/lit/ - Literature

>>13225312
Retard. Most suggestions have worker-owned companies have a share-based system, where high-load or high-responsibility tasks get a bonus fraction for their burdens. There are always challenging tasks that need to be done, that require someone special and ambitious. Managers and directors are always needed to take care of paperwork or to direct efforts. The goal is, however, to guarantee that those positions are filled only by those who have collective approval and earned respect, not by those buying their way in.
In addition, a setup with more or less one-man-one-share guarantees larger efforts, as every member of the working community has the incentive to maximize their collective productivity, as it shows directly in their own income. On top of this, with the workplace community deciding over who is hired, only individuals that are seen as socially compatible with the community and considered worth the "sacrifice" of having another share to share with, are naturally voted for and hired. The same applies to leadership positions. Those who are considered skilled and likely to improve productivity and quality-of-work are of course more likely to be approved of.
With lazing about being socially stigmatized by this arrangement --with it being a literal drain to all-- a system where the community has cause and power to expunge such drains, is without question more flexible and productive.
Naturally, the community can also decide NOT to expand their productivity. They might consider reaching certain level of income and effort sufficient to live and thrive by, and value more free time instead.

This is unlike under wage labour, where a fixed income is the norm, extra effort being rewarded is the exception rather than the rule, etc.