why should this new employee automatically dilute the pie before their "worth" is made real (by virtue of working and contributing to the bottom line)?
if adding this new employee creates more value, the existing owners shouldn't have a problem with adding. Of course, unless the employee start owning their share before being first able to be vetted.
To me this sounds very annecdotal and intuitive based on what you think you know.
I'd like to know if it has been studied and what those studies found.
Maybe if you have a vesting period of something. But even then it is one employee, one vote or is voting dependent on something else like number of shares?
In the Netherlands a coop is an acutal legal structure that businesses may adopt. It will surprise you to hear that we even a big bank which is: A co-op.
The core characteristic of a co-op isn't that the workers all have shares. It's that they have members and that the members instead of the shareholders may receive payouts based on the company income.
I realize this is different than the American case of a worker co-op. Your reaction though speaks to me that you don't consider this a serious form a company might take. Whereby you ignore that some very big and wealthy companies are in fact co-ops. I assert that this is merely because the US legal systems don't facilitate co-ops, and I wonder whether that isn't a missed opportunity?
There are lots of those types of co-op banks in the US, as well as other large businesses run as the type of co-op you're talking about. That is however a competently different thing than what is being discussed here.
How many non-owner workers can you have before you stop being worker-owned? If four workers own 25% of the shares each, and the company employs 400 (or 4000) people are they still "worker-owned" in any meaningful sense?
