We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Rights for Cooperative Production
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2049
Description[?]:
| Every place of work should have the opportunity to adopt co-operative working, allowing all staff to benefit equally from efficient and effective practices, innovation, better equipment and re-investment, based upon free and fair democratic decision-making. The staff of any place of work may vote annually to convert their place of work to the system of co-operative production, a simple majority being sufficient to validate the immediate transition. Amendments 1. Following a decision to opt for co-operative production, non-staff stakeholders shall by, negotiation, receive compensation defined within one of the following options: a. 45% share in profits and 45% share in the equity of the operation, fully transferrable, but the co-opertaive must be given first refusal upon any sale. b. A compensation package covering the current equity (independently valued) of the operation and five years' worth of profits, pegged at the current level, the whole being payable in instalments over 20 years. 2. To opt for co-operative production, 55% of staff are required to vote in favour. 3. A self-funding Co-operative Production Funding Agency shall be created to assist in the transition and to provide a central resource for compensation agreements. a. The CPFA shall be funded wholly by subscriptions, levies, donations or other such payments from a proportion of additional revenue gathered from Co-operative Production Operations. b. The full profile of the CPFA to be established through a separate bill. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:54:26, May 02, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | We are behind this bill 100%, the CNT/AFL has its roots in trade unions, and is a party of the workers. Decision making bodies like workers coucils, that allow all workers to equally benefit from their production can only be a good thing. |
| Date | 22:15:11, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Getting mighty crowded on the left here! |
| Date | 01:07:11, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The player behind the Council is unfamiliar with the phrase "co-operative production" and would appreciate more infomation. And yes, far too many leftists here these days. :D |
| Date | 02:07:55, May 03, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Many apologies to our colleagues in the Amystian Council, the phrase "co-operative production" isn't meant to be obscure. It is meant to define simply the democratic principle of giving all people who work together, to provide a particular service or product, the right to engage in the efficient management of output, to achieve an equal share in the benefits to themselves and to their customers. |
| Date | 09:49:52, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | So essentially an attempt to abolish management by making everyone the manager? The Council fails to see how this could possibly be good for the economy. |
| Date | 17:18:58, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | A workplace should be democratic as an ideal, yes. But how will the rights of other stakeholders who are not actually employees of a business be protected? |
| Date | 20:34:23, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Democratic as an ideal, perhaps. Democratic as a feasible reality? Hardly. Is this meant to imply that every man has the intelligence, experience, and ability to make management decisions for any company he works for? The left already succeeded in creating unions; let businesses have at least a bit of a chance to turn a profit. |
| Date | 21:28:03, May 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Never! We will fight to the death* to destroy business! *Not really, we'll just try getting a few bills through. |
| Date | 21:39:09, May 03, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Amystian Council - conversely, do you imply that every man who has money is able to make decisions for a company about which he knows nothing? Every member of staff working in a particular product or service area certainly has experience. CCF: We are unaware of any threat to "other stakeholders". |
| Date | 02:57:47, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The Council does not see where the Albert Party came up with such a question. The Council supports the idea that workers' councils would simply decrease efficiency of production, both through costs to set up the new company structure, time to develop the new structure, and the fact that many workers will have little knowledge of actually running a business. Unions already exist to ensure that workers get a "fair" piece of the profits. This is unnecessary. |
| Date | 03:20:14, May 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Au Contraire, history (Namely, the Spanish Revolution) has proven that efficiency actually increases when workers are given control over their own destinies, through worker's councils. |
| Date | 09:18:22, May 04, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Closer analysis by our worthy colleagues of the Amystian Council will show that those who work within a business have extremely good knowledge about improving efficiency, quality and working practices. Their ability to deliver more effectively and more efficiently is hampered by the need to sustain the ever-increasing demands of those who only reap the benefits of their toil. |
| Date | 09:59:06, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The Council still fails to see how this can possibly be true for all places of employment. It seems illogical that an assembly line worker or a janitor would be able to make managerial decisions affecting a large company. |
| Date | 17:08:42, May 04, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | What seems illogical is that a co-operatively run operation would elect someone who was unfit to make managerial decisions. As they would all benefit from good decisions, they would choose the most able person. Currently, the only criteria for being able to make these "managerial decisions" is to have inherited a wad load of cash. |
| Date | 17:13:07, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | A hypothetical question: The employees of a factory decide to forma worker cooperative. The plant's owners agree. Is some sort of compensation paid to the existing owners? Does the worker coop have to buy the plant? Is only the plant made into a coop, or do distribution netwqqorks and so on associated with the business also come under the coop's jurisdiction? |
| Date | 22:58:31, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Seeing as most higher-level managers have at least a college degree, while many assemblyline workers and such have a high school diploma if that, there's a bit more of a requirement than inheritance. The Albert Party seems to believe that businesses are stuck in a feudal system of inherited lordship, when this simply is not the case. Additionally, as the CCF has shown, there are quite a few questions about this rather vaguely defined bill. |
| Date | 01:00:34, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The CCF were speaking hypothetically. Of course, defining themselves as "Co-operative", they clearly have the answers to their question. Not doing so would surely be misrepresentation to the electorate. With respect., if members of the Council make sweeping statements, we'd like to see some semblance of evidence. As it stands, this bill would not replace competent "higher level managers" with assembly line workers. It would make both accountable to the whole. Any vagueness appears to be in the understanding by the Council which is locked into an antiquated mindset of blue and white collar workers. |
| Date | 01:28:15, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The CCF spoke in a hypothetical that is entirely possible given the bill in question. The name holds little in the way of answers to the CCF's questions. Studies performed by the national census show that possession of a college degree is often correllated to higher positions in business. Studies from the University of Kregon at Palla further indicate that for the most part menial jobs are held by those without college degrees. If the bill does not replace the management, then what is the point? A company's management is already accountable - the company has to make a profit, and this includes keeping workers satisfied. Unions already exist to "aid" in this process. Does the Albert Party wish to imply that all citizens are equally capable of management decisions? The idea of blue and white collar workers exists because it is true. There is no company where all employees can easily be rotated into any other possible position within the company. |
| Date | 05:46:02, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The CCF does favour cooperatives, yes. The party name is an expression of a desire to achieve a society where all people are united in a cooperative effort to build a just world. Our questions are designed to elicit the best possible bill and to clarify exactly what sort of bill the Albert Party is proposing. We favour worker cooperatives achieved by the common consent of workers and management; we have some doubts as to whether cooperatives formed by unilateral seizure of the means of production by workers alone are the best strategy to pursue. Thus the hypothetical question. If we have understood the Albert Psarty's answer correctly, it is proposing democratization of the workplace, which seems desirable, although it does not come without costs. Another hypothetical: 55% of a workplace votes to form a cooperative, Current union law makes unions legal, but not compulsory. This law appears to impose a cooperative on those 45% who voted against forming a coop. Is this correct? |
| Date | 17:19:51, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The Amystian Council needs to break out of the mindset which sees "workers" and "bosses" as being in conflict. This proposal specifically (and very carefully) relates to all staff. Example A: Johnny Kildare is a hugely competent manager in the transportation section of the operation. He's shortened delivery routes, scheduled to avoid peak traffic periods and negotiated with manufacturers to get better trucks cheaper. Bill and Dave and Sebastian are drivers. They like the better routes, better trucks and more open roads. They like Johnny and chat to him often. Some of the things they chat about are new roads opening, impending road closures and fuel deals other drivers have told them about. Angus Mudlane is an idiot. He is the manager in charge of increasing distribution. He would like Bill and Dave and Sebastian to earn less money because then the profit margin would be higher and he would look good. Bill and Dave and Sebastian do not like Angus and do not talk to him. They like Samantha. She likes football. When they are talking about football, Bill and Dave and Sebastian tell Samantha what the people say when they deliver to them. "They're grumbling about the new shape" they tell her, or "quite a few are downsizing warehousing and want smaller deliveries more often." Samantha is assistant manager of distribution, with the best record in the operation for engaging new outlets and improving relations with existing ones. If Samantha was in charge of distribution, everyone would share in the improved effectiveness of the operation. Dave and Sebastian like Bill. They think he's a good driver. But they know he'd make a dingo's kidney out of the distribution job - and everyone would be worse off. |
| Date | 17:39:42, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | The real issue is the first one highlighted by CCF - the non-staff stakeholders. Quite frankly there are a thousand and one options for dealing with this. Here's some: 1. They get nothing. 2. They get a 49% share in profits and 49% share in the equity of the operation, fully transferrable. 2a. Fully transferable with the coop having first refusal. 3. They receive a full compensation package covering the current equity of the operation and five years worth of profits, pegged at the current level, the whole being payable in instalments over 10 years. 4. As the success of cooperative production spreads, a foundation, funded by a percentage of increased productivity, pays a full and fair settlement to non-staff stakeholders. 5. Any combination, version etc of the above. 6. Some other. The more recent hypothetical regarding percentages of voters and the compulsory conformity suffered by the minority is somewhat spurious coming from a party which has just specifically voted against a pledge to the principles of democracy (note: not abstained, voted against). However, let's consider this: In the given scenario, prior to electing to become a cooperative 100% of staff had whatever system was in operation imposed upon them. Therefore 55% have reason to be happier but the remaining 45% have no reason to be unhappier. |
| Date | 20:44:01, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | On the "democracy pledge": the CFF will not take loyalty oaths, whether we agree with the principles in them or not. We agree with the principles in this oath, but we abhor compulsory pledges of any kind and will always vote against them. Once we go down the loyalty oath slippery slope, what "pledge" will be demanded next? Better to nip the tendency in the bud. On the merits of this bill, again questions are designed to make a better bill. We have not said a word in opposition to the principles of the bill, which as stated we favour. We simply want the consequences to be considered first, and especially the consequences for non-staff stakeholders to be written into the law before it is passed. We could agree to option 2a, 3, or 4, depending on the views of other parties. |
| Date | 22:04:37, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | It was never an issue of workers and "bosses" being in conflict. It was an issue of workers possibly electing those who had no idea what they were doing. However, given the hypothetical example of the Albert Party, the Council has reconsidered its position. The Council is not of a mind to rescue collapsing businesses, and as such any businesses that fall victim to that which the Council fears will be replaced by more responsible and effective businesses. Job turnover may rise because of this bill, but it does seem somewhat reasonable. While the Council has not yet pledged support to this idea, it will likely not vote against it. |
| Date | 12:46:45, May 06, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Following observations made by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Amystian Council, three amendments have been added to this proposal. They cover: 1. Compensation 2. Majority required 3. Establishment of an administrative agency. (Details of the administrative agenct will follow in a separate bill) |
| Date | 17:54:35, May 06, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | ((Wow, well done!)) The CCF applauds the Albert Party for the thoughtful revisions, and will gladly support the bill. |
| Date | 21:14:54, May 06, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Thank you very kindly CCF - particularly for the persistence in thoroughly questioning the mechanics of the proposal. I believe we now have a viable and resilient proposition. However, it still has insufficient support, without either the Amystian Council or the MLP (ideally both) this will fail at vote. Do you have sufficient goodwill with either of your coalition members to help it through? |
| Date | 22:16:15, May 06, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | I think we can pass it without either of their support. The council has stated that they are unlikely to vote against it, so even if the MLP does, we have 41 seats to the MLP's 18. Go for it. |
| Date | 00:32:55, May 07, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights for Cooperative Production |
| Message | Thank you to CNT/AFL and CCF for your offers of support in this. Given their involvement in this debate so far, we'd like to hear any further comments from the Amystian Council before taking it to vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 59 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 29 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "We are told that this is an odious and unpopular tax. I never knew a tax that was not odious and unpopular with the people who paid it." - John Sherman |