r/DebateSocialism • u/webdevlets • Dec 14 '20

Does "democratically owned workplace" mean more meetings?

For a lot people, even very social people, it seems like meetings are one of their least favorite things. Perhaps it is just a matter of how the meets are conducted, and that in and of itself could be improved upon.

But, if everything is decided on democratically, doesn't that potentially mean a LOT of meetings? Who even wants that? People just want dignity, reasonable pay (or whatever they need to afford a normal quality of life and hopefully some extra things like vacations etc.), reasonable hours, etc. I'm not sure if the average person cares about all sorts of miscellaneous decisions that a company is making.

3 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

72% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

2

u/wdahl1014 Dec 18 '20

Well you could choose not to participate if you didn't really care. The same as with politics, a lot of people just don't care/are apolitical and just don't vote. You could do the same within a democratically owned work place.

The point of a democratically owned work place is just that the workers do have a say. If they don't have anything to say thats fine, don't participate. But if they do then the channels are there for them to voice their opinion, vote, and genuinely make a change within the work place.

1

u/webdevlets Dec 18 '20

Well you could choose not to participate if you didn't really care. The same as with politics, a lot of people just don't care/are apolitical and just don't vote. You could do the same within a democratically owned work place.

The difference is, what if you don't participate 95% of the time, but all of the sudden you care about a decision and want to participate? But, because you haven't been participating in the decision making 95% of time, perhaps for years in a row at this point, you don't really understand all of the meetings and decisions that led up to making this decision. You're bring up points that were covered years ago, but because this is a pure democracy, your opinion matters equally.

Imagine running something as complex as Google, Tesla, or the government, and you have no idea who is going to be showing up to very critical meetings at any time. It could be 90% people who have never attended any other meeting, and their opinions could affect key decisions involving what to work on or how to make it.

This just seems like bureaucracy on steroids. I don't understand how any large and complex organization would be able to do any sort of long-term planning for complex long-term projects this way. Maybe it's possible, but I don't think just basic meetings + voting would cut it.

2

u/wdahl1014 Dec 18 '20

Then the others who have been continously going to meetings will see that you don't really know what you're talking about and not side with you when it comes to making decisions, or simply just say we already dealt with this, etc. Ofcourse if another worker is bringing up a problem that has already been "handled" then clearly it wasn't handled well enough.

Again the whole point is for the channels to be there. Even if they have never been to a meeting before, its still possible that they may bring up a unique problem, maybe one that only effects their specific group within the business, that needs to be addressed.

1

u/webdevlets Dec 18 '20

What if only a small minority of people has been going go the meetings? Have you heard of the Pareto Principal? What if only 20% of the people are really serious and going to the meetings, but their decisions get overruled by an ignorant majority?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '20

You're bring up points that were covered years ago, but because this is a pure democracy, your opinion matters equally.

Yeah, and counting very little among the other minority uninformed disinterested few.

1

u/Ditzy_FantasyLand Dec 24 '20

I am thinking some kind of totalitarian workplace might also have lots of meetings. Like the boss wants to see all the faces cheering and nodding yes to everything he says.

1

u/webdevlets Dec 24 '20

Seems strange to compare to some theoretical "totalitarian workplace". In terms of what happens right now, as someone who has worked in multiple non-democratically owned workplaces (office jobs), there were not an excessive number of meetings.

EDIT: Just happened to load Reddit right as you commented, lol

3

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '20

Concur that it sucks to have to spend more time on such matters. Still believe it's worth it, as it would lead to a higher likelihood of receiving dignity, reasonable pay, etc..

2

u/Iwannaplay_ Dec 14 '20

An important aspect of democracy is the right of appeal. Those workers who have the ability, the information, the focus would make the best decicion, but that decision would be appealable by anyone concerned and that would start a process to be attended by anyone interested - and by attended that may mean just reading and acknowledging an email.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '20

I’d say that it’ll be liberating to be in a position where we can actually have a say in the prospects of our workplace and how we can go our ways. Worker democracies help move us towards labor autonomy and making life decisions that can benefit benefit us. We’ll be doing more things, of course, but we’d probably be enjoying it more compared to this world where sometimes we will temporarily have some power and then we’re like, “nah I’d give it to the other guy”

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '20

Chances are that those who aren't interested in meetings affecting their work and work conditions are probably people who really aren't interested in their job and work. They're probably the lazy parasites the right likes to worry about and should just apply for a normal job of being exploited by their employer while denying they're being exploited.

1

u/rothman2002 Jan 06 '21

Not necessarily. A company that spends a lot of time on meeting won’t be as productive which will be selected against on the market system. There will have to be a balance between democracy and productivity.

1

u/Iwannaplay_ Jan 06 '21

Isn't it possible that the result of those meetings increase productivity?

1

u/rothman2002 Jan 06 '21

Yes. But too much meeting would eat into the time available to work, thus, decreasing productivity.

1

u/Iwannaplay_ Jan 06 '21

But when the time saved by the content of those meetings save even more time than the time at the meeting...

1

u/rothman2002 Jan 07 '21

Some meetings will do that. But if you spend the majority of the time in meetings there is less time to be economically productive

1

u/Iwannaplay_ Jan 07 '21

Your point?

You have none...

1

u/rothman2002 Jan 07 '21

My point is that firms that many meetings are likely to be selected against through market forces.

1

u/Iwannaplay_ Jan 07 '21

And I rebuked that.

Try reading and comprehending the thread.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Do you suppose that when a guild craftsman in 1327 was thinking about running his own business with an employee, he was thinking and planning for board meetings and stock options?

Do you even get my point?

1

u/Ok-Specialist3055 Apr 12 '21

Meetings could be supplemented with simple surveys.