Mandy @ POLI 333D

One of the topics on democracy which interests me is the debate on democratic workplace. Scholars have argued that in aspiring to the highest democratic ideals, democracy should be extended to the workplace and that employees should have the right to self-governor their workplaces.[1] Emphasizing the importance of equality in economic resources, Robert Dahl gives a convincing argument for workplace democracy. Dahl argues that the ownership of economic enterprises should be handled be caution because it affects “the economic order for the distribution of resources, strategic positions, and bargaining strength, and hence for political equality.” [2] In other words, to ensure equal distribution of political power, economic arrangements should be seriously determined. Dahl assumes that because an advanced democracy would seek to strengthen its democratic process through achieving economic equality, it would aspire to extend democracy to economic enterprises.[3]

Undoubtedly, there are shortcomings of the centralized management style in current workplaces. For example, employees who are not responsible for decision-making are sometimes burdened by the poor decisions made by higher management. However, the disadvantages of workplace democracy are worth equal attention.  First, I am concerned about the wishes of the employees, who have other legitimate interests besides their work and may not want to participate in their companies’ management. In fact, it can be argued that demanding employees to manage their companies regardless of their will is an undemocratic practice. In addition to the problem of wishes, the problem of limited information for management should also be noted, especially in the cases of contract and part-time employees, who are more likely to concern about information about their tasks more than that about the company. Consequently, the competence of their capability to make relevant judgments raises the question of how to balance economic efficiency with democratic equality.

The conflict between economic ownership and democratic rights is described to be a result of capitalism. One solution to this conflict is to remove management rights from the shares in publicly-traded companies.[4] While this suggestion is legitimate because sometimes shareholders are less competent than employees in making efficient and effective decisions, its application is limited to publicly-traded companies but not to privately-owned companies, whose management is composed of owners themselves but not of shareholders.

Despite the difficulty to implement workplace democracy, the practice is not destined to be unrealistic. Indeed, progresses have been made since 1980s. In British Columbia, the province instilled democratic elements into the workplace through its privatization of road maintenance in 1987.[5] The government not only encouraged employee groups to present proposals, but also provided incentives for them to create their own companies, which could lease infrastructures from the government if they were approved by the according criteria.[6] Although such privatization was aimed for improving economic efficiency than democratic equality, it reflects that the extension of democratic processes into the workplaces is practical.

Tags: No Comments