undefined | Better HN

0 pointsabeppu1y ago0 comments

I can kinda see how one can argue that this is a feature rather than a bug, but I still think this points to the more distinctive feature in these coops being democratic governance of workers rather than ownership.

I own shares of past companies I've worked at, but I don't have any representation in how the company is run. It doesn't matter if my interests have diverged from current workers, because I have no influence.

If a company compensates its employees partially with RSUs, and those employees own and can eventually transfer those shares freely, and the company was also democratically governed by its workers ... could you not have "real" ownership (by current and past workers) and still protect current workers' democratic governance?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

drewmcarthur1y ago· 2 in thread

> democratic governance rather than ownership

yes and no, i’d call the distinction collective ownership. you can sell your shares (by quitting), or you can stay and participate democratically. but you can’t do both, and that protects your say in the company, preventing investors from overruling worker-owners.

> i have no influence

neither do the current workers. the issue isn’t retail investors, but the ones with board seats. if boards only had one seat for an investor, that’d be one thing, but usually workers only get a single seat, if any.

> protect current workers’ democratic governance

you could do this with preferred shares, voting shares, etc. investor shares are non voting, voting shares can only be owned by workers, etc. you still have to counter their concentration though.

abeppuOP1y ago

I think we're roughly in agreement?

Any organization that arranges for its workers to govern it has some organizing document that describes this structure. Any organization that arranges for its workers to become owners must pick mechanism for this to happen. My view is that these can be basically independent choices:

- A firm can pursue a profit-sharing-for-current-workers approach as described for Mondragon, or can issue RSUs or options ("real" and transferable ownership)

- And regardless of what "ownership" vehicle they pick, they can still be organized to be democratically governed by its workers (establishment of which need not be dependent on any stipulated "ownership"). I.e. your organizing docs can describe a board composed of current employees, elected by employees, etc.

I am skeptical of the claim that profit-sharing while you're an employee is "ownership" in part because you are incentivized to prefer that the firm take profits while you work there. By comparison, if as a worker your vested stake persists even after you leave or retire, you might be much more inclined to vote for large reinvestments this year (and for the next several) which may not yield a profit until after you've left. Temporary "ownership" may not encourage the same long-term view as ordinary literal ownership.

max_hoffmann1y ago

Cooperatives guarantee that only people working in the company benefit from the profit of their own work. If one can stop working and still take a share from the profits, everyone else would have to not just work for themselves and lose part of their profit to an increasing amount of people, who are not taking part in creating that profit. Cooperative guarantee that profit is owned by the people who create it.

1 more reply

tmnvix1y ago

> ...these coops being democratic governance of workers rather than ownership.

So who are the owners if not the workers?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse