Re: employee ownership - means or end?

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

Dear Dan and others in the EO Priv group,

I'm afraid you're not aiming high enough in setting the goal as "employee ownership", as much as I support and have worked to advance that objective.  The higher goal is "economic justice", a goal which cannot be attained without promoting ownership for all, even those who may not be considered "employees."  And labor unions are only means whose efforts can only be judged by whether or not they organize to achieve basic principles of economic justice.  If they fail to work for economic justice for all their members, if not for all humanity, labor unions have failed in their ultimate social purpose.  And COG should work to remind labor leaders of this ultimate goal.  For those who can't figure out my point, please click on Defining Economic Justice and Social Justice - Center for Economic and Social J .  For a brief discussion of what a believer in democratic trade unionism thinks should be our challenge to unionists who are disappointed with the vision of present labor leaders, please click on  Value-Based Management: A System for Building an Ownership Culture  and  Case Study-South Bend Lathe .

COG has a great opportunity to surface a bold new vision for organized labor, one that would put the movement at the forefront of social change.  COG will succeed only if it sets a high enough hurdle to leap over.

All the best, Norm

Dan Bell wrote:

Deb Olson's comments on the union perspective on employee
ownership brought to mind the following question:

Is employee ownership a goal in itself or simply a
means to other ends?

These ends could be:

Worker input into working conditions that make working
lives safer, more productive and more meaningful.

Employment security that allows one to continue living
at an equal or higher standard of living than yesterday,
without having to relocate.

Retirement security that allows one to maintain this same
standard of living when a reasonable working life has been
completed.

Where union leaders are democratically elected and
given the legitimate authority to represent the
interests of those workers who elected them, they
must evaluate employee ownership as a tool which
contributes to or detracts from such goals.

The form of employee ownership being proposed in
any given situation is what union leaders evaluate.

Sometimes employee ownership is the best available
alternative for achieving the desired balance between
these goals. At other times, there may be alternatives
which achieve a better balance.

I suspect that there are better alternatives for
retirement security. However, worker input and
current employment security are often greater
with employee ownership.
--
Dan Bell
International Program Coordinator
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
(330) 672-3028
(330) 672-4063 fax
dbell@kent.edu
http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/