Deutschland AG rethinks workers’ role in management

I'm German and my impression is that almost everyone is happy with the current model where you have a legally guaranteed right of holding CEOs accountable.

Everyone, except the American hedge funds trying to squeeze out more profits by increasing working hours, that is.

So to me, this article reads like "let's make Germany more like America in that the rich rule the poor".

And I find it rather surprising that they went with "Deutschland AG" because treating Germany like a country is usually only done by a rather weird tiny subset of citizens who refuse to adhere to laws and instead revel in conspiracy theories about foreign overloads secretly deciding what everyone has to do.

But most weirdly I find that I haven't heard this set of laws being discussed critically in German at all, but that instead an English article with odd word choice should be the first to criticise it.

Is this actually a problem though? The model seems to have provided some insulation from global turmoil in the past; is having enormous corporations the only important thing for a country’s economy? For as long as it doesn’t fall foul of EU laws, I can see Germans wanting to maintain this strategic advantage that other nations ignore while they’re busy chasing down every last short-term dollar.

I should have more forcefully driven for the creation of one in my small company. But it’s all too late now. The company was sold by the owner to a much larger US company and the day after that was announced, nearly a third of employees were fired.

We are developing B2B SaaS and sold that in combination with professional services, with about a 50:50 split in revenue from those two parts. The company built its product without outside investments and has practically always been profitable in the past, with ok revenue growth, but we were seeing pressure from competitors who did have large investments.

The US company didn’t want professional services (and also not anyone doing sales and marketing), they wanted the developers. A couple of weeks into this that seems absurd, especially since they seem to be expecting to keep most of the existing revenue which seems impossible since, you know, we had a 50:50 split in revenue and the people responsible for 50% of that (who had close working relationships with the clients) are no longer there. They are now flying people here but there is hardly anyone to teach them and … you know … usually it takes at least a couple of months to get people up to speed. Months in which our existing clients want to get work done! It’s so irrational. It’s also deeply immoral and unethical.

Whether it be greed or a fundamental misunderstanding of how the product works or what do I know … that whole thing was surreal and weird and I kept thinking that one of the problems was that the person making the deal was fundamentally not understanding the business. Maybe a workers’ council could have helped or at least found a socially more responsible way.

But when the acquisition was only a rumor I frequently mentioned to my colleagues that forming a council would be a good idea but never actually did it. Because, you know, who would want to paint a target on their back.

But it is important for such institutions to exist. Employees inherently tend to have less power than employers and their work is not really optional. They can’t just decide to not do it and changing jobs or career or places where you live can be difficult to impossible. That’s why that isn’t just some kind of exachange of money for work. It has to be specifically and explicitly and strongly protected and workers should always have a say in the business because it concerns them. And their interests and the employers interests are not always aligned.

To give you one example: I used to work for one of Germany's biggest telcos. Believe it or not: That company is unable to do geographically-targeted advertising for reasons of worker codetermination. Worker reps in the company's supervisory board argue that, since some employees get part of their compensation through sales commissions, targeting advertising to region X gives employees in region X an unfair advantage to earn more money than employees in other regions.

Working for the same company, I was involved in a project to do natural language processing in a ticket system the company was using to track repair and maintenance work of radio units, with the goal of building a model to recognize tickets that were in increased need of attention by higher-level management. Even though it wasn't initially the project's goal to do so, the thing that the model ultimately picked up on was basically indications of employees being lazy as they handle those tickets. -- But the data I was given was anonymized. It was argued that if it weren't anonymized, my project would have never been approved by worker representatives in the supervisory board for reasons of violating workers' right to "data protection".

As far as the rules on employee participation are concerned, three groups of countries can be distinguished in the 28 EU countries and Norway. In the first group, consisting of ten countries, there is no employee participation. In the five countries in the second group, employee participation is limited to state-owned or recently privatised companies. But the largest group is made up of 14 countries that provide for employee representation on the boards of private sector companies above a certain size. There are large differences in the minimum numbers of employees and other aspects of the procedures for employee involvement at national level.

http://de.worker-participation.eu/Nationale-Arbeitsbeziehung...