Have you ever been a member of a worker co-op, union, communist society or any other idea you champion? Or had first hand experience with a family or family member who had to pay your bills as a union member? Or dealt with shit union employees as part of the non-union part of the company?
If the answers to most of those are no, then you are ill-informed.
Ahhhā¦ bullshit!
The members, not some jackoff in HR.
Oh you mean like the U.S. where workers see less and less as the profit is funneled to the top.
Have you ever been a member of a worker co-op?
Well since we are talking about worker co-ops and he seems to think one is ill-informed if youāve not been a part of one, I turned the question back on him.
No but I have dealt with all the other shit. Worker co-ops (from what I read) and unions function essentially the same way - they protect the laziest workers and reward seniority and/or simple membership over productivity.
Also, you didnāt actually answer the question, which doesnāt surprise me.
Heās not championing them; you are.
Guy A: I canāt imagine that meal tasting good. The ingredients donāt seem like they would work.
Guy B: Itās delicious, and I feel like it doesnāt encourage oppression.
Guy A: What does it taste like?
Guy B: You also havenāt tasted it.
These businesses that the workers will run, who exactly is starting them in the first place? It seems like someone has an idea for a business. He starts the business. He grows the business. Then his employees end up taking his business away. Isnāt this just another form of exploitation?
Itās not much different than a standard business partnership for those who found the company. How they choose to manage and (maybe) share profits.
They still have āclasses of membersā (i.e. a heirarchy), itās just that each member gets an ownership stake and therefore a vote on business decisions.
The third principle here is where it gets tricky and becomes an impossible measure:
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
Letās say you have produce floor manager in a grocery co-op, he determines order quantities, where to source goods from, layout of goods and pricing - how is his work equitable to that of the guy who takes that off the truck and puts it on display? The first one takes quite a bit more acumen and intelligence. The latter, castoli might be able to do.
I think an important point is that regardless of who runs it, they will run it like a (evil) capitalist. In the end, they still want to maximize profit. I donāt even have an issue with a co-op but to make it out as anything other than profit seeking capitalism is ignorant.
You can claim your company has values, integrity, blah, blah, blahā¦and that may all be true. But you are right. A businessā first and foremost goal is to make money. And due to innate human greed, if they can make more, they will.
I donāt even think itās always just greed. Itās about securing a worry free retirement, saving for your kidās college, reinvesting, etc. You never know when or even why a business might fail at some point. So maximize your profits while you can.
Read more.
No D-bag! The worker co-ops start out owned collectively by the members.
Both assume equitable contributions from all members at a given level as a baselineā¦Itās stated on the website for the organization promoting co-ops.
Thatās purely unrealistic.
So why bother forming a worker co-op?
A person who may be employed at a co-op may not be an owner for a short time period until they meet the requirements. However the goal, which is readily attainable, is to always own a piece of the business or become a worker/owner. Not so for a standard business partnership. The workers there are not often choose to become a partner.
Just like a U.S. corporation.
Yet they figure it out and everyone is happy.
Some people do not want to own a business or even a piece of one.
Not every worker deserves to be a partner. Doesnāt mean they are a ābadā employee.
Maybeā¦I bet you would find the same if not more frustrations throughout many co-ops as in any other small business. In fact, decisions likely get even more heated because their are too many people with differing opinions who get to make decisions.
But who created it? If thatās how it works, why donāt these collectives exist all over? Would you still allow conventionally owned businesses to exist?
So if I want to start a business, I need to hire a bunch of employees and make them equal owners/partners? They get to run my business, or is it their business, even though they lacked the ability to even start one. Again, they exploit my imagination, creativity, ambition and intellectual property.