Collective asset formation through wage-earner funds

CLAIM CONNECTIONS / 8

Where this source is used

• A fund does not form collective capital merely because many people contribute: the distinction turns on whether assets and returns remain collectively held or are divided into individual accounts that participants can claim personally.

  • supports · pp. 303–305 and 311–313

• Meidner reports that company contributions under the original LO proposal would be paid into a central fund.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 309

• Meidner's account of the original LO proposal called for companies to contribute a share of their profits.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 309

• Meidner reports that the original LO proposal suggested a 20 percent profit-share rate.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 309

• Meidner reports that firms would make the proposed payments through wage-earner shares rather than cash.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 309

• Meidner reports that the fund's shareholder voting rights would be divided between union locals and industry funds.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 310

• Meidner reports that unions would elect the board of the central fund.

  • supports · section ‘The essential features of the LO proposal for wage-earner funds’, p. 310

• Collective capital formation describes arrangements that place recurring contributions or asset transfers into an enduring institution that holds capital claims on behalf of a defined constituency and governs them collectively.

  • supports · pp. 303–306