What's up with employee-owned companies/co-ops? How does it compare to a strong union?

[bcsven@lemmy.ca]

Yeah, I expanded in my reply

[twinnie@feddit.uk]

I don’t know much about them but I like the idea and I’d be more inclined to use one.

We have the Co-op in the UK and it’s a household name. They run a bank and local shops but I think do more than that. They’re not employee owned though, they’re consumer owned. I’m not entirely sure what that means but I remember you used to be able to walk into a shop, pay a small amount of money, and then join. Each year you’d get a small amount of money depending on how much profit they’d made.

[track_shovel@slrpnk.net]

Found the Canadian

[ultragigagigantic@lemmy.ml]

You might be interested in Mondragon as well.

[hazeebabee@slrpnk.net]

I've lived in and worked at a number of co-ops. I think they're far better for the employee than traditional businesses when implemented in a democratic way. Having control over the workplace and direction of the business is incredibly valuable. It's also important that the co-op members talk to and know eachother. Having lots of meetings and community building is very typical in this type of business.

Also the type of co-op I'm talking about also returns excess profits to the workers (often with a portion taken out to be put back into the business/saved for a rainy day). In this way they are way better than unions, which no matter how powerful do not fully redistribute profits.

I also think worker co-ops are functionally better than worker communes. Co-ops give much more economic freedom to the workers, and side step many of the pitfalls of live/work communes.

Feel free to ask me more about my experiences if you're curious

[bubbalu@hexbear.net]

Worker cooperatives prove the important but limited point that while capitalists need workers, workers don't need capitalists. Most 'employee-owned' companies in the US and UK are mainly owned by the highest levels of management with some more buy-in for middle management. It's typically done with some kind of vesting scheme that keeps junior employees on the hook for years.

These firms still exist firmly within a capitalist context and require workers to become their own exploiters.

[lesserabe@lemmy.world]

One advantage as I understand it between a worker cooperative and an ESOP is that the worker cooperative has a one person one vote system. It avoids the issue you mention about not having voting shares. I worked at a place with an ESOP and just the managers had shares. And even there they didn't prevent the business being sold to private equity. Sure they got paid out but now that previously family owned business is part of a monopoly in our industry.