[solve]

> Did somebody hire you? He's your boss. Can somebody fire you? He's your boss. Can they tell you to show up at work at certain times, or prevent you from taking the afternoon off to take your kid to the doctor? He's your boss. Can someone control whether or not you get a raise? They're your boss.

What are you talking about? In the flat-managed places I've worked in, a group a peers periodically voted on everyone else's performance. If you had to leave the office for something, you announced it (but never asked permission for it ) on the group mailing list.

> Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide, and claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently?

The one I'm talking about was a publicly traded company, so no. The technical "owner" of the company had little to no say in the management. Maybe this place was not the typical employer. It was in a field where talent is extremely valued. The employees ruled.

If you ask me, it's quite a bit harder to brown-nose 20 of your peers, than just one boss. The dynamics were vastly different than a non-flat, 1-boss system.

[pjc50]

>> Does somebody extract the excess value from the of the labor you provide,

> publicly traded company, so no.

Er, yes. The shareholders get your excess value and are ultimately in control. Ford v. Dodge is your constraint. I'm sure they take no active part so long as you're successful, but when you're not, what happens then?

[solve]

You've cut off the part of the sentence that I was replying to.

[pjc50]

That would be claim the right to do so by more efficiently organizing the workplace so as to produce value most efficiently?

The self-organisation described is not pure mutuality, it's just delegation from the shareholders, who currently trust that the organisation's self-organising will most likely give them the best return. Ultimately they have the right to reorganise you.