Why has no candidate ever spoken out in favour of Codetermination?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Machjo
Why has no candidate ever spoken out in favour of Codetermination?

I've never once heard or read of a candidate from any political party speak out in favour of codetermination laws so as to help democratize the economy. I'm wondering why that would be.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

What does "codetermination" mean?  It sounds like negotiating something...

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

It means having a worker representative on the board of directors.  It has helped but I for one believe the strength of the union movement is what propels Germany's economy not codetermination.  Corporate honchos will ignore worker representatives unless those representatives are from a strong union. The proof is in the German companies actions when they get into non unionized environments like the USA.

Quote:

“Respecting workers’ rights and needs benefits employees, their families, and a company’s bottom line. T-Mobile’s parent company became a leader in the telecom industry in Europe by working with their employees and proving that there is a better way to do business,” says Kimberly Freeman Brown, Executive Director of American Rights at Work Education Fund. “It is inexcusable that our dysfunctional labor law system allowed T-Mobile USA to disregard its employees’ rights here in the United States.”

The failure of U.S. labor law to protect America’s workers from pervasive unionbusting is well-documented. Yet little attention has been paid to the practice of foreign companies operating in cooperation with their employees in their home countries, where labor laws are stronger, while failing to respect the rights of their workers in the United States. The same company, under two different systems of law, results in two very different situations for workers.

Based on Deutsche Telekom’s strong record of supporting workers’ rights in Europe, the American labor movement helped open the door for the company to enter the U.S. wireless market in 2001. Larry Cohen, President of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), says, “Since then, we have seen no respect for workers’ rights, just eight years of intolerance and hostility toward workers and complete disregard of their rights to organize and bargain collectively. It’s now time to hold DT and T-Mobile USA accountable.”

The disparities between employees of Deutsche Telekom on opposite sides of the Atlantic have led to an unprecedented partnership between U.S. and German workers. CWA and ver.di, which is Germany’s largest union, have joined forces to create a new union known as TU to collectively advance fair treatment and collective bargaining for all DT workers.

“We believe that through this new union, we will contribute to better working conditions for workers in both countries,” says Lothar Schröder, member of the Federal Executive of ver.di. “Management must get used to the idea that we are representing the interests not only of German workers but of American workers as well. This is the right response to globalization.”

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/press-center/2009-press-releases/new...

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks.

Jacob Richter

The Venezuelan model of co-management is far superior.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Jacob Richter wrote:

The Venezuelan model of co-management is far superior.

Good point. Codetermination is nothing like co-management. Which is precisely why they can ignore worker representatives when there is no union. 

Machjo

Boom Boom wrote:

What does "codetermination" mean?  It sounds like negotiating something...

 

There's not a lot of info on it on the net, which might be the reason you haven't come across it. But online I have found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

Machjo

Northern Shoveler wrote:

It means having a worker representative on the board of directors.  It has helped but I for one believe the strength of the union movement is what propels Germany's economy not codetermination.  Corporate honchos will ignore worker representatives unless those representatives are from a strong union. The proof is in the German companies actions when they get into non unionized environments like the USA.

 

It doesn't compare since German companies operating in the USA are not bound by codetermination. It's a jurisdictional thing, ya know.

Machjo

But again, why has no candidate for election ever brought this up? I'm not even asking that it be an official party platform, but merely that of a candidate in his local riding. Or in Parliament, that it can be presented as a private members' bill with each MP voting his conscience. I'm not even asking that it be part of any party platform, but why has not even an individual MP ever discussed ideas like codetermination or other similar policies?

Machjo

Machjo wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

It means having a worker representative on the board of directors.  It has helped but I for one believe the strength of the union movement is what propels Germany's economy not codetermination.  Corporate honchos will ignore worker representatives unless those representatives are from a strong union. The proof is in the German companies actions when they get into non unionized environments like the USA.

 

It doesn't compare since German companies operating in the USA are not bound by codetermination. It's a jurisdictional thing, ya know.

It also goes the other way, whereby a US company based in Germany would have to abide by codetermination whereas the parent company in the US would not have to. Again, it's jurisidictional thing.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I don't believe for a minute that having one or two workers on the Board of that company in the US would have changed a thing.  Capitalists only give up what they are forced to give up they don't play nice just because someone with voice but no power asks them too.  I find your arguments very naive because they presume that the company boards will listen when they are not being pressured.  That has not been my real life experience with employers.  There are few benevolent dictators in the corporate world.

Doug

There can be codeterminaton without strong unions - see France - but in that case you also need a strong state to make it work - again see France. It's hard to see how we get to French, German or Scandinavian models of codetermination from where we are in Canada. And very true, Northern Shoveler, the experience with codetermination in Europe has been mixed - there are boards that nicely balance the interests of owners and workers, and then you have examples like what happened at Volkswagen where labour representatives are coopted or outright bribed by the rest of the board.

Machjo

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I don't believe for a minute that having one or two workers on the Board of that company in the US would have changed a thing.  Capitalists only give up what they are forced to give up they don't play nice just because someone with voice but no power asks them too.  I find your arguments very naive because they presume that the company boards will listen when they are not being pressured.  That has not been my real life experience with employers.  There are few benevolent dictators in the corporate world.

It allows not just a voice but a vote. And not just one vote, but 50%. Of course the chairman of the board must always be elected by the shareholders and gets the tiebreaking vote, so it is skewed slightly in favour of the shareholders. But then again, it's their money there, so that's still reasonable. But still, 50% of the vote on the board is considerable influence.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Quote:

In systems with co-determination the employees are given seats in a board of directors in one-tier management systems or seats in a supervisory board and sometimes management board in two-tier management systems.

In two-tier systems the seats in supervisory boards are usually limited to 1/3 of all members. In some systems the employees can select 1/2 of all members of supervisory boards, but a representative of shareholders is always the president and has the deciding vote. The employee representatives in management boards are not present in all systems. They are always limited to a workers director, who votes only on matters concerning employees.

In one-tier systems with co-determination the employees usually have only one or two representatives in a board of directors. Sometimes they are also given seats in certain committees (e.g. the audit committee). They never have representatives among the executive directors.

The typical two-tier system with co-determination is the German system. The typical one-tier system with co-determination is the Swedish system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

 

While the 50% rule is true at some companies it is not universal and in the end the company has the hammer in its hands.  The only hammer a worker has is the ability to join with other workers to pressure a company into treating them with respect and dignity.  Without external pressure from a strong union, codetermination IMO is merely window dressing and in non union companies it might even hinder the process of unionizing.