Economics Worker Cooperatives,good or bad?

Winston Bush

Well-known member
Worker cooperatives are equally owned and governed by employees, who also earn money from the profits of their labor. There are no CEOs here making multi-million dollar salaries. Worker Cooperatives are a major part of Syndicalist,anarcho-communist and mutualist economics.
A. For.
B. Against.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Cherico basically said it for me. I have no problem with worker cooperatives, in fact I like the idea if they can pull it off, but it has to be entered into freely and has to make a profit in a competitive environment. I’m skeptical about how effective they can be, but it’s not for me to decide.
 
Last edited:

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Same as the above. I actually like the idea, but they must not be so dominant as to start pushing other forms of ownership aside, or start causing problems for employers.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
A. For.
B. Against.
Impossible to say, as the answer varies greatly with the scale, type, and culture of the enterprise and workers involved.

For example, lets take the biggest co-op in the world, Mondragon:
In an April 2012 interview Noam Chomsky said that while Mondragon offers an alternative to capitalism, it was still embedded in a capitalist system which limits Mondragon's decisions:[47]


Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker-owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.
Yup, that's their trick to get so big and still work somewhat - worker-owned, but not equally, and not worker managed.

Generally it works best with businesses that are based around a relatively simple model, with number of employees not pushing the Dunbar's number who preferably know, understand and like each other, not particularly varied workforce, and don't need major workforce turnover, technological or other major reforms often as a matter of course.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
No, based just on the "no CEO" point. This is part of the issue of any organization that attempts to be democratically run, that they eventually have to follow the Iron Law of Oligarchy, or die.

It is a necessary rule of any organization that it will be managed and owned by Oligarchs, in the broadest sense. The organization is going to be directed by the 0.1% inevitably if it reaches a scale to have a 0.1%.

The range of the possible is not whether or not your going to have a leadership/ownership class, but how that class is established and maintains itself.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Worker cooperatives are equally owned and governed by employees, who also earn money from the profits of their labor. There are no CEOs here making multi-million dollar salaries. Worker Cooperatives are a major part of Syndicalist,anarcho-communist and mutualist economics.
A. For.
B. Against.
So I think it's a generally bad idea that responds even worse when scaled up, but people definitely have a right to try it. There are numerous issues with it in practice (including: someone slacking on the job, too many chiefs, that more skillful labor isn't incentivized, inability to scale if successful) which are reasons I would never want to join one.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
On the plus side, co-ops are generally more "fair" to the workers, and in some cases like a local utility, seem to do a better job than big corporations. They're also generally more stable than normal companies, at least in some cases (though this is double edged sword, as they're often more stable because they're less willing to take risks, which holds them back in fields where first mover advantage is a thing).

However, as mentioned above they don't seem to scale well, which really limits them because they can't actually benifit from economies of scale in many cases. Walmart is big enough it can force supplies to sell to them at the price walmart wants, which is better for walmart and better for walmart's customers. Mondragon doesn't have that kind of pull.

Their "fair" nature only goes so far. As someone on SB once said of mondragon:


That "fair" attitude also sometimes bites them in the behind. Mondragon has strict rules on how much someone can be paid above the lowest wage earner in the company. You can probably see how that tends to work against them, because they can't offer a competitive salary for people above a certain level, they will always be bleeding talent as their employees decide they could take their skills elsewhere and be better off, and they cannot hire equally skilled replacements from outside.


Broadly speaking, there's a reason why mondragon is only notable or discussed as being a big co-op, rather than on the merits of what they actually do, whereas other companies are notable for actually being successful within their field. If Co-op were actually a net improvement over conventionally owned companies (rather than just being a niche idea envious people use to try and tear down the owners of bigger firms), then there wouldn't be many conventionally owned companies, there would just be co-ops.
 

Argent

Well-known member
I don't mind them but would most likely never want to work for one. I veiw Co-Ops a lot like pensions. They can work in certain situations like with farmers but mainly there are better options out there.

Personally it is the buy in that gets me. It gives you voice in the company but you can do that by buying the right kind of stock in a company you work for. Even many start ups offer ownership to get highly skilled workers on the "cheap" which gives them a voice in the company.

The thing is I don't really plan on staying with one company my entire career and have already changed once in the last five years. So that Stock I owned or got in part of my compensation package goes with me and grows over time. But I am likely only going to get the same amount I put into a Co-Op if I move on.

Also as has been pointed out once they reach a certain size it is hard to tell the difference when half the employees are just "Wage slaves".
 

Abhishekm

Well-known member
Its like the square cube law. Doesn't scale well. Technically speaking all governments are is a type of co-operative. See how that's working out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top