Maciąg, Zbigniew2020-04-232020-04-231973Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 1973, z.4, s. 147-172.http://hdl.handle.net/11315/28221https://wuj.pl/The participation of the working staff in the management of State-owned enterprises is one of the components of socialist democracy. But, to secure such participation, it is essential to have, apart from the formal guarantees and a developed institutional system of self-government and socio-political organizations active in the given factory or plant, also a proper functioning of the mutual relations between them. The scope of the Board’s activity is designated by the extent to which the management of national economy has been decentralized, i. e. how much the given enterprise has been given autonomy and independence of the central decisions, as well as by the extent to which the activities of each of socio-political organization has been decentralized. Beside the much-developed formal structures of the workers’ board and other socio-political organizations, some informal structures have been evolved by practice. These structures mutually overlap, their respective elements being tied by a network of functional connections and interdependencies. In his analysis of the functioning of the workers’ board institution, the author considers the question of the influence exerted by the workers and the administration employees of the plant on the board’s activities, of the balance between them, and of the effectiveness of the measures undertaken by the board in relation to the enterprise’s administration. This has led him to examine the interrelations between the workers’ board and the administration, as well as those between the different sections of this board and, finally, the relations between the staff at large and the workers’ board. As a result of his analysis the author has reached the conclusion that the workers’ board lacks adequate formal-legal means for exerting a really effective influence on the activities of the plant’s administration, and that this deficiency has been reflected and confirmed by everyday practice. The author points out, moreover, that the board’s activities tend to concentrate within two of its organs only, viz., the ’’workers’ board conference”, and the Praesidium of the Workers’ Council, at the expense of other organs, of the Workes’ Council itself in particular. No distinct line of demarkation has been drawn between the competences of the particular divisions of the board, and thence their respective responsibilities to the working staff are not well delineated. Since also the effect exerted by the workers on the portent of the board’s activities is rather inadequate, everyday practice falls short of the pre-established principles. This has led the author to postulate for a reconsidering of the means to secure the effective functioning of the enterprise’s workers’ board in relation to its administration; and, on the other hand, for a more distinct division to be drawn between the competences of the respective organs of the board and for the ensuing designation of their responsibilities to the working- -staff so as to ensure its realization in practice.plUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 PolskaSamorząd robotniczyosobowość prawnadyrektor przedsiębiorstwakierownikprzedsiębiorstwa kluczoweprzedsiębiorstwa terenowePolitologiaPrawoArtykuł