3 ms·

> Why can't we invent a system of corporate management in which the employees have the majority stake in how the company operates? We have, it's called a co-op

by seneca 5y ago

> Why can't we invent a system of corporate management in which the employees have the majority stake in how the company operates? We have, it's called a co-op. There aren't many that are terribly successful, but no one is stopping you from starting one.

denton-scratch 5y ago
Mondragon, the Basque truck-making coop. They've been going for as long as I have, because they were founded in the year I was born. John Lewis, a UK department store. It's not exactly a coop, but it's pretty close. The staff are referred to as "partners". They're in financial difficulties at the moment, I think, but that's not because workers participate in the company. They're one of the few UK department stores still standing. Waitrose (a John Lewis brand) is easily the classiest supermarket/grocery in the UK - people choose where to buy expensive homes based on how close the nearest Waitrose is. It's easier to set up a private company than a joint-stock corporation, and it's easier to set up a joint-stock corporation than a cooperative. It should be easiest to set up a cooperative, rather than hardest. Oh - and there's the Coop Bank. Wait - that went broke due to dreadful mismanagement, and was bought by a VC outfit. So how come they're still allowed to call themselves that? There's still a number of local chains of fairly small grocers, operating as autonomous members of the Cooperative Wholesale Society (the bank was originally part of the CWS). These are decent shops, well-run at a local level, but I'm not impressed by their head-office management. If you take their discount card, then you get to participate in board elections and so on. It's a "customer coop".
ashtonkem 5y ago
I wonder if it’s something about co-ops that limit their success, or is it the lack of VC funds to burn during the growth stage? Obviously in this context we shouldn’t assume that a co-op would ever get to FB size. Forgoing some profit for the sake of ethics is the reason why the idea was floated here. But I would expect co-ops to make it to say, Redhat levels at least. Can’t help but think it’s the lack of capital and connections that going for-profit with VC backing would get a company with a more traditional corporate structure.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I have mentioned upthread three BIG cooperative ventures that have lasted foer a long time; they're just the ones that I can think of quickly. I care about coops, so I notice them, so maybe they're rather rare. VC backing would make a coop no longer a coop. That horse is not a runner. All this venture capital business is about getting a return in five years. A coop is about a bunch of people working together for their whole working life; it's a different way of organising work. If the thing works, then the investment is organic (and slow). The coops I mentioned have lasted a long time.

by seneca 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago

Mondragon, the Basque truck-making coop. They've been going for as long as I have, because they were founded in the year I was born. John Lewis, a UK department store. It's not exactly a coop, but it's pretty close. The staff are referred to as "partners". They're in financial difficulties at the moment, I think, but that's not because workers participate in the company. They're one of the few UK department stores still standing. Waitrose (a John Lewis brand) is easily the classiest supermarket/grocery in the UK - people choose where to buy expensive homes based on how close the nearest Waitrose is. It's easier to set up a private company than a joint-stock corporation, and it's easier to set up a joint-stock corporation than a cooperative. It should be easiest to set up a cooperative, rather than hardest. Oh - and there's the Coop Bank. Wait - that went broke due to dreadful mismanagement, and was bought by a VC outfit. So how come they're still allowed to call themselves that? There's still a number of local chains of fairly small grocers, operating as autonomous members of the Cooperative Wholesale Society (the bank was originally part of the CWS). These are decent shops, well-run at a local level, but I'm not impressed by their head-office management. If you take their discount card, then you get to participate in board elections and so on. It's a "customer coop".

ashtonkem 5y ago

I wonder if it’s something about co-ops that limit their success, or is it the lack of VC funds to burn during the growth stage? Obviously in this context we shouldn’t assume that a co-op would ever get to FB size. Forgoing some profit for the sake of ethics is the reason why the idea was floated here. But I would expect co-ops to make it to say, Redhat levels at least. Can’t help but think it’s the lack of capital and connections that going for-profit with VC backing would get a company with a more traditional corporate structure.

denton-scratch 5y ago
I have mentioned upthread three BIG cooperative ventures that have lasted foer a long time; they're just the ones that I can think of quickly. I care about coops, so I notice them, so maybe they're rather rare. VC backing would make a coop no longer a coop. That horse is not a runner. All this venture capital business is about getting a return in five years. A coop is about a bunch of people working together for their whole working life; it's a different way of organising work. If the thing works, then the investment is organic (and slow). The coops I mentioned have lasted a long time.