4 ms·

The paradox of worker-coops is that workers capable of successfully running businesses together are also capable of running businesses independently, so why cre

The paradox of worker-coops is that workers capable of successfully running businesses together are also capable of running businesses independently, so why create more failure points?

r00fus 3y ago
This comment seems ignorant of basic economics - you might as well ask why mergers/acquisitions happen at all.
- nataliste 3y ago
  Corporations under a board and a CEO staffed by hired labor have very little in common with worker-co-ops and workplace democracy. My point is that a person competent enough to successfully run a business will almost certainly do so solo. The value-add of worker co-ops is moot if you already have the knowledge and capacity to run and staff a business, whereas the drawbacks and risk are monumental. I've been in and started several worker cooperative businesses. I don't try to do it anymore because of what I perceive as a fundamental issue: the people that are the most explicitly attracted to worker co-ops are also the least business saavy or willing to put the business's existence ahead of ideological values. In my experience, it is a recipe for almost certain failure. In the same way that anarchists point to Revolutionary Catalonia, workplace socialists point toward Mondragon, ignoring that these are both statistical aberrations rather than the normal state of affairs. The normal state of affairs is a bunch of naive ideologues that hand-wave away planning critical details. This isn't unique to worker co-ops; founders do it all the time, but the difference is that new ventures require flexibility and leanness, but worker-co-ops are exceptionally rigid and fragile. Generally if worker co-ops "succeed" it's directly because they are being subsidized by similar ideologues rather than business efficiency. The actual product they sell is good feelings rather than products or services.
  - throwaway14356 3y ago
    people are more annoying than anyone. you need a good set of rules for the game. My funniest attempt involved 2 friends of mine who are both in a league of their own in their field. both of them kept sticking their nose in what the other was doing endlessly moaning that it couldn't be done. Eventually they just got angry that some noob would question their expertise.
nwalizer 3y ago
How does collaboration create more failure points, rather then fewer?
abeppu 3y ago
I don't think it's a given that what a group can do, the constituent individuals can do? You probably need a team to build and ship a meaningful product regardless of the type of organization that develops it. It's a little weird that tech-folk are generally ok with the idea that groups can yield good predictions in the context of a non-owner community that is harnessed to improve a product, or in the context of a prediction-market, where people placing bets in disagreement can lead to a more accurate outcome than the participants taken separately would produce -- but somehow think this mechanism will fall apart if workers who have an interest in a firm's ongoing revenue are able to vote.
- nataliste 3y ago
  I'm not a tech worker. I'm someone that spent eight years working in cooperative ventures. Regardless of venture, the Pareto members (i.e. the 20% of people that did 80% of the meaningful business logic) were consistently outvoted by the majority that were not willing to vote the sacrifices necessary for the business to continue. In addition, they'd frequently vote on the basis of individual member's popularity to the extent that they'd vote to retain members that were a net revenue loss. This isn't a dynamic unique to worker cooperatives (democracy in general falls prey to this), but it is one that co-ops amplify. If you have only pro social and competent members, it doesn't really matter what the system is, but if you don't, structuring cooperatively is rife with pitfalls that conventional structuring avoids or at least allows mitigation.
throwaway14356 3y ago
economy of scale doesn't seem paradoxical? There is also the thrill of making something happen together. Like barn raising with 200 people is quite different from building a shed alone.

The paradox of worker-coops is that workers capable of successfully running businesses together are also capable of running businesses independently, so why create more failure points?

r00fus 3y ago

This comment seems ignorant of basic economics - you might as well ask why mergers/acquisitions happen at all.

nataliste 3y ago
Corporations under a board and a CEO staffed by hired labor have very little in common with worker-co-ops and workplace democracy. My point is that a person competent enough to successfully run a business will almost certainly do so solo. The value-add of worker co-ops is moot if you already have the knowledge and capacity to run and staff a business, whereas the drawbacks and risk are monumental. I've been in and started several worker cooperative businesses. I don't try to do it anymore because of what I perceive as a fundamental issue: the people that are the most explicitly attracted to worker co-ops are also the least business saavy or willing to put the business's existence ahead of ideological values. In my experience, it is a recipe for almost certain failure. In the same way that anarchists point to Revolutionary Catalonia, workplace socialists point toward Mondragon, ignoring that these are both statistical aberrations rather than the normal state of affairs. The normal state of affairs is a bunch of naive ideologues that hand-wave away planning critical details. This isn't unique to worker co-ops; founders do it all the time, but the difference is that new ventures require flexibility and leanness, but worker-co-ops are exceptionally rigid and fragile. Generally if worker co-ops "succeed" it's directly because they are being subsidized by similar ideologues rather than business efficiency. The actual product they sell is good feelings rather than products or services.
- throwaway14356 3y ago
  people are more annoying than anyone. you need a good set of rules for the game. My funniest attempt involved 2 friends of mine who are both in a league of their own in their field. both of them kept sticking their nose in what the other was doing endlessly moaning that it couldn't be done. Eventually they just got angry that some noob would question their expertise.

nwalizer 3y ago

How does collaboration create more failure points, rather then fewer?

abeppu 3y ago

I don't think it's a given that what a group can do, the constituent individuals can do? You probably need a team to build and ship a meaningful product regardless of the type of organization that develops it. It's a little weird that tech-folk are generally ok with the idea that groups can yield good predictions in the context of a non-owner community that is harnessed to improve a product, or in the context of a prediction-market, where people placing bets in disagreement can lead to a more accurate outcome than the participants taken separately would produce -- but somehow think this mechanism will fall apart if workers who have an interest in a firm's ongoing revenue are able to vote.

nataliste 3y ago
I'm not a tech worker. I'm someone that spent eight years working in cooperative ventures. Regardless of venture, the Pareto members (i.e. the 20% of people that did 80% of the meaningful business logic) were consistently outvoted by the majority that were not willing to vote the sacrifices necessary for the business to continue. In addition, they'd frequently vote on the basis of individual member's popularity to the extent that they'd vote to retain members that were a net revenue loss. This isn't a dynamic unique to worker cooperatives (democracy in general falls prey to this), but it is one that co-ops amplify. If you have only pro social and competent members, it doesn't really matter what the system is, but if you don't, structuring cooperatively is rife with pitfalls that conventional structuring avoids or at least allows mitigation.

throwaway14356 3y ago

economy of scale doesn't seem paradoxical? There is also the thrill of making something happen together. Like barn raising with 200 people is quite different from building a shed alone.