126.96.36.199 Work Division
It is visible from the earlier overview
that the market economy does not have the operative possibility to establish
long-term stability. A stable system of business activity can only be
established by a planned economy. Planned activity needs to be based on known
social needs. In such circumstances, all producers get associated and organize
themselves to meet social demand. In such a form of production the workers would
need to meet all their needs as workers and consumers.
Associated labour requires an organized
division of work. In the complex process of production, the work of workers is
markedly interconnected and mutually dependent, which requires a high degree of
preciseness and discipline in production relations within the work process.
Managers in all community activities will carry out such work organization.
Managers need to analyze the working potential of workers, the potential of the
means of production and market needs, and then orient the associated labour so
as to be able to most efficiently satisfy the social needs.
And finally, each worker freely competes for the exercise of the right to work at any work post. Management establishes the necessary productivity and accountability for each work post. However, each worker may expand the obligations assigned to their work in the function of quantity and quality of such work, if they contribute to improved productivity of the collective, which is evaluated by management.
Workers are bound to comply with the requirements of their management and the contracted obligations; however, they will be free to act autonomously, in line with the autonomy granted by their management. The same applies to the relationship between the lower- and higher-ranking management. If production were performed according to the requirements of higher-ranking management only, it would be exclusively centralized. Management of the economy cannot organize the entire production. In that regard, the higher-ranking management must grant to the lower-ranking management an adequate autonomy in their work.
If a new production would require a larger amount of cash assets, or a larger volume of work engagement, the lower-ranking management will have to seek permission therefore from the higher-ranking management. The lower-ranking management may dispose fully independently of a smaller amount of money or a smaller quantity of work for the needs of expanding the economy. The only a optimal relationship between the higher- and lower-ranking management's decisions needs to be such so as to allow the economy to realize the largest productivity.
A higher-ranking manager who would give only a few rights to the lower-ranking management would be overburdened with making less important decisions, while the lower-ranking management would be limited in its entrepreneurship, which would result in stagnation and the lagging behind of the economy. If the higher-ranking management gave too man authorities to the lower-ranking managers, the possibility of coordinating actions would decrease. A great freedom would bring along the inconveniences of an anarchic market economy. In this regard, the higher-ranking management needs to maintain a permanent contact with the lower-ranking management. It would in that way receive feedback about the level of work capacity utilization in certain plants, which allows a constant spill over of work and a greater utilization of work capacity.
A worker who offers the highest productivity and responsibility and the lowest price of their own current labour or, more precisely, the lowest income is the most suitable for the collective staff and the society as a whole and therefore they should get the right to work at such work post. Each work, management included, may be defined in the function of productivity, responsibility and the work price. In order to more easily compare the mentioned different work functions, it is necessary to express for each work post the mentioned values by the following coefficient:
C-work competition =
This formula will require the coordination of influences of each variable. After that it will give the value that points to the competitive capability of a worker for a needed work post. Each worker proposes a magnitude of coefficients according to their own capabilities for the job they wish to perform. A worker who offers a higher productivity, a higher labour responsibility, and a lower current work price will win the right to work at the desired work post. Besides that, the realized higher C-of work competition allows each worker to take the work post of another worker with the obligation to assume all labour obligations and responsibilities of that work post.
Each work has its measure of productivity. Today, the measure of productivity can be in the easiest, most comprehensive and most efficient manner determined by cash profit on the market. Cash profit in the free market involves all elements of productive business activity such as the quantity and quality of work, cost effectiveness, rationality, usability, serviceability, etc. Cash profit is the social evaluation of the success of business performance of independent workers and enterprises. However, there are no commodity-money relations within the enterprise, so that productivity needs to be expressed by the quantity and quality of the goods and services produced in a determined time interval.
Where it is not possible to establish exactly the labour productivity by the produced goods or where the establishment of productivity would take too much time, productivity can be expressed by the assessment of the operating result value. An existing productivity expressed by grade for each work post has the value of 1 (one). A worker believing that they can increase the productivity by 10% will offer the assessment of their own productivity higher by 10% of existing productivity, and the value of their envisaged productivity will then be 1.1. The work assessment may replace all other forms of labour productivity valuation. Each worker can show his C-productivity by the formula:
C-of envisaged productivity =
The envisaged productivity expressed in money, products or work estimate, and if identical with the existing one, will form the coefficient 1(one). A coefficient larger than 1, will indicate a work more productive than the existing one. A worker who offers a larger coefficient will exercise their right the desired work post.
Once the accounting period is over, it is necessary to valorize the realized productivity in order to establish the success of the work offer made by the worker. The realized productivity may be presented by a coefficient with the following formula:
C – of realized productivity =
The realized productivity expressed by cash profit on the market may efficiently show the success of the business activity and other forms of productivity valorization are, therefore, not necessary. However, the said form of work valorization is applicable only to self-employed entrepreneurs and management of the associated labour in the economy.
In direct production of commodities, the volume of realized and envisaged quantity of products and services may establish productivity. Where productivity cannot be exactly expressed by the quantity of products and services or where establishment of the quantity would be time-consuming, assessment of indirect work value will be introduced.
The grades for workers' operating results may be given by managers, the managing board and by workers among themselves. Managing boards in enterprises will monitor the important improvements of the operation of workers and enterprises, as well as the significant damages that the workers and enterprises may cause. Their grades will objectively show the bad work of the workers as well as any improvement in operation. Further, the workers know best among them the quality of each worker. Each worker may be entitled to grade the work of several other workers as a response to the envisaged productivity of each worker.
The grade received will be a confirmation or negation of the envisaged grade that each worker has given to themselves as an offer of their future productivity. The proposed subjective grade of a worker's productivity will get its objective confirmation or negation, which will influence the development of objective value categories in production.
Work valorization is necessary not only for establishing the accountability of workers for the realized productivity, but also as determination that defines recognition of the individual's essential powers. The individual needs an objective scale of values in order to get to know themselves objectively, as well as the possibility of their own upgrading.
The coefficient of realized productivity that realizes the value higher than 1(one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume larger than envisaged, and will also realize a higher income. And vice-versa, the coefficient of realized productivity smaller than 1(one) will represent the productivity realized in a volume smaller than envisaged, and income will also be smaller.
Responsibility of Workers
Without a defined method of bearing responsibility, workers would not be bound to implement their proposed productivity. In this way, their declarations in favour of the work competition would be exaggerated, and operating results could not follow them.
It is necessary to set up a system by which every worker will bear responsibility for the realization of their envisaged productivity. It needs to be based on the coefficient of realized productivity. The system of responsibility bearing needs to be thorough, multi-layered and efficient.
Each worker needs to bear responsibility for their work, and since their work is non-alienable from the work of the collective, they thus also bear responsibility for the productivity of the collective. The level of responsibility assumed by a worker may be set by the coefficient of responsibility.
Let it be assumed that the average coefficient of responsibility gets the value of 1 (one). Let it be assumed that the interval between the minimal and maximal responsibility is 0.1 to 10. The responsibility set by the value equal to 0.1 would be the minimum, and that set by number 10 would be the maximum responsibility. Enterprises may set a separate minimal coefficient of responsibility for each individual work post.
Let each worker set the level of their responsibility that they may assume for their work and for the work of the collective expressed by the coefficient. Such responsibility must be at least the same or higher than the minimally established responsibility for a concrete work post. A higher coefficient of responsibility needs to render a higher work competitiveness in the work market for performing work at every public work post, and vice-versa.
The coefficient of responsibility will have to reflect the distribution of incomes. Less responsibility assumed will mathematically reduce the impact of the realized and foreseen productivity on the level of income. On the other hand, a worker who offers a greater responsibility will realize a higher income than the worker offering less responsibility in the case of equally good business operation. And vice versa, such a worker will realize an income smaller than that of their rival in the case of equally bad business performance. As each work leaves in some form, a lasting consequence on the society, the coefficient of responsibility will also need to influence the value of past labour through past labour points.
The total gross quantity of past labour points of all workers in the commune needs to be equal to the realized cash profit of the commune. With the rise in productivity in the economy, workers will also realize a larger cash profit, and will thereby also acquire a larger quantity of past labour points for distribution. And vice-versa, when losses occur in the economy the workers lose past labour points.
Economic enterprises that realize a rise in productivity will realize a surplus of cash assets. They will distribute that surplus to workers in the form of past labour points, proportionately to their coefficient of responsibility. If the envisaged and necessary productivity are equal, there will be no change in the quantity of past labour points of workers. And finally, if the difference of the quoted productivities shows a loss of money, the difference will be deducted from the past labour points of all workers of an enterprise, proportionately to the coefficient of responsibility.
Enterprises in non-profit sectors, such as administration, possibly health care, education and other activities proclaimed as such by the commune through its leaders and the assembly, do not realize direct income in the market. Instead, they realize it on the basis of appropriations from the commune’s revenue.
In non-profit companies, the measure of the operating result value needs to be based on realized productivity in the function of the quantity and quality of operating results. The work quality needs to be expressed by a satisfaction evaluation form of the service user. A higher grade received from the service user will be equivalent to a higher cash profit of economic enterprises. In this way, non-profit companies will have a measure for productivity of, and responsibility for the business activity.
The system needs to fully equalize the measure of success in the business activity of profit and non-profit companies. By applying mathematical coefficients, it is possible to compare the revenue of the profit economy and the realized productivity of the non-profit companies expressed in any magnitude, including the assessment of productivity.
All unemployed inhabitants will also have some sort of a C-responsibility set by leaders and adopted by the assembly of the commune. They can, on this basis, receive or lose past labour points but in a smaller quantity than workers in production. In this way, the entire population of the commune will bear responsibility for the commune's productivity.
Since the production or, more precisely, the cash profit in the market may show oscillations in the periods of accounting, collective responsibility by way of past labour points needs to be linked with the period when the business activity of an enterprise shows objective indicators of success. The accounting period may be different for different activities; however, it may be considered that productivity that shows smaller or larger oscillations in monthly accountings will in a period of one year give a real account of productivity.
Once the quantity of past labour points that each enterprise realize or lose as a whole is known, then distribution or deduction of these points will be carried out proportionately to the coefficients of responsibility of workers. By applying the computer technology in the period of accounting, the distribution of past labour points as well as their deduction can be quickly and simply calculated for an unlimited number of workers by the formula:
Worker-1 : Worker-2 : Worker-3 : …. : Worker-n =
C-respons.-1 : C-respons.-2 : C-respons.-3 : …. : C-respons.-n
Then computer technology can quickly and easily produce the results in the form of:
Worker-1 = +/- Quantity of Points-1,
Worker-2 = +/- Quantity of Points-2,
Worker-3 = +/- Quantity of Points-3,
Worker-n = +/- Quantity of Points-n
The obtained values are different magnitudes expressed in past labour points that are added to (or deducted from) the quantities of past labour points held by workers.
Example: A worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 1.5 will realize on account of the responsibility function a gain of past labour points three times larger than the worker who stated a coefficient of responsibility of 0.5 in the case of a rise in profit of the enterprise, and a three times larger loss of the past labour points in the case of losses of the enterprise.
In the proposed system, each worker bears responsibility for the work of the collective proportionately to the stated size of the coefficient of responsibility. In this way, workers become active creators of their own conveniences and inconveniences, and are no longer passive collective members. Such responsibility will require that workers become familiar with the consequences of doing business, which will largely contribute to overcoming alienation in the process of production.
In the capitalistic form of production, a larger profit is as a general rule related with a higher risk of investing money. The new system introduces C-responsibilities with which the workers can, according to their own will, speculate the risk assumed for the success of the collective production. However, such speculation is non-alienable from the direct work of the workers, which will contribute to the rise of direct responsibility in production. A higher responsibility requires a higher degree of mutual confidence, community, which will result in a larger productivity and prosperity of society. The higher degree of responsibility will be formed by workers who are more familiar with the flows of business, who have more confidence in themselves and in the collective as a whole.
So far the individual participation of workers in collective responsibility has been described. Now what needs to be defined is the individual responsibility of workers in the process of production. Workers individually might produce benefits or damages in the collective process of production. In order to create a productive orientation of society it will be necessary to define within the production process a principle of remunerating and sanctioning the workers by a certain number of past labour points. Such remunerating and sanctioning needs to be carried out by arbitration commission of the company in accordance with the accepted company regulation.
An enterprise’s management may also make the assessment of whether a certain work is successful or harmful. However, mutual assessment by workers is perhaps the best way for establishing individual responsibility. Mutual assessment of the work would reward the good workers and sanctions the bad in the function of the proposed coefficient of responsibility. Let it be assumed that each positive assessment brings the worker past labour points in the quantity of the autonomously stated coefficient of responsibility. And vice-versa, let it be assumed that each negative assessment deducts past labour points to the worker in the function of the autonomously stated coefficient of responsibility.
Such a system of assessing the work value and of bearing responsibility represents in the broadest sense all influences that the work brings along. It may reward each convenience and sanction each inconvenience that a worker inflicts to another worker or to the community in its entirety. Each worker will care to not inflict by their activity, or to inflict as little as possible, inconvenience to any other individual and to bring to every individual as much convenience as possible. This will represent the substance of a productive social orientation that will promote inter-personal relations.
Example: Let us assume arbitrarily that the average income in the commune is 100,000 monetary units. In that case, the average quantity of past labour points is 100,000 points. If a worker cannot assume a great responsibility for their work, they will opt for a small coefficient of responsibility. If they propose their own coefficient of responsibility at the level of 0,1, one positive vote would then bring them 0,1 point, and five negative votes -0,5 point. Then in the first case, the worker with the average quantity of past labour points will have 100,000.1, and in second case 99,999.5 points.
A worker wishing to increase their work competitiveness must also increase their coefficient of responsibility. The coefficient of responsibility of 1,2 will bring 12 points to the worker who gets ten positive votes. If the same worker has 100,000 past labour income points, they will have 100.012 points after the assessment. If they, instead, get 20 negative votes, 24 points will be deducted, and will thus after that have in total 99.976 income points. As accounting is done on a monthly basis, such a system will require a highly responsible work. I have to repeat that the examples are fully arbitrary and that implementation of such measures in practice will require a broad study and social acceptability.
There is no doubt that in such a system each worker will be cautious before stating their own productivity and degree of responsibility. Such cautiousness will prevent hasty statements and voluntarism. The system will allow each worker to get to know their own capacity, to act in accordance with their own capacity and thus meet their own needs. Such an act is a precondition for a constructive orientation of the society as a whole.
Responsibility is some sort of fear of inconveniences. The fear of inconveniences gives the individual a driving force that is a condition for reaching a convenience. When an inconvenience is unreachable, it is hard to find a reason for someone to set into action, because where there is no possibility for inconveniences to occur there may not be conveniences, either.
The system protects nobody against malevolent voting. Therefore, anomalies are possible on the occasion of voting, which cannot be a rule, because such a society would tend to its own destruction. Generally, the workers bringing more conveniences to the society will profiteer, and those creating major inconveniences will lose.
Authoritative managers are most exposed to particularly unfavourable expressions of views. Therefore, one may expect their withdrawal in favour of cooperative managers who will take into account remarks coming from the workers, who will seek for the most favourable solutions for doing business and direct, on the basis of collective agreements, the economic activity.
The unemployed population also bears responsibility for their activity; however, the coefficient of responsibility is set by the commune's leadership. This degree of responsibility may be lower than the responsibility for production, however, sufficient so as that all inhabitants of the commune behave with respect vis-à-vis their environment. This means that the unemployed population, if bringing conveniences by its activity, may also be rewarded by an individual community member by way of adding income-based points equal to the level of the community's coefficient of responsibility, and vice-versa. In this way, the entire population of the commune mutually rewards conveniences and sanctions inconveniences.
Once the annual accounting is complete, total gross quantity of past labour points of all workers needs to be equal to the average periodical profit of the economy in the commune. After all additions and deductions of past labour points relating to individual responsibility of all inhabitants, it is necessary to carry out the settlement of the total quantity of past labour points of all workers and of the realized profit of the commune. The final settlement might be effected proportionately to the quantity of past labour points of the population in the same manner as awards and penalties of workers are calculated in companies.
Current Labour Price
Finally, it is the price of current labour that forms the competitive power in selecting the work. The current labour price depends on all conveniences and inconveniences that the work brings in realizing the necessary productivity in relation to the conveniences and inconveniences of other forms of work or from outside of work.
The system envisages that workers set by themselves the current labour price by a coefficient within a value range of two numbers that may be from 0.1 to 10. The price of average current labour will have the value of 1(one); a work twice as inconvenient will have the price equal to number 2, while the work twice as convenient will have a price of 0.5.
A worker who seeks a lower current labour price on the labour market for equal productivity will realize greater work competitiveness. The system of work competition will for each work post set a limit value of the current labour price, which will be accepted as objective by the society. Such a current labour price will exert impact on the creation of an objective system of income distribution, which will overcome the hitherto unsolved problems of income distribution in the associated labour.
When a worker has no possibility of work selection they must accept work conditions irrespective of how much they suit to them. In such cases work is a coercion that brings inconveniences to the society. The new system allows every worker to find the work that brings them greater individual conveniences, whereby the work, while lasting, may become a value that promotes the society in any respect.
In the case that the work becomes a value, a worker holding a larger quantity of past labour income-based points will be able, in order to increase the competitive power, to reduce the current labour price because their income will still be sufficiently high. A worker with a smaller value of past labour will withdraw, because their income would be too small.
On the other hand, if a worker aspires for greater conveniences in the operating result, they will seek less valuable forms of work or, more precisely, less convenient works that will allow a higher current labour price, and will realize a higher income. Less convenient forms of work will be presented by a high current labour price. Such a price will form an expensive work and, therefore, management will be gradually phasing it out by introducing automation, or by redistributing the work.
No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job and who, for their productivity, bears responsibility to the collective. Therefore, public companies will easily become significantly more productive and more profitable than the private ones. The owners of private companies, under the competitive pressures of public companies, will try to increase their productivity in a similar way as public companies, but they could not go far enough because they simply would not have the operational capabilities to oppose the public companies. Specifically, private entrepreneurs would not be able to accept the participation of workers in decision-making and profit sharing processes of the company, because in that case they would no longer be able to gain any advantage in their own companies in relation to the workers. What is private ownership for then? Given that workers in private companies would not have the freedom as offered with employment in public companies, and could not participate in sharing the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies.
I believe that already at the beginning of the implementation, man private companies in the region will voluntarily join the new system. Owners of private companies will get the equivalent value that presents their productive power, in the values of past labour points. In addition, owners of private companies will find out that large companies will be more stable to conjuncture changes which will ensure a greater stability of the economy and the values they possess. If the owners of private companies today would have the chance to join such a company, they would most likely do so, because it would preserve more of their capital values in the frequent crises of capitalism.
Work competition allows each individual to provide for
optimal conveniences. In such a system all work posts will be equally sought
because the conveniences and inconveniences brought by the work will be
balanced. This type of balance is a precondition for the balance of the society
as a whole.
The concept of power is in the
present-day society considerably alienated because an individual has throughout
their lifetime lived oppressed by authoritative forces. That has brought to them
an intensified feeling of inferiority and creates, as a reaction, a need for
superiority. The individual of today has an interest in any form of affirmation
through competitions in sports, culture, possession of money, etc. Being a
winner represents a great value to the individual, because it is precisely there
where their power is manifested and proved. Victory compensates the subjective
experience of impotence.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
November 13, 2013