Co-determination

[Machjo]

I'd come across the following interesting article concerning co-determination laws in Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

I've long been opposed to minimum wages on the grounds that during recessions they risk hurting the very people they are intended to benefit. They essentially risk pushing unskilled workers into unemployment; and besides, it's proven effective in Sweden (though Sweden is also highly unionized to say the least).

Without a minimum wage though, there is also the risk of employers exploiting workers even in good economic times. One solution to that is to turn to labour unions. The problem with labour unions though is that they tend to be confrontational and so, by striking, hurt everyone, themselves, their workers, company managers, and the population at large by essentially grinding economic activity to a halt. After all, a nation's wealth is based on the production of products and services, and labour action is based on the halting of the production of such products and services.

An alternative to a labour union could be co-determination as it functions in Germany. The fact that workers get a vote on a company's board of directors. Unlike arbitrary minimum wage laws, it could allow workers to determine their own wages as happens in Sweden, in accordance to the best interests of the workers themselves. And unlike labour union action, agreements can be negotiated peacefully without interrupting economic development.

What would be your ideas on introducing co-determination in Canada? I'm sure labour Canadian labour unions in Canada would oppose such an idea as it would undemine their value, making them redundant. But waht woudl others think of this?

[eyeball]

What would be your ideas on introducing co-determination in Canada? I'm sure labour Canadian labour unions in Canada would oppose such an idea as it would undemine their value, making them redundant. But waht woudl others think of this?

I'd expand the concept to include environmentalists as co-determinants. In the case of something like a forest company I'd be nervous about leaving decisons only in the hands of two vested parties who share the common interest of reducing a forest to a pile of logs. The same should be just as true in the case of corporations and their workforces who turn mountains into piles of ore, tar sands into a fuel sources, etc etc.

Who speaks for the environement, the government? No thanks, they can't be trusted and neither can people who impact the environment in the course of extracting wealth from it.

Edited August 30, 2009 by eyeball

[Machjo]

I'd expand the concept to include environmentalists as co-determinants. In the case of something like a forest company I'd be nervous about leaving decisons only in the hands of two vested parties who share the common interest of reducing a forest to a pile of logs. The same should be just as true in the case of corporations and their workforces who turn mountains into piles of ore, tar sands into a fuel sources, etc etc.

Who speaks for the environement, the government? No thanks, they can't be trusted and neither can people who impact the environment in the course of extracting wealth from it.

Isn't that what environmental legislationis for? Wouldn't a carbon tax or other such policies help solve that problem?

[eyeball]

Isn't that what environmental legislationis for? Wouldn't a carbon tax or other such policies help solve that problem?

In theory I suppose but given these are managed by the government, which can't be trusted, I doubt very much if many problems are being solved. I think the opposite is more likely myself, I know it is where I live. In my region for example fish farm companies, fish farm workers and government fisheries managers all swear up and down there is no connection between farms and failing wild salmon runs. They all in varying forms are coming from the same position, that fish farms are good for the environment and economy and that people shouldn't be concerned. Environmentalists not to mention people who rely on wild salmon in the region simply do not believe it nor do they trust the people saying it.

Corporate/worker co-determination with government collusion in this case stinks of corruption don't you think? The more I think about it the more that the model of co-determination being proposed sounds more like co-dependancy - an alliance born of need in the face of competing contrary interests.

I think environmentalists from communities at large represent the only real possible and credible check and balance against environmental degradation stemming from a self-interested collusion of shareholders, workers and associated public servants.

[Wild Bill]

In theory I suppose but given these are managed by the government, which can't be trusted, I doubt very much if many problems are being solved. I think the opposite is more likely myself, I know it is where I live. In my region for example fish farm companies, fish farm workers and government fisheries managers all swear up and down there is no connection between farms and failing wild salmon runs. They all in varying forms are coming from the same position, that fish farms are good for the environment and economy and that people shouldn't be concerned. Environmentalists not to mention people who rely on wild salmon in the region simply do not believe it nor do they trust the people saying it.

Corporate/worker co-determination with government collusion in this case stinks of corruption don't you think? The more I think about it the more that the model of co-determination being proposed sounds more like co-dependancy - an alliance born of need in the face of competing contrary interests.

I think environmentalists from communities at large represent the only real possible and credible check and balance against environmental degradation stemming from a self-interested collusion of shareholders, workers and associated public servants.

A noble dream, but do you really think that environmentalists will be realistic about jobs?

My observations over the years have been that they would far more likely block doing ANYTHING in order to absolutely guarantee no negative effects on the environment! Or, they would insist on such stringent conditions that no company could possibly afford them.

Meanwhile, no one pays any attention to products made in OTHER countries with NO anti-pollution laws being imported into Canada every day. So local manufacturers have drastically increased production costs due to "green" laws while China, Russia and others have no such extra costs and can dump their stuff into Canada much cheaper, often below even our manufacturers' cost.

Environmentalists are not businessmen. The two areas need different skill sets. Perhaps allowing environmentalists a single vote on a company board may provide balancing input but if the environmentalists ever had a veto we'd all be unemployed, scraping for money to buy foreign products.

[Riverwind]

Environmentalists are not businessmen.

Not true. The great at coming up with "green" businesses that are not economically viable but make them successful by brow beating politicians into subsidizing them. Al Gore is on the way to becoming a billionaire following this business model.