It’s a neat idea but as outlined in the article, you have to control the culture. If you don’t, it would be possible for factions to develop or efforts to influence salary votes with kick backs. It’s fine when everyone has some appreciation for the other workers and not too large of an ego, but one selfish person could throw things off.
My dad used to work a machinist job where they were paid piece rate. He thought this was great and systematically improved good own production to the point where he was making twice what most others on the shift were. They resented him and others who succeeded under piece rate pay. Eventually the company took an employee vote on eliminating piece rate pay and going hourly. The low output workers would make more with hourly pay but my dad would make much less. The hourly pay faction won the vote and my dad and others ended up on new jobs.
Well, that is essentially the future that the anarcho-syndicalists wanted. It’s ok for salaries to vary as long as they are chosen through some Democratic, consensual process.
After all- hierarchy is not when some of the people in a room stand taller than others. That’s just natural variation. Hierarchy is when one person in the room grabs a gun and demands that everyone else kneel.
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with this. It seems like you would have to 'perform' for an even wider range of people in order to get paid what you deserve.
You don’t think that kind of thing happens now? You’ve never been in an organization where middle managers carve out little kingdoms for themselves and bicker and fight with one another, trying to get each other’s projects canceled, trying to avoid changing the way they do things even when it’s clearly inefficient?
I’m just saying, that’s a very human behavior and you’re going to have to find ways to combat that tendency in any organizational structure. If anything having everything out in the open will help.
It seems to me that the article barely scratches the surface on how this kind of organization actually functions.
How do they reach consensus when there are conflicting opinions? Popular vote? How is majority established? Half+1? How do they keep in check the formation of factions or short term alliances that are so typical in any human group larger than 2?
While not stated in the article I'm guessing that the "masters" act as an informal leadership team tasked with overseeing the whole process. Also they hint to having a hiring process that clearly filters for culture fit, I'm sure that helps.
But the thing that probably helps the most with keeping egos and abuses in check is the fact that 50% of profits is shared with staff. It's likely that the salary differences are not that relevant if your yearly revenue tops what the market is paying for your level of experience
My dad used to work a machinist job where they were paid piece rate. He thought this was great and systematically improved good own production to the point where he was making twice what most others on the shift were. They resented him and others who succeeded under piece rate pay. Eventually the company took an employee vote on eliminating piece rate pay and going hourly. The low output workers would make more with hourly pay but my dad would make much less. The hourly pay faction won the vote and my dad and others ended up on new jobs.