The name is absent



Employee Ownership

Finalh'. consider the situation where' each firm is jointly owned by two employees. The
adaptation of the bargaining game under emploʌ-ee ownership we consider is to let each
pair of employees first agree on a take-it-or-leave-it offer to their respective customers, to
themselves as potential employees of the firm, and to the other two employees. As before,
we assume that employees divide equally the surplus they can get as owners. Once the
firms' offers are determined the game proceeds as under outside ownership. That is.
employees and customers choose whether to accept one of the offers or reject all of them:
if a firm has an offer accepted by it:s customer and by at least one employee the game
ends for that firm: if the firm's offer is rejected by either the customer or by all the
employees then the game moves to a second stage (for that firm) where services can only
be provided outside the firm's premises and the employees make take-it-or-leave-it offers
to the remaining customers): the customer(s) then accept(s) or reject(s) the offer and
the game ends.

Solving this game backwards:

• Bertrand competition between employees results in equilibrium pawffs in the second
stage of the bargaining game where employee
Eu gets υ — υ. each customer C1 gets
v, and the other employees E⅛ get 0.

• In the first stage of the game, when ff > 1. Bertrand competition for the good
employee results in a wage for employee En of
V — V and a wage of 0 for the other
empiθ}∙ees. Each customer gets
v and the four employee-owners each get ⅜(V — √).

Thus, when f, > 1 the bargaining solution under employee cooperative is given by:

Agent: employee En employee Eij outside owner Oi customer Ci
share: Vr-⅜(V + υ) ⅛(K~v)          0            υ

• When ff < 1. so that. VУυ — υ, the bargaining solution is:

Agent: employee En employee Eij outside owner Oi customer С»
share: ⅛(F+V)--v   ⅜(V-t7)          0            
v

These payoffs then translate into the following ex-ante investment choices for the em-
ployees. When
f, > 1 they choose their investment in human capital ki to maximize:

max{l∕(λlog(l ÷ fci)) — ⅛,}                        (13)

24



More intriguing information

1. Happiness in Eastern Europe
2. Electricity output in Spain: Economic analysis of the activity after liberalization
3. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
4. Labour Market Flexibility and Regional Unemployment Rate Dynamics: Spain (1980-1995)
5. Strategic Investment and Market Integration
6. Credit Markets and the Propagation of Monetary Policy Shocks
7. Olfactory Neuroblastoma: Diagnostic Difficulty
8. The name is absent
9. A Hybrid Neural Network and Virtual Reality System for Spatial Language Processing
10. Understanding the (relative) fall and rise of construction wages
11. ROBUST CLASSIFICATION WITH CONTEXT-SENSITIVE FEATURES
12. The name is absent
13. Performance - Complexity Comparison of Receivers for a LTE MIMO–OFDM System
14. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics
18. The Structure Performance Hypothesis and The Efficient Structure Performance Hypothesis-Revisited: The Case of Agribusiness Commodity and Food Products Truck Carriers in the South
19. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?
20. Towards a framework for critical citizenship education