[HN Gopher] List of Worker-Owned Tech Cooperatives Worldwide ___________________________________________________________________ List of Worker-Owned Tech Cooperatives Worldwide Author : cheshire_cat Score : 359 points Date : 2022-05-21 11:17 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | 5555555 wrote: | qrush wrote: | Love this. I'm starting a food co-op in my area [1] and I can | safely say "P6" [2] is real - cooperation amongst co-operatives | has been the biggest way I have learned (for free!) about how to | make this effort real. Co-ops and co-op culture are huge refresh | from the tech industry and there's much to learn that feels like | the antidote to VC/the current trend of capitalism. | | [1] https://charlesriverfood.coop | | [2] Principle 6: Cooperatives serve their members most | effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working | together through local, national, regional and international | structures. | zja wrote: | I'm optimistic about worker coops, and would love to see them | become more commonplace. I've noticed a lot of tech coops are dev | shops, which kind of makes sense, but I hope more product focused | tech coops become successful as well. | BarryMilo wrote: | I'm studying business in the hopes of helping people start co- | ops. Don't know if there's enough of a market to do it for a | living, but I would deeply wish to. | uoaei wrote: | This is a nonprofit who helps companies transition from | private (capitalist) to cooperative (socialist) ownership | structure. | | https://project-equity.org/ | carapace wrote: | I know of Windings: "an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is a | legal business structure that utilizes shares ... ESOP shares are | only available to employees of the company" | | https://windings.com/about-us/employee-owned/ | | > In 1998, as part of Ryberg's retirement strategy, Windings Inc. | formed an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) for a planned | purchase and transition of Company stock to the Windings | employees. Ryberg retired in 2006, and by 2008 the company became | 100-percent employee-owned. | | https://windings.com/about-us/history/ | | They make "custom electric motors, generators, and related | components". | | Would they go on the list? | aetherson wrote: | This is perhaps not the perfect moment in time to try to start a | business where a large share of your compensation is in | equity/ownership. | goodpoint wrote: | A coop can provide 100% of the profit in salaries, or dividends | or equity or goods - whatever is more effective. | aetherson wrote: | But in terms of getting a company off the ground right now, | you'll have difficulty getting financing and as companies | start off they generally have no or limited profits to | distribute. In times when financing is easy, perhaps that's | no big deal -- get easy access to capital to pay a liquid | salary, and then give people equity for a share in future | profits. | | Right now, however, I would be very wary of starting a | company, especially if you're planning on starting a type | company that limits your ability to seek investment. | yucky wrote: | ...and 100% of the losses. | goodpoint wrote: | Most cooperatives are limited liability companies. Just | like most private companies. | | The only difference is in who the owners are. Pretty | simple. | | Just like any other companies they can be profitable or | unprofitable or even go bankrupt and shut down. | | If a limited liability company goes bankrupt nobody is | going to take your house. That's the whole point. | | That means you would lose your invested capital (as it | should be), but you are not being hit by 100% of the | losses. | missedthecue wrote: | Does this mean that the more you hire, the poorer | existing employees become due to dilution? | sokoloff wrote: | Draw an accounting fence around the 100% employee-owned | coop. Any losses could only come from capital invested or | retained earnings (losses to the employees) or from bad | credit extended to the coop. It's true that the latter | represents an opportunity for there to be losses that | don't hit the employee owners, but that's typically only | after the company is wiped out, so it's a "good news, bad | news, but mostly bad news" situation if being an LLC is | coming into play. | | For an on-going operating company, 100% of the gains and | losses accrue to the owners (employees in the case of a | 100% employee-owned entity). That's working as | intended/designed/desired. | spaniard89277 wrote: | Igalia has plenty of mentions here in HN | ruffrey wrote: | I encourage anyone interested in this concept to check out | Opolis. I have been happy so far. Seems to be one of the few | companies actually making this happen right now. | ankaAr wrote: | I have friends working in gcoop, it was working for years and | they are very nice people sharing their knowledge with the | community. | dwmbt wrote: | your comment about its success is written in past-tense, does | this mean it's no longer stable or alive? just curious. | l0rn wrote: | Greetings from ctrl.alt.coop, Berlin. Glad to See us on the list. | It's the best working environment ive ever been in | georgewsinger wrote: | Worker owned co-ops are 100% compatible with capitalist regimes, | since they're just people freely consenting to a work/ownership | arrangement. I think they're cool experiments, if anything. | | With that said: if they're so much better than traditional firms, | they why haven't they taken over the world? That is, if they were | so good, greedy shareholders and investors all over the world | would demand that their firms restructure into Cooperatives, and | firms that _weren 't_ Cooperatives would tend to lose out in the | marketplace (being beaten by the more efficient Cooperatives). | But we don't see this happening. | | This seems like strong evidence to me that they don't offer a | superior arrangement (at the firm/system level) for producing | goods & services more efficiently. | emixam wrote: | The problem really comes from the capacity for a coop to raise | funds. A coop is a non-capitalistic company so very few | investors are interested. | | There is no valuation other than amount of shares x value of | share. Voting power is not dependent on share (1 person = 1 | vote). | | Making an exit is thus not a possibility. Investors have little | interest to finance a traditional company that would only yield | dividends (if it does, which is not mandatory). | | The problem of speed is also often cited: democracy takes more | time. While I think that's true, I haven't felt that was a | limiting factor. Financing is a much bigger one. | boulos wrote: | They might be net positive for the workers within the co-op (at | the median anyway) versus taking on outside investors and | giving them a slice in search of larger scale. | | For diversified investors, it's more valuable to have some of | your companies return higher gains even if others don't work | out. For an employee though, their income is totally | concentrated in their one job. | | The employees can be rational in not wanting investors, and the | investors are rational in not wanting to invest in those firms | (at terms the co-op would accept). | BrianOnHN wrote: | mr90210 wrote: | Love your comment! | dwmbt wrote: | now that you mention it, i would love to see a long-form | conversation between a coop engineer and a DAO engineer! | granted, they likely work in different arenas, but i'd mostly | be interested in hearing about the work dynamics and how they | manage each other, not so much the clients/products they take | on. | [deleted] | dabsurdo wrote: | dccoolgai wrote: | I deeply wish this was more of a thing. If you look at the way | law firms work, this is how they take their specialized knowledge | and keep more of the value they create for themselves. I don't | see any reason we can't/shouldn't have a similar model in | software engineering be the de-facto now that the field is mature | enough to support it. | DANK_YACHT wrote: | Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships can | serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company could. | Most software has huge economies of scale, so it's unlikely | small partnerships would be successful long-term unless they | filled a tiny niche (read not-very-profitable) that wasn't | worth pursuing by a bigger company. | edge17 wrote: | By the definition, software isn't an economy of scale. Unit | cost doesn't decrease by magnitude as output increases. A | utility company is an example of economy of scale. | treasurebots wrote: | Economies of scale don't just have to be areas where unit | marginal costs decrease as volume increases, they can also | be areas where fixed costs dominate marginal costs, which | is the case for many software firms because marginal costs | are usually very small | slavik81 wrote: | Economies of scale exist when the average cost decreases as | the number of units increases. The average cost for N units | is the sum total of all fixed and per-unit costs divided by | N. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale | cuteboy19 wrote: | Creating GitHub.com takes the same amount of time whether | they have 1k customers or 1M customers | throwaway14356 wrote: | or creating 1000 gihubs | wolverine876 wrote: | > Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships | can serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company | could. | | That's not really accurate. Larger law firms can have more | specialized attorneys; they can offer clients a more | comprehensive set of expertise - not only in areas of law, | but geographically ('let me call an IP attorney in the Paris | office'); they can have larger personal and business | networks, which provide access to more resources, more | business, enable them to broker more solutions for clients, | and which give them more influence. | segmondy wrote: | Start one. | leereeves wrote: | Don't law firms, like software companies, usually have a small | inner circle of founders and key staff who make the decisions | and keep most of the profits? | | And don't law firms treat the average staff lawyer worse than | software companies treat the average developer? | ghaff wrote: | Not necessarily founders but BigLaw has partners at various | levels and then associates plus various support staff. And, | yes, BigLaw (like investment banking) has a reputation for | really working associates hard in addition to having | something of an up or out structure. Which probably works OK | for law because a lot of the associates probably went to law | school because they weren't sure what else to do with their | liberal arts degree--and don't necessarily want to stay in | law long-term anyway. | dbcurtis wrote: | Up or out is right. But the most common "out" path is to a | corp legal department. Better hours, and now the partner | that used to work your ass off buys you lunch to court your | business. | ghaff wrote: | Yeah. Though I know a _lot_ of lawyers who migrated into | non-law positions after a few years, including politics | (also usually for a few years depending on their leanings | and the climate--e.g. White House) but also a variety of | other things. As you say, there are also a variety of | corporate legal positions including government affairs | and the like in addition to straight law jobs. | tomrod wrote: | Partnership Consultancies exist. But neither law firms nor | standard consultancies typically have staff in on ownership. | ncphil wrote: | In the US, at least, all members of a law partnership (or | professional corporation) must be licensed attorneys. That's | baked into both state law and rules of professional conduct, | and is a serious limitation on organization that tech | professionals are not saddled with. | rsweeney21 wrote: | Law firms are not co-ops. They are partnerships where a small | number own and control the company. | heavyset_go wrote: | Producer co-ops are similar in that respect. | missedthecue wrote: | One major difference is that a law firm makes money by | selling billable hours whereas a tech company makes money | by producing, selling, and distributing an actual product. | | You don't see law firms raising millions to open shop, but | it's almost a pre-requisite for serious tech companies. A | law firm can be profitable from day one. This difference | makes it much harder to use the co-op model for tech | companies unless all the workers are independently wealthy | and don't need VCs. | DeathArrow wrote: | What would be the difference from a company owned by five | individuals that also do all the work and a coop formed by | five individuals? | jsonne wrote: | Because the model of a law firm is maybe 10 senior partners | own the company and there's 200 attorneys and several | hundred assistants and paralegals under them. Its not much | different than most modern corporations having a bunch of | shareholders and a board in practice. | guerrilla wrote: | More than five individuals do all the work or they wouldn't | have hired other people. A coop is owned by all the | workers. | jasode wrote: | _> What would be the difference from a company owned by | five individuals that also do all the work and a coop | formed by five individuals?_ | | Parent is probably talking about "BigLaw" (thousands of | lawyers) and boutique law firms (hundred lawyers or less). | Most lawyers at the firms are _employees_ (i.e. the | associates) and not _part-owners_ (i.e. the partners). They | are not co-ops. | | Even in a tiny local law firm of 5 partners/owners and no | junior associates, they'd still have the staff paralegals | and secretaries as _non-owner employees_ so they 're not | really co-ops either. | sdenton4 wrote: | FWIW, farming co-ops are often more similar to the lawyer | model, in practice: A small number of owners who hire out | lots of manual labor. | | You could certainly have a similar model for software co- | ops, using contracts for various non-central parts of the | work. | | Most worker co-ops also include a probationary period for | new hires before they become part owners (because to do | otherwise would be a bit insane). A really long | probationary period with a low chance of conversion | starts looking a lot like the lawyer model... | Gaessaki wrote: | A shameless plug for our Montreal-based multistakeholder food | delivery coop: Radish Cooperative (https://radish.coop). | jtr1 wrote: | I'm fascinated by multistakeholder cooperatives, but can't seem | to find much reading material on the mechanics of them. Any | recommendations? | michaelthompson wrote: | what does multistakeholder cooperative mean? | qrush wrote: | Multi-stakeholder co-operatives are co-ops with more than | one "owner" class. For example, a multi-stakeholder food | co-op could be owned by both consumers of the store, and | the workers of the store. The co-op's by-laws determines | how the groups differ and how the equity share (and | patronage dividends) work out. | jtr1 wrote: | My understanding: there are a lot of varieties of coops, | consumer coops (REI, the Green Bay Packers, in some | respects) are primarily owned by their customers, | purchasing coops like ACE Hardware are owned by a group of | businesses to increase buying power, and most relevant to | this thread, worker coops are where workers own the | enterprise. Multi-stakeholder cooperatives blend multiple | forms of ownership to try to align the incentives of the | enterprise with everyone who has a stake in its success. To | me, it sounds really hard to get right, but also | transformative if you can, so I'm very interested to learn | more! | missedthecue wrote: | Credit unions are also examples of customer owned | cooperatives | tomatowurst wrote: | can somebody explain how these organizations handle a bad actor | or collusion towards bad goals? | | Say somebody comes along and wants to use Oracle suddenly, what | sort of measures exist to prevent that from happening, how is | arbitration, enforcements and distribution of profit calculated? | | The only successful corp i can think that is similar to this is | Valve but it isn't quite worker owned, it seems to distribute | profits more fairly. | mgbmtl wrote: | Whether it's a hostile board takeover, or a bad hire in a CxO | position (or even any regular employee with influence), those | risks exist everywhere. | | Actually, I think a co-op is better protected. | | A co-op should have founding principles, and acting against | them should raise red flags. | | For distributing profits, etc, again, standard legal docs. Here | in Quebec, there are orgs who can help with that (reseau.coop). | | The biggest challenge is growing: I'm in a 5 person co-op. In a | previous life, I was in a 25-person collective which became | hell to manage, as everyone wanted to be heard, but few wanted | the responsibilities. | | So in our current co-op, two of us tend to enforce the bottom | line, in our respective areas. I mean, legal structure and org | structure, while there may be influenced, can be pretty | orthogonal. | tomatowurst wrote: | > The biggest challenge is growing: I'm in a 5 person co-op. | In a previous life, I was in a 25-person collective which | became hell to manage, as everyone wanted to be heard, but | few wanted the responsibilities. | | yeah but you see the problem here? without a central | leadership, everybody will have equity and you can't really | steer the ship anymore. | | I don't know too much about reseau or how it functions but i | have a lot of difficulty with say a SaaS being run like a | coop. 25 developers divide equally the loot? But there will | be disagreements and disproportionate equity right off the | bat. How do you remove somebody who plays politics and is | able to win consensus but you know its going to impact your | business? How do you arbitrate disagreements over | distribution or spending of resources or the manner in which | they conduct operation? | tsimionescu wrote: | > How do you remove somebody who plays politics and is able | to win consensus but you know its going to impact your | business? How do you arbitrate disagreements over | distribution or spending of resources or the manner in | which they conduct operation? | | Who is this "you" in "your business"? The business is as | much "theirs" as it is "yours". If they can convince enough | people of a course of action, even if somr are not | convinced, why do you assume that the course of action will | be bad? | | The biggest weakness of traditional companies is exactly | that a sibgle hair-brained boss can wreak havoc on the | whole organization below them. Democracy solves this | problem, it is much more resistant to a bad actor than | autocracy is. | stormbrew wrote: | I think top-down and bottom-up organizing styles create | essentially two different, but similar, versions of this | particular failure mode. | | In top-down there's always the risk of someone coming in | and making a long string of bad decisions and essentially | wrecking everything by leading everyone on a wild goose | chase, while in bottom up the risk is someone | _obstructing_ good things happening by either being a | drag or exercising whatever veto or FUD power they have | (whether designed or organic) to prevent action. This | looks less dramatic as it 's happening but stagnation is | just as powerful a force as havoc in the long run. | | There's a really tricky balance to strike somewhere in | there. | dennis_jeeves1 wrote: | >So in our current co-op, two of us tend to enforce the | bottom line, in our respective areas. I mean, legal structure | and org structure, while there may be influenced, can be | pretty orthogonal. | | In some sense, then the two of you may extraordinary - a | combination of ethics, IQ and integrity. Your biggest | challenge will be handing over the reigns when you are ready | to leave (usually only due to bad health or age, it's life | long thing). More specifically the task has to begin decades | before you leave. If it's not done (often the case) the | enterprise's morals rot, even if it continues to be | financially successful. | abyssin wrote: | I can't provide a generic answer but in my experience, there | were two mechanisms. First, people are hired partly based on | their political values and through word of mouth, which limits | ways for bad actors to join. In the same vein, the pay is below | market-rates, which reinforces the phenomenon of ideological | homogeneity. Second, decisions are made through consensus using | formalized methods. Frequent meetings that are prepared in | advance following a set of rules, disagreements that are | discussed using techniques that minimize the subjective | dimension of it and are solution-oriented, elections without a | candidate (in French: "election sans candidat"), etc. | tomatowurst wrote: | but what happens when its not in the interest of the business | to make consensus based decisions? like what you described | can quickly devolve into "how do we get everybody to keep | their responsibilities unchanged and still make payroll?" vs | "how do I delegate responsibilities and adjust payroll to | resources that generate revenues vs expenses"? | | I just have a hardtime believing this could work. | Corporations reflect militant hierarchy for a reason because | effective decisions often cannot be made through consensus or | utilitarian drivers. Corporations thrive when they are lead | by profit incentives of executives who are beholden to profit | incentives of liquidity/capital lenders. | | You simply do not see a "collective" trade publicly. | tsimionescu wrote: | The business are the owners. And, unless they are woefully | mislead or incapable, the owners will vote what is in their | best interest. If the best thing for the business is NOT to | grow, because a majority are happy with the current state, | then the business _shouldn 't_ grow, especially if that | would require sacrificing the desires of some of the | workers. | | This is identical to how privately owned companies are | often run, especially family owned small businesses, which | can be extremely successful. | | Profit is at best a proxy for success, it is not a goal in | itself. | Blahah wrote: | It does work though. | | In the UK for example, we have the John Lewis Partnership | (10.5billion GBP revenue), Co-operative group (11billion | GBP revenue), and many in the 50+ million revenue bracket | like Suma Wholefoods. | | We've also had many major public or private corporations | rescued from collapse by worker co-operatives that were | able to maneuver out of problems that the centralised | organisation could not. See for example Meriden and | National Express. | | Also, many people's financial services are provided by | building societies and other co-operatives. Many of the | largest banks have been these kinds of organisations at | least once. HSBC for example. | | That's just in the UK - it would be astonishing if there | weren't many more examples disproving your conjecture from | every other country. | keskival wrote: | It works though, and typically when these cooperatives grow | large enough they easily outcompete the privately owned | businesses where the profits are siphoned out to people who | contributed nothing and who have no knowledge or clue about | the actual business. In cooperatives the owners actually | know what is happening on the ground because they work in | the company, and the profits don't flow out of the | business. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation | orzig wrote: | I'm very interested in this but also want to understand a stark | reality: Co-ops have existed in concept and practice for 100+ | years but haven't gone mainstream (representing <<1% of employers | with no clear exponential growth) | | Why? Are there lessons we need to carry forward when creating new | ones? | dv_dt wrote: | One of the more interesting articles I've read about talks | about the fact that there are a lot of domains that you need to | work all at once together to form a coop. And they were | experimenting with ways to "franchise" coops into structures | that help that. | | https://ownershipmatters.net/newsletter-item/tim-huet-arizme... | interfaced wrote: | If you're founding a coop, you're probably more interested in | organizational theory than doing the work. There are cost | savings when it comes to group buying or trade; so works well | for farmers. But to do this for software is not about building | better software IMO. | | You can kinda see a hint of this in the spelling of Toronto as | Tkaronto. I don't think this benefits the list. It's a kind of | meta work, a convenient distraction from doing something of | value. | | If you're a builder you'll preoccupy yourself with the thing | you're building. If you're driving by an ideology, you'll spend | most of your time there, and legal frameworks will be of | secondary concern, a means to an end. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > If you're a builder you'll preoccupy yourself with the | thing you're building. | | If you're one person building a thing that one person can | build, that might be true. | | If you're building a thing that needs or merely benefits from | having more people doing the building, you almost certainly | need to think about how to structure and coordinate what | people do. That's true even if your decision is "no structure | and no coordination". | | Sometimes, that process will be implicit (and likely a more | or less direct reflection of the personality of the initial | builder). But for the most, once you start involving other | people (or they involve themselves), organizational structure | and behavior starts to become a thing you have to start | paying attention to. Getting it wrong can destroy whatever | you're trying to build. | jcims wrote: | > All worker cooperatives have two common characteristics: 1) | member-owners invest in and own the business together, and | share the enterprise's profits, and 2) decision-making is | democratic, with each member having one vote. | | I think you'd have to find examples of companies that only do | #1 or only do #2 and look at their outcomes versus companies | that do both. | | My guess is the root cause of what you've observed is the | distributed decision making and the attendant latency and | diffusion of responsibility it brings. | k__ wrote: | I'm currently reading a book about coops, and the author said, | the main problem is missing know-how. | | Most skilled people will go were the money is, so coops are | usually filled with low to mediocre workers. | jtr1 wrote: | Would you mind sharing the name of the book? | k__ wrote: | Oh, yes. | | "Produktivgenossenschaft als fortschrittsfahige | Organisation: Theorie, Fallbeispiele, Handlungshilfen" by | Burghard Flieger | | I think, it's only available in German. The translated | title would be: | | "Workers cooperative as organization capable of progress: | Theory, case studies, and procedural guidelines" | jtr1 wrote: | Ah okay, thanks! I wish I read German, or that there was | a cooperative for translating books about cooperatives | into English XD | rowanajmarshall wrote: | I don't think this is the book parent was referring to, but | Developer Hegemony by Erik Dietrich describes an almost law | parnership-like model for developer shops. | jtr1 wrote: | I'll check it out! | l0rn wrote: | Co founder of ctrl.alt.coop Here. | | I think Main reason is that coops so do not fit Well in our | profit maximizing Economy. We do produce profits but due to the | Nature of our organization there is no incentive for Investors | that seek high margins. ( In fact we dont allow external | Capital in to remain in Control of our decisions). So linear | growth it is. | | I think a lot more growth than you Like is Made by exploitation | of the workforce. Without doing that you have a Harder time | prooving yourself in the Market. | [deleted] | michaelbrave wrote: | I want to say a lot of it is that legal and financial | structures don't support it very well, it could also be said | that since it's such a small minority of businesses (I want to | say <1%) that education resources on it are also scarce. | | For example getting funding to turn a business into a coop, | let's say it's a one man owned business who is going to retire | and has no family, so he offeres to sell it to the employees so | they can turn it into a coop. Financially almost no investors | would take that bet, the banks wouldn't really give a loan to | 10+ people who make salaries, really the main way this could | happen is if the owner took a hit and did something like a | persona loan and let them pay him back from the profits over | the course of 10 years. | | I've also heard that there isn't much information on how to | start or run one, like looking for books in the library can | often fall short or you will only find something outdated. I | think the lack of information is part of it as well as it's | been so disincentivized for so long that most we can find are | either run in a hippie commune style, or created by a small | town government to provide services a corporation wouldn't | (Best internet I've had was due to them having set up a coop), | on top of that I can only think of one college that even | teaches coop structure and that's Mondragon in spain[1] but on | searching deep enough I also found U of Wisconsin[2] has | something too, that's still not a lot. | | [1] https://www.mondragon.edu/en/international- | mobility/mondrago... [2] https://uwcc.wisc.edu/ | zozbot234 wrote: | Co-ops and partnerships can work well for businesses that are | very low capital intensity. A law firm is the typical example, | but software development can also be very similar. | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | From what I've read it's mostly that it's more difficult for | coops to access capital. Banks and investors are extremely | hesitant to provide capital to an organization where the | employees can just vote to use the money to give themselves all | raises. | | They'd much rather extend loans to traditional businesses with | owners who are willing make cutthroat, unpopular decisions and | fire employees if it's necessary to defend and preserve their | capital. | DeathArrow wrote: | I think one of the reasons is that there can be too many people | implied in taking decisions. | | Another reason might be that if somebody is a co-owner with | many others in an enterprise, he might not feel motivated to | work. | | In socialist countries the quality of most products and | services was poor because no one cared and no one fel obligated | to do a good job, since the enterprise was owned by all the | people. Instead there were many small thefts from the | workplace. | keskival wrote: | In normal stock companies all (voting) stocks vote, and those | can be distributed globally to all sorts of people and | institutions who have no idea about the reality on the | ground. | | By comparison the decision-making in cooperatives is much | better grounded in reality and has fewer disinterested and | uninformed participants. | DeathArrow wrote: | It's not about voting, it's about vision and taking | decisions to accomplish it. That's why companies have a | CEO, CFO, CTO and many managers. | wardedVibe wrote: | What if I told you you could have the CEO elected by the | workers, rather than randos whose only interest in the | business is making money off of it? | keskival wrote: | Yes, that's how it works for larger cooperatives where | direct democracy can become problematic. Even in direct | democracies in societal level, presidents are typically | elected, and there are ministers and managers by | necessity. The same goes for cooperatives. | | It's one person one vote applied to the corporation. In | principle there's no reason why we should demand any less | democracy inside corporations than what we demand in | societies at large. | | It's curious how many of these comments in this post | could be reframed to be basically: "democracy can never | work" or "democracy is clearly an inferior system to | feudalism". | spaniard89277 wrote: | One of the largerst supermarket chains in Spain (Eroski) is a | Coop and IMO they have the best service overall. Maybe not | the chapest but cheap, their white label brand has very good | stuff plus very clear and well though nutritional | information, good variety, etc. | jtr1 wrote: | Brando Milanovic wrote up a pretty clear-eyed description of | the problems with worker-owned enterprises, even in states | that market socialists look to as better examples such as the | former Yugoslavia [1]. He speaks with some authority, as both | an economist and someone who worked in one of those. To me, | it seems like there are important unsolved problems with | worker-managed enterprises at scale (exceptions like | Mondragon notwithstanding), but I'm speaking as an armchair | observer. I agree with the aims involved (workers should | enjoy the full fruits of their labor and have control over | their working conditions), but it seems there are still | challenges to scaling this sort of organization up. | | 1. https://glineq.blogspot.com/2021/11/socialist-enterprise- | pow... | ex_amazon_sde wrote: | Private companies and banks see coops as the devil [for very | obvious reasons] and fight them using regulatory capture and | not engaging in business with them. It's pretty well-known in | the coop world. | | Coops sometimes mitigate this disadvantages by networking with | each other. | cuteboy19 wrote: | Bold claim but i don't think there are enough budding coops | to even bother with such behaviour. | | Regulatory capture hurts all new startups and is unlikely to | be aimed specifically at coops | gruez wrote: | >fight them using regulatory capture and refusing to engage | in business with them | | Can you provide concrete examples? | zasdffaa wrote: | you have a few examples of this? | sitkack wrote: | Same with credit unions. In fact if I were a coop going for a | loan, I'd first to go a credit union. | qrush wrote: | From my perspective as someone currently forming a startup co- | op: It simply takes longer. You cannot go it alone and it | requires a community effort. Democracy is harder than autocracy | (which most companies are, by default). Bank loans and more | require collateral from an individual, which a co-operative by | design deflects against (so there's co-operative friendly | lenders). | | I'm hoping the trend goes in a different direction for tech | companies and they see that there's an alternative - but the | fundamentals of co-operatives won't (and shouldn't!) change. | davidjfelix wrote: | There are several states that have adopted a worker-coop LCA | (Limited Coop Association) law from the ULC LCA | https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?Commun.... | There are also a couple of states not listed here that adapted | the ULC draft to better fit existing corporate laws, for example, | IL. | | Coops interest me a lot because of the autonomy and I think | codified autonomy is critical to longevity of health within an | organization. | amelius wrote: | How does this work when a worker enters or leaves the | cooperative? | tra3 wrote: | Coops is one of the structures that the author talks about in | "Developer Hegemony". The bulk of the book is about the inverted | pyramid that modern software development houses are (with | production being at the bottom, and manager on top). | | I really like this passage: | | > "Consider a law firm. Do the founding partners go out and hire | a Lawyer Manager to order them around, and then do they hire a VP | of Lawyering to order the manager around? Do they then hire a CEO | to rule over everyone and a CFO to handle the finances and a COO | to schedule court dates and such? Of course not. There's no | historical precedent for all that fluff. Rather, they handle | facets of the business themselves. What they can't or don't want | to handle, they delegate to subordinates that they hire. The | partners don't specialize in finance, sales, marketing, or | operations. That would be silly. But they understand enough about | it to act as the boss." | | ...and this one: | | > "It turns out that treating knowledge work pursuits like | manufacturing operations doesn't work particularly well. But it | was the model inherited from the Industrial Revolution, and it's | been hard to shake. The thinking goes like this: if you break a | complex operation down to its individual components and then have | people specialize in those components, batching the work and | letting people get good at tiny slices of it leads to greater | efficiency. This works well for stations on an assembly line but | not so much for writing software." | Barrin92 wrote: | I think whether the comparison is appropriate boils down | heavily to what kind of software developer you're talking | about. | | For example in the games industry I think there's a quite a few | smaller companies in particular that work like this. A lot of | people being generalists and taking over business functions and | social aspects of the job. | | But I think a lot of engineers de facto do work like assembly | line workers. Much of software development is not 'knowledge | work'. If you're in a company toiling away at some gigantic | Java codebase you're not going to have much in common with | someone managing a law firm. | missedthecue wrote: | Most law firms are very small (relative to tech companies). In | very large law firms, you'll see more of the typical managerial | organizational chart at play, even though almost everyone | employed there has passed the bar. Big law firms like Latham & | Watkins for instance have a CEO and c-suite. | nerdponx wrote: | I think the problem is that "assembly line" manufacturing has | always been the wrong analogy for software engineering. A | better analogy would be like a construction contractor or a | machine shop. How many machine shops are not run by a | machinist? | | Perhaps an interesting extension of the machine shop analogy is | that many organizations do not run their own internal machine | shop. If they need a part, they find a shop that can make it. | Software naturally tends need more ongoing maintenance and | attention than machined metal parts, but I think there's an | argument to be made that perhaps companies should be less eager | to hire software engineers, and more eager to hire an agency. | | Moreover, assembly line manufacturing is suited to a very | particular scenario that software engineering is almost never | in: high volume, high rate production of exactly identical | things, which can be broken down into individual components. | ghaff wrote: | >How many machine shops are not run by a machinist | | Well, I think that's probably overall true of a lot of small | businesses of that general type. The odds that I'm going to | wake up some morning and decide to open a machine shop, | electrical supply store, etc. and just hire people people who | know what they're doing (not that I would necessarily know) | are probably whole lot less than someone with some savings | who has worked in the business their whole life. | | It's not just the trades and adjacent though. I worked for a | small IT industry analyst firm for a number of years and the | founder/CEO had worked for a bigger such firm for a long | time. And that's a very common pattern. | gernb wrote: | Does this analogy really fit? I can imagine a software | consulting firm targeting small businesses could work where the | individual programmers are "in charge" and they hire some | support staff because each individual contract is small enough | that one or 2 programmers can handle it. | | OTOH I can't really imagine teams making large projects not | specializing. A browser, a AAA game, or an OS for example. Some | programmers know GPU techniques. Some know Database stuff. Some | know Video compression/decompression. Others know USB driver | level details. Others know networking issues. Another few know | audio related stuff. | hkt wrote: | Even so, the fact is that the more hierarchy there is, and | the greater the bounty at the top, the more perverse | incentives for managers and would-be managers there are. Good | management is, by its nature, very minimal. | dalbasal wrote: | Lawyers also operate within a sort of guild, culturally and | otherwise. They make a lot of their own rules, which is | especially relevant to a rule-based business. | | One of the guild-like rules that often exists limitations in | the types of organisation types lawyers can form. There are | rules against listing law firms and cashing out. Lawyers are | required to manage themselves. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | 'One of the guild-like rules that often exists limitations in | the types of organisation types lawyers can form.' | | This makes little sence - How would the limitation that you | are talking about even work? | | The person at the top is not required to be a lawyer in the | first place. There are plenty of corporate layers that work | for public or private shareholder-held companies. | kbutler wrote: | Lawyers can work for a corporate client, but those | corporations can't offer legal advice to third parties. | | Law firms that take on clients must be lawyer-owned. | | "Under Attorney Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4, law firms | are barred from offering ownership or other | investment/revenue-sharing opportunities to non-lawyers. | Some recent developments in several states, however, offer | the possibility that these long-standing restrictions could | be scaled back, creating potential for dramatic changes in | how litigation matters are funded and managed." | | https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/practice- | in... | bsedlm wrote: | I wanna get on this list but it seems like founding one of these | is the most plaussible way to do it. | paradite wrote: | Notably missing (and disputed), Huawei also has an employee | ownership structure: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership | | Edit: Found an ownership and governance explanation website from | Huawei: | | https://www.huawei.com/minisite/who-runs-huawei/en/ | [deleted] | goodpoint wrote: | Based on the paragraph on Wikipedia, Huawei is very clearly not | a coop. | sudosysgen wrote: | This account seems to be more detailed : | https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_9ncG_yCHKeRPDEkZ5zxxnAJGEk... | | It seems that Huawei is a mix between a cooperative and a | private company owned by its founder. | leereeves wrote: | > Although employee shareholders receive dividends, their | shares do not entitle them to any direct influence in | management decisions, but enables them to vote for members of | the 115-person Representatives' Commission [which governs the | company] from a pre-selected list of candidates. | | Who chooses the pre-selected candidates? | sudosysgen wrote: | They are supposedly nominated by the Huawei Trade Union and | can be vetoed by Ren Zhengfei, according to this : https://dr | ive.google.com/file/d/1_9ncG_yCHKeRPDEkZ5zxxnAJGEk... | ihm wrote: | Going to make a PR to add our company O(1) Labs. It's very rare | in that it's VC-funded by prominent VCs, but still majority | worker-owned and fully worker-governed. | | The board is composed of workers, selected by workers on the | basis of one person on vote, and we hold General Assemblies for | workers to make and vote on proposals. | stormbrew wrote: | I'm really curious what's in it for VCs with funding a coop? | Usually VC wants an exit possibility, if not plan, but it's | hard to imagine exits that aren't essentially destructive to | worker ownership (at which point are coop workers going to be | happy with golden handcuffs and such?). | zackmorris wrote: | Does anyone know if there's a term for structuring a corporation | where one person can own no more than a certain percentage of the | company? | | I believe that the central cause of wealth inequality isn't so | much about taxation or regulatory capture etc, as it is about | individuals going to great lengths to maintain control of their | companies. So someone can be worth a billion dollars with a 51% | share but not be able to convert any of those stocks to cash, for | fear of losing their power. | | That's why they resist even a modest property tax on their stock, | while the rest of us must pay property tax on our homes. This is | self-evidently unjust and one of the major loopholes which allows | the accumulation of extreme wealth while countless millions of | people spend the entirety of their lives working to make rent | under a negative net worth. | | A possible solution to that might be to limit individual | ownership to something equitable, say less than 1/3, 1/5 or 1/7 | (my preference) of the total. | | So a worker-owned cooperative could be thought of as ownership | not exceeding 1/N employees. | | That would give us a spectrum of possible structures rather than | having to choose between the extremes of public and private | ownership. Apologies if this concept already exists or is | commonplace. | 7steps2much wrote: | In a lot of countries it is possible to simply change the way | share based voting works. | | By default 1 share equals one vote. But quite a few | jurisdictions allow companies to define a different voting | scheme, allowing to f.e. limit a person's votes to at most 20% | of the total amount of votes, regardless of their share | ownership. | | This of course depends on the jurisdictions in question. | wardedVibe wrote: | One of the chapters in Radical markets* talks about doing this, | but primarily as a means of stopping the anticompetitive | actions of active investors like Blackrock, which have an | interest in coordinating the actions of their investments. | | * | https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691177502/ra... | stormbrew wrote: | > I believe that the central cause of wealth inequality isn't | so much about taxation or regulatory capture etc, as it is | about individuals going to great lengths to maintain control of | their companies. | | I'm not really sure what you're basing this on? Most of the | richest people in the world don't have controlling ownership of | their businesses. Zuckerberg is the most notable exception | here, and he took a lot of risks to get there. But companies | knocking on trillion dollar valuations that aren't public and | don't have diluted ownership structures are the exception | rather than the rule as far as i can see. | whoopdeepoo wrote: | How do co-ops handle downsizing/layoffs? | guerrilla wrote: | Denocratically | missedthecue wrote: | So everyone votes for who gets the misfortune of being sent | to the chopping block? | teddyh wrote: | https://www.usworker.coop/home/ | emixam wrote: | Happy to see this list here on which our coop startup appears! | (https://kantree.io) It is very challenging to raise funds as a | coop indeed but we have managed to do it on small amounts (a few | hundreds of thousands). We are one of the few product based coop | and not service based. | | France (where we are based) is actually a very interesting market | for coops. There is a very good legal framework around coops and | a growing percentage of them. There's even an investment fund of | tech coop as of recently! https://coopventure.fr/ | | I think coops are a great ownership model for the future and for | a more responsible economy. It is too bad that there is still | very little support and recognition around it. | BrainInAJar wrote: | Do these qualify for the French tech worker visa? Could someone | who wants to move to France decide to just start a co-op ? | emixam wrote: | From what I understand, there is no limitation regarding the | type of company when it comes to the French Tech Visa (as | long as it qualifies on the other requirements which focus | more on the innovation aspect). (my coop would be eligible | for example) | | Starting a coop is like starting any other kind of company so | same rules apply. (You must be at least 2 people of course!) | mtremsal wrote: | Very interesting. Within France, would a tech coop typically be | structured as a SCOP? | emixam wrote: | Not necessarily (the coop I work for is one though). There | are 3 possible types of coops in France: SCOP, SCIC and CAE. | To make it short: | | - SCOP: adheres to the international definition of coops | | - CAE: a coop of freelancers. You are an employee of the | structure (with a work contract) but you have to bring in | your own revenue to pay your salary. A percentage of your | revenue goes towards the coop budget for shared services | (accounting, hr, ...) and cash reserve | | - SCIC: a multi-party coop. A good use case would be | platforms where you could have multiple groups of | stakeholders: employees of the platform, users and service | providers. (eg. with a Uber like coop: employees, users and | drivers could all be separate groups of owners). Each group | has a voting percentage. No group can have more than 50% | ownership. | | I see great potential for the 2 other types of coops that | France has in the context of tech. I do not know of any | equivalent elsewhere (but would be happy to learn it exists!) | 5555555 wrote: | 5555555 wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-21 23:00 UTC)