 |
| the owners react |
Senator Sanders identifies himself as a democratic socialist, but his announced policies so far are basically progressive left. However, Sanders is set to announce a policy proposal that actually qualifies as socialist. Academically socialism is characterized by worker control of the means of production. The Green New Deal nor Medicare for All does this. However, the Senator from Vermont's most ambitious economic plan to date is his employee ownership plan.
According to the Washington Post under the plan for which details have yet to be revealed, big corporations will be required to invest
2% of their stock per year in a fund to be owned by employees, and that would pay out regular dividends to those employee-owners. The employee equity position could go as high as 50%, giving them effective control of corporate policy. As such this ambitious shift in ownership from capitalists to workers is a democratic redistribution of wealth, and socialist by any generally accepted definition of the term.
What is perhaps more surprising is that polling done on the subject of employee stock ownership shows that a majority of 'Mericans support the idea of becoming corporate "stakeholders". A policy research group in DC said that its polling shows 55% of respondents support the idea and only 20% opposed it.
[chart below] The idea is not a new one. The British Labour Party proposed similar, “Inclusive Ownership Funds" in a 2017 manifesto. That plan is capped at 10% of a company's capitalization, but enough to give control to workers in Britain's fragmented company ownership structure. The Labour proposal goes farther than just employee ownership; the Party plans to bring water, energy, the railways, and the Royal Mail back to public ownership. Sanders' plan harks back to the
1976 Meidner plan which failed in Sweden because the Social Democratic Party backed out fearing the proposal was too radical. The key difference between the original Bernie's current proposal and the Meidner Plan is that it contemplated worker investment funds across entire industry sectors, not just individual companies.
[flow chart, above] eventually resulting in collective ownership of the stock market within a few decades. Both the Meidner and Sanders' plans have the redistribution of wealth and worker participation in corporate control as goals, which will make other egalitarian reforms such as universal health care, public higher education, and debt forgiveness more viable.
The Meidner Group found that, "the modern economies of the west are filled to
 |
| growth in top incomes, credit NYT |
the brim with measures
against monopolies, cartels or trusts. But nonetheless, nobody denies
that the direction of economic development is essentially controlled by
and for owners of capital, and their interests." The is undeniably the situation in the US.
[see chart, right] The average 1% person has an
annual income of $21 million from capital.
The average hourly wage has grown a niggardly $2 even though per person income has doubled in the last forty years. As Beto O'Rouke might say, that is certainly F***ed Up!
Nevertheless, employee ownership does exist in some forms in the United States. Several large companies are majority owned by their employees: Publix Supermarkets, WL Gore & Associates (the makers of Gore-Tex), and Norton Publishers. Basing worker participation at the company level does lock in inequalities since some companies perform better than others. Social research reveals that companies that have worker ownership have fewer layoffs, and modestly higher wages. Shareholders may argue that allowing workers to own shares will dilute their value. Spoiler: shares are regularly diluted by corporations to give senior management stock options as compensation. The average annual dilution for chief executive and senior management pay is 2.5 percent. So why not allow dilution to give workers a voice in managing the company? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And that, dear readers, is class politics.
