[typicalset]

> If the story is "all companies must be fully employee-owned workers' cooperatives", then first, note that you are calling for a restriction on workers' rights: they have to be given part of their pay as stocks, and they can't sell them freely.

This is simply not true. Many workers' coops issue one share per worker (there may not even be stock), which affords them one vote in company matters. In such a scenario the share may not be bought or sold, as it is a case of one share if and only if a member. It is not correct to represent proportional democratic control of a workplace as somehow a restriction on workers rights.

[zby]

If you cannot choose to work for an organization that is governed in a different way - then this is a restriction on your rights.

[typicalset]

The employees can democratically decide how they want to run things. They can choose to issue stock, they can choose other people to make decisions about the business e.g. appoint a manager to make decisions for them. They cannot do these things in a general employment situation.

At the most bloody-minded level a food-service worker must wash their hands after going to the toilet and this is a restriction on their rights, but at the same time this infringes upon the rights of customers to not get sick eating food. Denying employees democratic control of their workplaces is a much greater restriction of their rights. And as a matter of practice, employees get the short end of the stick when they have a boss.

[zby]

Well if you don't allow the traditional company governance and everything must be a cooperative - then these employees cannot choose a traditional company governance.

But my comment really was about restricting the choice of a potential employee - someone who has not yet decided what company to join.

[typicalset]

This is similar to arguing in favour of the existence of dictatorships, as not having them restricts the choices of what kind of society people can choose to move to. The point is that in a democracy, at least in principle, people can choose their "boss", and discarding this has bigger implications for everyday freedoms.

[zby]

The difference between a state and a company is that it is much more difficult to change the first.

[empath75]

In any realistic scenario, those shares would quickly be diluted to nothing when the company needs to raise money from capital markets. Unions are in general a much better way to protect workers.

The real power disparity between capital and labor is that capital is concentrated and labor is diffuse. Every worker negotiates with the corporation as an individual over compensation and worker rights. When you have a union negotiating the contract, then both labor and capital are concentrated and on a more equal footing, producing more equitable outcomes. Giving employees a tiny ownership stake doesn't really change the power disparity at all.