No, I’m arguing against applying democracy as a solution to any problem that seems too hard to solve. “Fuck it, we’ll vote on it!” is a lazy solution.

> “Fuck it, we’ll vote on it!” is a lazy solution.

It's a far better solution than no option at all. If people make a bad choice they'll just be back to where they started, with people in charge who care little about their welfare.

Democracy is only selected as a solution to the problem of “how do we select among competing solutions when different people weigh the pros and cons differently”. It is not, itself, chosen as the solution to other problems.

Democracy is not a solution looking for a problem, it's a basic right.

Democracy is great at reducing corruption, but it's bad at finding the most qualified person for the job. That's why we don't vote for very technical positions in government (e.g. Director of the FBI, Supreme Court Justices, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, etc). If it made business sense to let workers vote, more companies would allow them to do so.

The piece states 40% of directors and gives some voices to the workers. There will still be many other technical voices leading the company and the elected people may still be technical. This adds some people that at least have to consider worker issues and adds some other incentives. The trade-off seems reasonable to me. This is a small change and anyone saying it's a big issue is overstating it's effect. It's a small step in the right direction.

It's not like all the management will be elected and if a large company can't handle some voices in it's upper management structure that arn't entirely focused on shareholder profit then something else is wrong with that organization.