4 ms·
So... I've been interested in this model for startups. But it doesn't make sense, right? Because startups already give equity to employees as part of their comp
by lincolnq 12y ago
So... I've been interested in this model for startups. But it doesn't make sense, right? Because startups already give equity to employees as part of their compensation package. But nobody would call Google a "worker coop" -- but I haven't figured out exactly why not. What's the deal?
- TaylorAlexander 12y agoI think a worker coop is always explicitly owned equally by all workers, which isn't what Google does. The model makes it hard to get investment, since there are no "super owners" like investors typically are. The coop could pay the investment back like a high interest loan with flexible terms, but I haven't seen exactly how that would work. I'm interested in that though - see my other comment here.
- bri3d 12y agoOptions to buy less than .1% (possibly even a non-voting .1%) of a company which is majority-controlled by just a few founders is a far cry from joint-owning a company. Not only are the equity proportions vastly different but so is the management structure.