I would rather not take your suggestion too rigidly, but would like it in general. IIRC, US law forbids unions to own stock in the same companies they represent workers in, making this much harder to achieve.

You might want to read some of the work of Kevin Carson, at http://www.mutualist.org
References :

but it would be nice… the persons willing to better them-self and there position in life would have truly limitless opportunity's.
References :

Democratic socialists nowadays support a free market but try to correct the brutal oppressive sides and seek cooperation between classes every chance they get. They are more pragmatic and I think most like myself would love your idea on this subject.

However I'm sure parts of the far right will call what you propose not just socialism but even communism. Happy May Day to you too
References :
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31

The downside is that it gives them more risk - the more of a worker's compensation that is tied to something variable (company profit) compared to a fixed wage, the more exposed they are to risk. Workers and poorer people are frequently more risk averse. If you tie their incentives/profit directly to their own actions (say their own division or account within a company) they get maximum incentives but also maximum risk. Spreading it out over the whole company diminishes risk (because some parts of the company may do better than others) while at the same time decreasing incentives because people free ride.

In some ways what you are talking about is exactly what some socialists have in mind - worker control of factories. The only difference is you are still positing a middle-man - management - that performs a specialized task, while the vision of socialists either in the Argentine factory occupation movement or in Poland following the collapse of communism was direct worker ownership - get rid of management.
Given that management does perform some useful roles in my opinion, I think your solution seems quite reasonable, given the caveats I mentioned about risk.
References :

I guess I would have to ask…

Wal-Mart employees are able to buy stock and have it matched. Sam Walton used to actually give away stock for good work..but this has been done away with for quite sometime.
A Wal-Mart employee doesn't look like they are worried about the health of the company. If anything they want it destroyed. They also are encouraged to report any unionization and to use the "Open Door Policy". They even go so far as to show a 30 minute video on Unions and how to "deal" with people who approach you.

What would you do in that instance? Where people who hold stock in Wal-Mart still want it to fail? And attempted unionization is met with firing? Also, some employees are not business savvy. Would they still be entitled to make company decisions? I think it would end up being full of mudslingling like the current election.

I do like the idea by the way.. just wondering what you thought of the above.

~~~I was just wondering how it could evolve into what you are saying. How could it happen? Through strength in unity.. but we are divided more and more by each decade. Our education is stunted and our critical thinking skills are out the window. How do you instill a need for something like that when capitalism has been shoved down our throats?

Most importantly.. how do you keep the unions from being corrupt? I have just resigned to the fact that corruption is a mainstay in everything and I don't see how it could be resolved in this way. Temporarily maybe… but workers will get individualized once again and start questioning the motives and capability of their fellow workers.

I know you are not a Marxist.. but I prefer Veblen. He mainly thought that Marx was right up to an extent, but the gap between technical skills and menial labors would grow so much that the proletariat would be mentally incapable of running things like Marx suggested.

He also said that people will never ever give up Capitalism when they are getting something out of it. That something maybe miniscule and they are getting screwed the whole time.. but as long as they are benefitting in their minds.. it won't change.
References :
Wal Mart college job… *shiver*

PS…Sorry I know you distanced yourself from the "S" word, .. but that is a very Social concept and is utilized with great success in Companies like BASF and other Euro manufacturers…

Update,.. I just read your response to the responses.. I think that Just Good Folk said it best. (as he often does) social democracy works because it encompasses the incentive and forward motion of capital but seeks to offset the Darwinian Savagery of the current corporate model… we're all saying the same thing and I agree about the sudden rash of "Libertarianism" I think it's where Republicans with a conscience have decided they'd rather be… again "Good Post"!
References :

If Labour Union membership were universal, and workers were guaranteed holdings in their companies, such that if the executives (or even the board) were to make decisions directly counter to the interests of the workers, those workers could negotiate to remove those executives in favour of other entrepreneurs who were prepared to commit to making the company viable while maintaining its staff. This could take the form of buyouts or whatever.

This democratization of capital, I think, would make the sort of nationalization of capital characteristic of socialism unneccesary in order to pursue social justice and equitability. At the same time, the essential entreprenurial spirit of capitalism could still drive technical advancement and the associated high quality of life.
Oh, and Happy May Day!
I'm not a socialist (or a communist), for that matter. As I outlined above, I am all for private property and capital.

I identify myself as an Anarcho-syndicalist. People on these boards have referred to me as a libertarian before, but I always got the impression that libertarians are all a little too caught up with social darwinism (which as a Roman Catholic offends my moral sensibilities).

I believe that people have a right to act collectively with others who share their interests. The big problem I have with US Capitalism is exactly what NOTHINGCONSTANT mentions: while corporate interests profit from collectivisation of capital, somehow that freedom is denied to working people who wish to do the same thing (their only capital asset being their labour) via a Labour Union.

If all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS then how is it that companies like Wal-Mart get away with this BS?
How would it get to this point:

Shareholders have the ability to negotiate hirings and firings of executive management already. All yo uowuld have to do is negotiate it so that the workers of the company control 51% of the available shares in the company. How would you do that? Unions, that's how.

Legally prohibiting companies from interferring with workers' attempts to organize themselves would eventually lead to widespread (if not universal) union membership for every person with a job. I believe this because when the benefits of collective action are clearly outlined, they are irrefutable.

Regarding corruption, I don't think you can have any organization of three or more people where there isn't going to be some double-dealing and shennanigans (this is where the "Anarcho" comes in). Hell, I live with corruption in my government and in my country's industry…at least my way allows EVERYONE in on the corruption…not just the wealthy and politically connected. (j/k)