[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 72 KB, 600x700, capitalism illustrated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2482468 No.2482468 [Reply] [Original]

Co-operative enterprises are companies run by their employees. There are no shareholders except them - everyone gets one, non-transferrable share. This means that all the profit not kept for expansion capital goes to the employees (who actually do the work).

Decisions are made democratically in an assembly. A facilitator keeps order while people say their pieces, and people then vote on the proposition.

How does /sci/ feel about this? Will we see more of them in the West with the current recession? Inb4 hurrdurr socialism is evil.

>> No.2482482

Is there really no board where these political threads would belong? I know /new/ is gone, but do we really have to bother with it on /sci/?

Well, at least it's not the usual shit.

>> No.2482498

I thought you guys would be up for a discussion of economics and whether this business structure is the rational way to do things.

Isn't economics at least a little scientific?

>> No.2482503

That is an absolutely horrible idea.

The world should be run by the most intelligent, not the drones. Tyrone and Jamal do not have the capacity to make long term decisions that are conducive to the companies best interest

That comic is also flawed. The machines were purchased before any employees were hired or began working. The owner had to take a massive financial risk to initially start the business. He who takes the most risk gets the most rewards

Keep telling yourself all people are equal and should have equal resources though, it might come true if you say it enough

>> No.2482522

Where would common folk get the money needed to build the factory?

>> No.2482526

There are a bunch of really successful employee-owned engineering and construction firms. Off the top of my head (and visible out the high-rise apartment window that my engineer's salary pays for), CH2MHILL. Great company. They design and install semiconductor fabrication facilities, among other things. Their employees are insanely motivated to do projects well and quickly because bonuses depend on it.

But that sort of system is dependent on maintaining a high quality of worker. Also, they have project managers and sales teams. People find niches within the company at which to excel - decisions are made by individuals with good track records in making that type of decision.

>> No.2482531

They are not against the law. They are not just popular because they suck.

Go, find like minded individuals, and found one ... see how it works out.

What is bad is if you force everyone else to do this.

>> No.2482537

>>2482522
Lots of people with a little money = much money

>> No.2482538

>>2482526

The core principle of shared profits is still there though, isn't it?

The fallacy is assuming capitalists will run a business better than an elected planner, or an assembly.

>> No.2482559

Shareholders invest money into a company allowing it to expand, then collect returns on investment after expansion yields profits. A Co-operative isn't able to borrow against the future like this because it does not involve shareholders. This makes expansion difficult. Any venture which does not start giving a return until after a large amount of time and money has been invested is almost impossible.

>> No.2482561

>>2482538

I think they're some of the best capitalists around. The engineers bring on managers and sales folks to do the work that doesn't appeal to the engineers. Profits are of course shared - that is the point of an employee-owned company: to maximize return to the owners and incentivize high quality performance.

Their "planners" aren't elected so much as hired by people the rest of the company trusts to execute good judgment when finding new partners, because that's what employee translates to at their firm at least. The guy who puts together bids on billion dollar fabs does so because he's good at it, and his partners trust him. The lady who runs HR does so because she has the trust of the rest of the team.

As a further note, they're the most completely tattooed (on average) and well-paid engineers that I know at a company-level analysis.

>> No.2482562

The John Lewis / Waitrose group is a HIGHLY successful example of this in the UK.

Customer service is through the roof there, as are profits, and in turn staff bonuses.

>> No.2482578

>>2482561

so what's the difference between a planner hiring workers to do the work and the workers hiring the planner to do the planning? all you're doing is reversing the roles...

>> No.2482581

>>2482559

This is correct. There is no theoretical reason why a company with a small amount of shareholders cannot transition into a co-operative, once it has achieved profitablity, stable growth and a enough cash to fund expansion and bad times.

>> No.2482586

>>2482578
because at cooperative engineering firms, the planners are brought on as partners, not as bosses or employees. they own no more of the infrastructure than any of their peers and if they attempt to "exploit" their "workers" will get shitcanned in a quick minute.

>> No.2482585

At some size of company this becomes impracticable. It could still be employee owned, but it's no longer going to work as a simple democracy. In a company with 500 employees, not every company decision can be made in a democratic meeting - there's no time for that.

500 employees might be split up in several separate locations and work different shifts. And even at that size there could be enough projects going on that no one person can be involved in all of the projects.

>> No.2482593

>>2482585
Yup! They're much more concerned with making money than maintaining some illusion of democratic decision making. That would be a terrible business move - your business process would slow down so much so fast that you'd never get a bid in on time.

>> No.2482599

>>2482585

In any large company, the board of directors is not involved in every decision.

Co-operatives can work on an extremely large scale and have been proven to. That's a fact.

>> No.2482605

>>2482585

At some size, yeah. What percentage of companies employ more than 500 people?

And with franchises and such you can have democracy in each branch rather than over the whole business.

>> No.2482607

>>2482599

They are also superb work environments.

>> No.2482648

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publix
>Type Private/Employee Owned
>Employees 146,500
>1,023 Stores
Works for them.

>> No.2482664

Desjardins in Quebec is the biggest bank of the province, and it's a co-operatively owned business. It's the only corporation people love over here because it has a long history of giving back to the community.

Co-operatives also were popular in Israel (see Qibbuts).

>> No.2482667

Reported.
You should go to that board where the news are posted.
That or the general board. Or even the random board.
Or maybe the literature board?

>> No.2482671

>>2482667
>implying there is a /new/ anymore

>> No.2482679

>>2482648
A private company with a stock plan. Just plain old good capitalism. Microsoft also has a stock plan.

>> No.2482682

>>2482667

Sorry, until there is an /econ/ or /pol/ this is the only place to put it.

/b/tards are too obsessed with CP to consider it.

>> No.2482680

>>2482667
I thought you were providing solutions there for a minute, but then you
>Or maybe the literature board?

/sci is as good a place as any for discussions of business models.

>> No.2482684

hurr durr socialism is evil

>> No.2482687

>>2482667
Piss off teachers pet. No gold stars for you here.

>> No.2482693

That's nice and all, but it makes more sense to get money from investors to raise capital.
Why take money out of your own pocket when investors are willing to take money out of theirs?

>> No.2482698

>>2482693
Operational control. Few enjoy being told how to run their business.

>> No.2482700

>>2482648
uh
No wonder that publix employees are so nice

>> No.2482734

I have been partner in 3 businesses during last 15 or so years. Even when all the founders start out with common understanding it rarely lasts.

Some want to invest more time/energy/profits, others want to relax more and enjoy life. Picture how different it is when *everyone* is an equal shareholder. There are guys who live to work. There is someone who has a baby and needs more time off and would rather have the money now instead of investing it into future.

This rigid system would become a burden rather quickly. It might be usable in already established, stagnant and uneventful businesses as the value of it is in its simplicity.

>> No.2482739

>>2482698
Just keep the majority of the stocks after you make your company goes public and you'll be able to keep control

>> No.2482741
File: 84 KB, 498x655, shy-girls-naked-in-shower1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2482741

>> No.2482747

>>2482734
Most control systems have bounds within which they are useful. Pushing a jet fighter beyond its safety envelope will result in a blowed-up jet fighter. Startups are highly nonlinear control problems. I hope you've been successful.

>> No.2482758

>>2482739
after your company goes public*
typo

>> No.2482757

>>2482468
That's a simplistic understanding. A co-operative isn't run through the whims of the few, it's essentially a business that's run democratically and rewarded evenly.

As has been shown, look into the successful businesses that have been presented. They've proven that it's possible, and yet you're still bringing up semantics.

>> No.2482774
File: 276 KB, 376x342, bj-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2482774

>> No.2482836

So I was thinking, the aspect of bonuses is brought up several times in this thread to motivate workers. If a large co-op, consisting of say 500 workers, met it's goal, would all 500 get the same bonus? Say I was a worker at said co-op. I was guaranteed the minimum payout for my one share, regardless of if I was slacking all year, or working my ass of. So if the co-op didn't reach its goal, slackers would get paid the same as the ones working their asses off. If they did reach their goal, then the slackers would get the same bonus as the hardworking ones, right?

>> No.2482849

>>2482482
>>>/newpol/
The news and politics board. Spread the link around!

>> No.2482854

>>2482849
There's also
>>>/newnew/
which is so /new/ they named it twice.

>> No.2482858

>talking about socialism on a science board

>> No.2482870

>>2482774
Do you have an exact pi this style, but the girl is 13?

>> No.2482876

>>2482858
>talking about economic configurations in a science board

fix'd

>> No.2482894

Many of the time Co-operative style companies dont have complety democratic system. They have CEO's, managers etc etc. Profit sharing is the important point here. Not the democracy.

>> No.2482921

>>2482599
A big difference between employee owned and (democratically) employee run managed.

>> No.2483002

I welcome companies like this as I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.