Link
if paywall comes up, just open it in incognito
Notes
If Apple was a worker cooperative, then each employee would’ve received a 403,000 in Apple as worker cooperative.
- And interesting statistic, but I’d be more interested to look at the numbers themselves or at least dig into the “how”?
A worker cooperative is a company that is owned by the employees. Thus, employees receive salaries for their labor and a dividend at the end of the year from the company’s profits
- I’m not all that familiar with the structure of a worker cooperative, but this just feels like an oversimplification. What does co-ownership actually look like? Is it always some sort of proportional payout or are there nuances to its structure?
- TBD do more digging here followup
Worker cooperatives answers the question we’ve all asked ourselves – what’s the point of working hard for someone else? Finally, we’re able to justify working ourselves to the bone for our fair share of the spoils
- worker cooperative
- It doesn’t necessarily sit well with me that the notion of a worker cooperative (which I see as a more communal / selfless conception of work), is what answers a fairly individualistic question “what’s the point of working so hard for someone else?” and solves that problem by saying “aha the problem is you deserve more money!…
- Like isn’t the spirit of a cooperative more than just the money?
- This tugs at my need to read/watch transcending the differences between individualism & collectivism
Worker cooperatives are better equipped to protect jobs and protect their workers from dangerous work conditions. For example, an average company is focused on creating profits for only their owners, thus they would lay-off employees to increase their profit margins. But, a worker cooperative would protect their jobs because each employee is an owner. Each worker-owner would make less, but they would all weather through the recession and retain their experienced staff for the eventual economic recovery.
- I think this is a great point. Workers are people with friends/family/loved ones, recessions are never really their fault, so why are they so readily disposable in tough economic times?
Worker cooperatives focus on being profitable, while assuring that worker-owners are paid fairly for their labor and in safe conditions. Instead of centralizing wealth and profits, the worker cooperative would give everyone a share of the spoils.
- It’s a shame that we don’t get more details about what constitutes being “paid fairly” - isn’t that the harder question? No shit, people are going to agree with you when you say “I believe everyone should be treated fairly”, but I guarantee that countless debate would come up about what constitutes fair
- Even if that ends up being a moot point (i.e. everyone is a worker-owner with equal share end of story), does money alone solve other problems?
Secondly, critics complain that the business model is not scalable. Critics believe that worker cooperatives are unable to grow to the scale of a company such as Apple. This is clearly disproven with the existence of companies such as Mondragon. All companies face the same problem as they grow – recruiting good people. Finding the right people to join the team is most important factor in whether a company is able to succeed at scale. Worker cooperatives are able to attract the best talent because they’re able to provide the opportunity for ownership of their work. A capable person is incentivized to join a worker cooperative because they will own a piece of the company, instead of simply earning a flat wage.
this is clearly disproven with the existence of companies such as Mondragon
- mondragon
- Ok but I don’t think this really says anything. A single example of a company that can scale takes the criticism too literally. I doubt critics mean to say “it’s impossible to scale”, but rather “scalability becomes a much bigger problem that needs to be talked about”
All companies face the same problem as they grow – recruiting good people. Finding the right people to join the team is most important factor in whether a company is able to succeed at scale.
- yes, but c’mon. If all it took to scale a business is good people, then more startups would succeed and Amazon wouldn’t be as filthy rich as it is.
- There’s a lot to consider in a world where people have a lot of options over what to buy / do with their money. Competitors that treat their employees poorly, but a lower price point will still attract consumers. Amazing products created by incredibly talented people can still fail if nobody needs it or knows it exists.
- Some products may have an easier time differentiating themselves based on their ability to recruit good people than others (e.g. let’s be really honest with ourselves — how many times have we consistently bought something \ supported some business on a whim/gut feeling? I think most.)
Takeaways
- Honestly, the article was kinda trash and clickbait-y but helped point me to some interest nuggets by which to more deeply explore worker co-ops