Talk:Cooperative Public Phone Booth Model

We read about a group of end users investing for Use-Value alone at http://P2PFoundation.net/Cooperative_Public_Phone_Booth_Model

They say these Means of Production (the phone booth) has such low maintenance that there will be no need to hire anyone to do any work.

But the initial connection of the booth to the phone company's lines must certainly have been done by a worker.

And it seems likely there will be a time in the future when some part of the phone must be serviced where none of the users has the expertise to do so.

And even if a user can be found with those skills, why should he not receive some 'extra' ownership for his exertion even if he doesn't receive a Wage?

So, in defense of the idea that production cannot be fair unless Workers have at least part of the Ownership, shouldn't those workers gain some ownership in that phone booth?

What do proponents of Worker Ownership hope to achieve for those who labor when they say User Ownership is insufficient to 'protect' those workers?

In what way is a worker "disenfranchised" when he does not have extra ownership (beyond what he needs as a user) in the Means of Production?

When the users own the Means of Production they might hire workers, especially when that labor is highly skilled.

What demands will a worker proclaim and be able to require when he has 'sufficient' ownership?

Will this ownership be used to increase his own Wage? Does that mean Worker Ownership is a form of protectionism against market-driven Wages?

If so, then why would Users choose to include workers in this way?

Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com

---