supply and demand’ market, and reduced a bit by the firm’s required contribution to the investment fund. The worker’s can’t arrive at any old ‘consensus’ on what they want on their share of their profits. They are limited by the amount of profit actually earned by their firm. They can set larger or smaller pieces of the profit pie as they see fit, for more skilled workers or managers, or set aside more or less for technical innovation, but by one-worker, one-vote, not necessarily by ‘consensus.’

Then…

‘Furthermore, profit (if any) will most likely be distributed amongst the staff in some sort of profit-sharing plan.’

Not ‘some sort of’ profit sharing plan. It’s simply taking their individual share of their collective profit, period. You can look at it this way. It’s like a capitalist firm, except all the workers hold a more or less equal number of shares, and elect from their ranks, and the ranks of managers they hire, the Board of Directors. Depending of how well the firm does, the ‘shareholders’ are rewarded, higher or lower, or not. There are no wages. Whatever weekly or monthly payment a worker receives is actually a draw against the estimated yearly profit, which can be adjusted, higher or lower, annually, as the case may be.

Then…

‘If this system is enforced on a national level by state regulators, then competition as a social organization
will be replaced by a planned economy focused on ‘fair’ income distribution.’

But it isn’t ‘enforced on a national level,’ except as regulations against, say sexual or racial discrimination, or pollution. But these exist now, as they should under any system. But each firm in Economic Democracy sinks or swims the old-fashioned way. They have to design, make and sell a quality product at a competitive price and keep their customers happy.

Then…

‘Without competition, the pace of innovations will strongly decline thus preventing human progress.’

But there is competition between and among firms. They don’t have to ‘expand or die,’ but they do have to compete to maintain their market share. The pace of some innovations may lessen, but others may speed up. Workers in their own firms have a greater interest in innovations that makes production easier, safer and sustainable in the impact on the communities where they live. But they may have less interest in productivity innovations that cause greater threats to health and safety, both individually and on a local community level.

Hope this answers what your getting at.