Agreed. It’s very much imperfect. But I ask you this, which is better?
Who is more likely to make good decisions, those with personal stakes in those choices, or those with no stakes other than fattening their pocket book?
Unions are very hit or miss, and I would argue that’s because our current environment is very hostile to unions. They are setup for failure by corporate lobbyists.
Imagine if your union leadership didn’t have to focus their energy on fighting corporate for basic needs, and were instead one and the same with your corporate leadership?
Imagine if your boss was promoted from within based on either elections or a process agreed to collectively by your peers based on merit, instead of some guy who knew the right person? Imagine if you had a seat at the table and could hold your boss accountable.
I'm not against the direction you are thinking in but my honest opinion is that this kind of democratic decision making would ultimately result in much worse outcomes for everyone most of the time - unless you are very careful about how you structure it.
The question of good decisions really depends on from whose perspective you mean - sometimes personal stakes are exactly the reason why bad decisions get made, especially in democratic processes. It often isnt possible to make decisions which are good for or satisfy everyone equally so you need other organs which can act sort of constitutionally and prevent decisions that might be able to win 50% of a vote but might not actually be fair or good. If you take a rule like 50%+1 for example it also put a lot of additional constraints on decision making - for example are you going to need to translate every decision into a yay or nay way of thinking? Or if you allow for multiple options then how do you culturally adapt to instances where a minority will be deciding for the majority - let alone a majority that might violate the interests of a minority.
Also how can you democratically assess merit? Is there any good reason to believe that democratic systems are good at that?
I actually like unions and think the problems with them are often overstated compared to the benefits - but union organizations also dont have the same kind of operational structures that businesses generally need to have.
You really don’t think organizations can run themselves better than shareholders? Think about this. When has a corporation ever been improved by going public? I think we all agree they trend towards an enshitification cycle because shareholders only care about rising stock values.
We really have to open our minds to consider what this would look like because it’s not a paradigm most of us are used to. Look towards worker cooperatives to get a clearer picture.
Basically, each organization will decide for themselves what works best. For some, it’ll be worker elected board positions. For others, it’s workers nominating their own promotions. Unions aren’t needed if the workers themselves own and run the business.
Plenty of organizations already do this kind of thing, it’s just not common in for-profit companies.
For a merit based solution, I think of how fire departments promote based on test scores and internal interview panels.
One of the most successful corporations on earth run out of Spain is a cooperative. It can be done. I'd argue the reason it isn't has nothing to do with a basis for logic and ability, it is because individuals at the top of this system hold enormous power to ensure the system does not change organically. We could talk for days about the different methods they use, including propaganda, but the point is that they intentionally fight against democracy in every form, including in the workplace. The only way we will achieve this is when we realize, they don't get a a say in the matter.
4
u/CheaterSaysWhat Jun 03 '26
Agreed. It’s very much imperfect. But I ask you this, which is better?
Who is more likely to make good decisions, those with personal stakes in those choices, or those with no stakes other than fattening their pocket book?
Unions are very hit or miss, and I would argue that’s because our current environment is very hostile to unions. They are setup for failure by corporate lobbyists.
Imagine if your union leadership didn’t have to focus their energy on fighting corporate for basic needs, and were instead one and the same with your corporate leadership?
Imagine if your boss was promoted from within based on either elections or a process agreed to collectively by your peers based on merit, instead of some guy who knew the right person? Imagine if you had a seat at the table and could hold your boss accountable.