I suspect this would result in a lot of companies being run into the ground, as executives would focus on keeping employees happy at the cost of the business. "Vote for me, and everyone gets a raise and a bonus!"
When the interests of employees are put ahead of the success of the company, in the long run the employees end up losing because the company will fail, or at least need to lay people off.
Also, most employees simply aren't capable of understanding or judging executives more than a few levels above them. I'd hate to work somewhere where the junior devs get to pick the engineering directors, for example.
And that's the argument put forward in 1700s and 1800s for not extending the vote beyond those with land.
Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company.
Maybe not. Maybe we shall fall into totalitarian dystopias and the dream of universal suffrage will enter myth.
The real reason why the powers that be oppose workplace democracy is because then the well-being of the people that work at the company will be prioritized over making profits for the shareholders.
> Maybe employees will make intelligent informed decisions about who is actually capable as an executive. Maybe they will make more effective decisions themselves if they have a greater say and commitment to the company.
Yes, intelligent decisions. Such a red herring. For what is an “intelligent decision” in the market economy? Maximizing profits. So either the workers work within the bourgeoisie logic of maximizing profits—creating the same problems for themselves as they had under command economy rule—or they make “unintelligent decisions” by proritizing their collective selves. With the former they “fail the test” of this red herring scenario because intelligent decisions according to the workers are not the same as intelligent decisions according to the bourgeoisie.
Ok - here's my take on intelligent decisions. The European Union has 27 countries in it - each nation has a proud and often violent past, with different cultural triggers. Politicians in Hungary can put their hands on hearts and talk of knights holding back the Mongols, Politicians in Spain can talk of defeating Moors, and guess what, Hungarian voters don't give two hoots about El Cid and Polish voters laugh if the Greek Prime minister lauds over Thermopylae
What's left is politicians wanting to do something for the home crowds, and realising wrapping themselves in the flag won't cut it - so they go for stuff that will benefit everyone - build a railway from the tip of Italy to the top of Sweden ? Yeah why not that ought to provide a stronger market. We can sell that back home.
If you are diverse enough the phase space of intelligent decisions becomes fairly narrow and surprisingly good for everyone.
When the interests of employees are put ahead of the success of the company, in the long run the employees end up losing because the company will fail, or at least need to lay people off.
Also, most employees simply aren't capable of understanding or judging executives more than a few levels above them. I'd hate to work somewhere where the junior devs get to pick the engineering directors, for example.