Wouldn't it have been better if ownership of the company, essentially comprised of the workers and managers, actually passed to the workers who knew what they were doing?
To me this just highlights the absurdity of capitalist ownership.
For them sure, not for OP and family? It wasn't run on a total profit share before OP's father died, it would be weird (and very bad incentive) if that suddenly changed.
No doubt that sort of thing happens sometimes, or especially donating an inheritance to charity, but it being the default would be more absurd to me, when it was already in 'capitalist ownership'.
But you seem to imply that if capitalism didn't exist, nor would chemical companies, etc. Something like this business would still exist if there was a need for it under almost any political-economic system.
There are numerous other ways for people to cooperate and work together, partnerships, co-operatives, etc, etc, that do not involve single individuals reaping all the profit of everyone's else's hard work.
IMHO any collection of workers deserve that their 'owner' at least understand the nature of their work, and ideally they should themselves be owners.
There are a series of overlooked axioms in that train of thought, in that:
- All people involved are capable of learning skills outside of their knowledge domain as quickly as those inside those domains (People interchangeability)
- All people involved won't have ideological splits for the direction of the company
- That everyone involved wants to partake in the risks of ownership (market uncertainties/shifts, illiquid buyout scenarios, dealing with ownership transfer headaches, new incoming co-owners, ownership dilution, etc.)
- That there is time outside of their work to manage the overhead of this co-op
- That the talent required to ease their workloads is receptive to the co-op concept, or cheap enough to hire (not likely) in cases where they just want a stable income (see point 3)
- That the decision overhead from the co-op is lower than the standard corporate structure (possible, & likely the easiest axiom to fulfill out of the list, if the time of the co-owners is cheaper)
The author of the post responded to a similar question made earlier: Certain mental, financial, & cultural logistics are just not there/available given the time-frame involved. The co-op ideal is wonderful, but it requires a series of fulfillments that not everyone is as receptive towards.
Some of the largest companies in Europe are co-ops, and they don't require employees to become CEOs overnight. Those companies still have recognizeable structures, just that the profits don't get sucked out at the whim of a small group of 'owners'; the employees have a stake in those profits and some say in how the company (that they maintain, and likely helped to build) is run.
The fact that there are co-ops still doesn't refute the fact that a series of prerequisites need to be fulfilled, just so that the co-op doesn't collapse in on itself. Co-ops exist, only after the requirements are fulfilled.
Furthermore (and more important for me personally), axiom 3 (That everyone involved wants to partake in the risks of ownership) still isn't addressed in the given response: What if I found a job in a co-op, but I don't want the profit sharing & just want a fixed salary?
So far, the best procedure that I've seen addressing this issue allows for the existence of non-member workers, from which workers can invest a fixed sum to become member workers:
To me this just highlights the absurdity of capitalist ownership.