This is required in some European countries. For example, in Germany, workers have a right to 50% of the board for companies with more than 2,000 employees. (Ties break for shareholders, due to the way the chair position works.)

https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Rela...

Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

50% of the board with votes breaking for shareholders sounds a lot like the workers don't actually have any control at all. What prevents the shareholders from just consistently railroading the workers, forcing everything to a tie, and then having the decision break their way?

I was reading about employee-employer relationship in Japan(in the context of Sony) and it seemed like most people used to work at a place for life. It might be similar for Germany in a lot of industries(Automobile, heavy manufacturing). However, wouldn't this pose a new set of problems when applied to companies where the average employee tenure is very short? I think the average tech worker tenure is very very short compared to other industries. While representing employees on the board is a good idea in general, it might need some modifications before being applied to companies with high employee churn rate.

Sounds like half-communism to me. It's messing with the reward/punishment mechanism of profits/losses. They have 50% of control, but no skin in the game. If their policies hurt dividends, it doesn't matter, because they didn't invest their own money in the first place and the salary is stable. If the company goes broke, they can just find another job.

> Obviously, this hasn't destroyed Germany's economy, so it's doubtful it would hurt Google's profits much either.

You can't say the Germany economy wouldn't be better off without this regulation.

It's a reasonable request, if you consider it from this perspective:

> Why do shareholders get board seats?

Because they don't trust company leadership to do the right thing, without any oversight.

Leadership is currently asking employees to trust that leadership will do the right thing, without any oversight.

This is, obviously, an unreasonable expectation. Even if employees trust current leadership, what assurances do they have that Sundar's successor will do the right thing?

An employee representative on the board is the only way to ensure that leadership will do the right thing. Corporate America has figured out this accountability thing over a century ago.

That's pretty backwards entitled thinking. Shareholders elect a board because they own the company and have rights to manage their assets. Employees are a resource. They have no such rights.

Not necessary. It is narrow minded to only see employees as a resource to exploit.

Actually giving people a voice and representation is good and won't hurt

A voice is fine. But a board seat is not a voice, it’s extraordinary power. You are not entitled to that.

Without employees, there would be no company, and all conversation about what shareholders want would be moot.

Employees have extraordinary power - especially if they work together to use it.

Elisabeth Warren is working on a bill to make this a requirement.

Personally I think its sensible to have some accountability to your employees, not just your shareholders.

I believe it would be quite ridiculous as well, any elected employee representative would probably be somehow bought out by the company/board and become useless. That's what Union Reps in my country do at least - they are basically friends with upper management/board and just strike deals that benefit them rather than the workers