5 ms·

In my experience the opposite is almost always true: > Somehow finances have to work, which is usually a harsh reality for some At most places I've been invol

In my experience the opposite is almost always true: > Somehow finances have to work, which is usually a harsh reality for some At most places I've been involved in the workers are more careful with money because they are standing together and want the business to succeed. They have transparency into the finances, so they know what's possible and try to make sure not to go overboard. > Consumers despite "Least common denominator" which is often the result of "design by committee". Usually consumers are after something niche, unique, artistic, and creative, which is the inspiration or vision of an individual. All of the worker owned places I've been have been exactly this: creative, interesting, and individual. These aren't giant chains designed in a megacorp boardroom. > I don't see this working in the long term unfortunately unless a majority of the workers have a lot experience with business, especially something as cashflow-sensitive as a restaurant (which typically operate on razor-thin margins). But I do wish them luck in their experiment. There are many of these and though I don't know the success rate compared to hierarchical businesses in the food industry in particular, co-ops have a higher success rate than hierarchical businesses in general and there's been a lot of research into it, though I don't know if an exact "why" has ever been established. I suspect it's that there's no handful of individuals who can get greedy and ruin things by trying to maximize profit. Even for-profit co-ops generally have a better sense of balance since the workers don't want their business to dry up and if one person gets greedy there are lots of other people to keep them in check.

Aunche 3y ago
> At most places I've been involved in the workers are more careful with money because they are standing together and want the business to succeed. This doesn't contradict anything GP said. Worker owners are careful with company money because they have to be, due to being invested into it. That's a responsibility that not everyone wants, especially when an organization approaches the scale of tragedy of the commons. How many regular voters bother to read the raw, uneditorialized finances that the government provides? > co-ops have a higher success rate than hierarchical businesses This is only true when you're defining success as a binary "does this company still exist." Worker-owned companies are significantly less likely to expand because they would be creating risk but would have to share the additional profits with the new hires. This would especially be the case for a restaurant which doesn't benefit from economies of scale (see Publix supermaket as an example of a worker-owned corporation that does). Even if Jude's can sustainably pay $30/hour, it would take hundreds of similar restaurants to match the success of a single "nice" privately owned restaurant chain like In-and-Out, which also pays above-market wages to thousands of employees, albeit not as above market as Jude's.
- afavour 3y ago
  > This is only true when you're defining success as a binary "does this company still exist." Worker-owned companies are significantly less likely to expand Why would that be a criteria of “success”, though? A worker owned business capable of supporting all its employees and maintaining itself long term is definitionally a success.
  - dpig_ 3y ago
    Absolutely agree. Why does everything need to scale up forever? Resources are finite.
    - mcv 3y ago
      The notion that everything has to expand is a product of our investor-driven economy. I think it's unhealthy. I'd much rather have a million local business than one giant megacorp.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      The existence of a few restaurant co-ops doesn't preclude the existence of a soulless megacorp like McDonald's. If your goal is to give more people a fair wage, it's much more effective to expand as much as possible.
  - IMTDb 3y ago
    When talking about the model itself, success could be defined as the proportion of business operating under that model. If the model is successful for all parties involved, it would be logical that more and more restaurant move to a co-op system.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  Worker co-ops aren't less likely to expand because of risk, it's because more employees diluted the pie, so they don't have an incentive to grow for the sake of growth, but only if there are significant economies of scale or social need.

Aunche 3y ago

> At most places I've been involved in the workers are more careful with money because they are standing together and want the business to succeed. This doesn't contradict anything GP said. Worker owners are careful with company money because they have to be, due to being invested into it. That's a responsibility that not everyone wants, especially when an organization approaches the scale of tragedy of the commons. How many regular voters bother to read the raw, uneditorialized finances that the government provides? > co-ops have a higher success rate than hierarchical businesses This is only true when you're defining success as a binary "does this company still exist." Worker-owned companies are significantly less likely to expand because they would be creating risk but would have to share the additional profits with the new hires. This would especially be the case for a restaurant which doesn't benefit from economies of scale (see Publix supermaket as an example of a worker-owned corporation that does). Even if Jude's can sustainably pay $30/hour, it would take hundreds of similar restaurants to match the success of a single "nice" privately owned restaurant chain like In-and-Out, which also pays above-market wages to thousands of employees, albeit not as above market as Jude's.

afavour 3y ago
> This is only true when you're defining success as a binary "does this company still exist." Worker-owned companies are significantly less likely to expand Why would that be a criteria of “success”, though? A worker owned business capable of supporting all its employees and maintaining itself long term is definitionally a success.
- dpig_ 3y ago
  Absolutely agree. Why does everything need to scale up forever? Resources are finite.
  - mcv 3y ago
    The notion that everything has to expand is a product of our investor-driven economy. I think it's unhealthy. I'd much rather have a million local business than one giant megacorp.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    The existence of a few restaurant co-ops doesn't preclude the existence of a soulless megacorp like McDonald's. If your goal is to give more people a fair wage, it's much more effective to expand as much as possible.
- IMTDb 3y ago
  When talking about the model itself, success could be defined as the proportion of business operating under that model. If the model is successful for all parties involved, it would be logical that more and more restaurant move to a co-op system.
sudosysgen 3y ago
Worker co-ops aren't less likely to expand because of risk, it's because more employees diluted the pie, so they don't have an incentive to grow for the sake of growth, but only if there are significant economies of scale or social need.