But there is something very interesting about the three people I’ve mentioned: they all work directly with a new business-model that challenges the old and tired notion that workers must be led by bosses at the helm.
More: http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/corporate_globalization/2013/01/31...
I've been in involved in co-operatives of one kind or another since the mid-1970s. Probably others here have been in co-ops longer than I have.
Canada's co-operative movement is on the rise (2013) (rabble.ca)
When Workers Own Their Companies, Everyone Wins (newrepublic.com)
How a very old economic model could help the new economy
More horizontal, less siloed, management style is more and more the norm. However, when push comes to shove, the hierarchy asserts itself. Few organizations are truly non-hierarchical.
There is a failure to distinguish between leadership and hierarchy.
There is a failure to distinguish between leadership and hierarchy.
And between hierarchy and concentration of power (and exploitation). I think you are implying the latter, and I agree.
As for hierarchy, I'm not in favour of organizations that put it above practical structure, and I think too many are needlessly top-heavy, but most organizations simply can't function without one at a certain point. That's not actually a bad thing, because there is no organization without specific people who have a great deal of power (like the book keeper, or the one looking after inventory), or people who exert it. And then there's the natural jealousy, territorialism, and greater and lesser involvement that happens in all organizations. So the potential for that exploitation is there in an ad hoc way even where there is little formal structure.
Like many here, I am sure, I have several personal experiences with collective and cooperative organizations that suffered badly from lack of structure. I still think that if one is working in a group and not alone, a collective structure is the best way. The thing is striking the right balance.
In the experience of many, hierarchy represents a seemingly intractable legacy issue. Hierarchy is present whenever you have a number of problems defying solutions because the hierarchy's interests are at stake. It's when collective solutions run up against barricades and logical, collective decision making goes out the window. Assigning an implementer of collective decision making is different than a class of deciders who impose themselves and won't go away.
That is true, though that class can assert itself just as easily, and sometimes moreso, when there is no adequate structure in place.
Another model, not strictly cooperative, that is growing is the Urban Reserve:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/urban-reserves-successful-in-sask...
U.S. Rust Belt Survival Strategy: Giving Workers Control:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/this-rust-belt-town-s-survival-st...
A traditional cooperative institution: irrigation in Bali, going for a millenium or so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ozS8BKUFI
Problems of socialism - "Inside Spain's Utopia" (Marinaleda village in Andalusia):
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/04/spain-utopia-160418120...
Apparently a "cult of personality" in a nominal cooperative. There are reasons why some attempts at practical socialism emphasize democracy, for example the Israeli kibbutzim and in the U.S.
coming up on 49 years.
I don't think that there are any magic solutions to the question of hierarchy. I just think that it's a continual and ongoing process of overthrowing them whenever they occur.
Problems of socialism - "Inside Spain's Utopia" (Marinaleda village in Anadlusia):
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/04/spain-utopia-160418120...
Apparently a "cult of personality" in a nominal cooperative. There are reasons why some attempts at practical socialism emphasize democracy, for example the Israeli kibbutzim and in the U.S.
The criticism was very weak, nothing more than a bit of gossip. It seems most people living there are very satisfied which isn't to say they couldn't improve. Within the article they acknowledge that they are far better off than the surrounding areas. So maybe it isn't utopia, but that is a goal rather than a destination that we will ever reach.
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune. The great thing about democracy is that people are free to set up their communities however they please.
We could transform Canada if we choose to. The biggest problem we have is not the media or the government. Most people are relatively content with the status quo, or don't know how or where to channel their discontent. The biggest problem we have is our failure to deliver the message in a manner that people can and are willing to absorb.
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune. The great thing about democracy is that people are free to set up their communities however they please.
sure pondering....whatever you say....unless we are a community you don't like or a cooperative model which supports a community you think should be eliminated...just saying....it's kind of ironic you would say this
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune. The great thing about democracy is that people are free to set up their communities however they please.
sure pondering....whatever you say....unless we are a community you don't like or a cooperative model which supports a community you think should be eliminated...just saying....it's kind of ironic you would say this
just sayin...i think this post of yours crossed a boundary and is close to targeted stalking.
you came into a thread, made no comment on it and attacked pondering for her opinion. like wtf?
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune. The great thing about democracy is that people are free to set up their communities however they please.
sure pondering....whatever you say....unless we are a community you don't like or a cooperative model which supports a community you think should be eliminated...just saying....it's kind of ironic you would say this
Just because people associate with one another or have the same perspective on a topic doesn't make it a community. For example, fast food workers are not a community.
Perhaps I should have added "as long as they are not breaking the laws of the country the community is in". Nothing in the current laws on prostitution prevent prostitutes from using a cooperative approach.
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/new-extreme-massage-parlour-worries-plateau-r...
“They have a permit under personal care, but we're wondering what kind of personal care is needed in a residential area 24 hours a day,” said Amy Lilien, who owns a property near the business, which is on Roy St. between St. Dominique and St. Laurent Sts.
LIlien noted that the online application form for Extreme Massage requires applicants who want to be 'extreme girls’ provide their height, weight and photos – but no proof of certification in massage therapy.
“We're wondering why they're looking for ‘extreme girls’ and not certified massage therapists,” she said.
Lilien and other residents in the area fear Extreme Massage – adjacent to a daycare and a children's park – will only add to gang-related problems they've already seen in their neighbourhood.
Going to have to work to get that place shut down but if it located itself in a non-residencial spot it would probably survive. It's nothing a bunch of enterprising sex workers who want to start a cooperative couldn't do. They could even advertise. They could also form a cooperative Escort Service. So just go ahead and start up a cooperative. You can even advertise that you are setting up a coop Escort Service to let women who want to get involved get together. All an Escort Service needs is a small office with a receptionist and a website with pictures. It should be really easy in Vancouver. You can even get a few shared apartments.
So go ahead Susan. You want to start a coop, do it. You won't be breaking the law as long as you don't advertise prostitution. Given that this is such a lucrative profession collecting enough to start up shouldn't be a problem. You are a "community" so communication shouldn't be a problem.
we did start a cooperative..... the first in canada.....
and you telling me how to do it is ludicris.....you are the expert on how to open an agency...you know all about it.....
tell the workers in calgary who were just arrested about how they can......
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune. The great thing about democracy is that people are free to set up their communities however they please....
...I nearly fell off my chair reading this one...thankfully the system has very successful efficient ways of turning people off the idea, or once established, corrupting people out of it.....and if that doesn't work, they just bring in their authorities, the regional districts and provincial agencies, the social workers...or if you're far enough removed, they'll just log and mine poison you out...
...the great thing about democracy? I was curious to know which part of the planet you're from to experience democracy!!
Joseph Stiglitz proposes co-op models as an alternative to trickle-down economics:
http://www.thenews.coop/110090/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-proposes-co...
and
https://www.sommetinter.coop/en
"Is hierachy the enemy of co-operation?"
I wouldn't say the question is answered, but it's used as a jumping-off point for a useful review and discussion:
http://www.thenews.coop/112205/news/co-operatives/hierachy-enemy-co-oper...
Funny what we think about. But I was just pondering this.
Could Beethoven's works be produced by a cooperative committee ?
Would the name Beethoven mean anything if it was only up to Ludwig himself?
Not everyone wants to live in a full on commune.
Communes were probably a great idea back when everyone in a certain area worshipped the same God, had the same priorities, ate the same food and followed the same ruler.
The coop economy can't thrive without some extent of taxpayer funding / state aid / dirigisme at the beginning of the coop's life.
The coop economy can't thrive without some extent of taxpayer funding / state aid / dirigisme at the beginning of the coop's life.
Some favourable tax treatment might be all that is needed. That could be justified by the lower external costs (including social costs) imposed by the co-op sector of the economy.
The coop economy can't thrive without some extent of taxpayer funding / state aid / dirigisme at the beginning of the coop's life.
Can you tell us more?
One would think that cutting out "middlemen", cutting out an "owner" and giving control to members would all be advantages, not disadvantages.
The coop housing I live in was built because the federal government instituted a program. Most of the cost of the land and buildings was borne by the subsequent 30 year mortgage. However there were still the costs associated with project management and oversight plus training for proper Board management and of course the all important CMHC financing guarantee.
To foster a syndicalist movement in Canada it would require support akin to the coop startups in the 1980's and access to mortgage capital.
Its a viable option to help build a sustainable economy.
A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.
Co-operatives are businesses owned and run by and for their members. Whether the members are the customers, employees or residents they have an equal say in what the business does and a share in the profits.
As businesses driven by values not just profit, co-operatives share internationally agreed principles and act together to build a better world through co-operation.
The coop economy can't thrive without some extent of taxpayer funding / state aid / dirigisme at the beginning of the coop's life.
Some favourable tax treatment might be all that is needed. That could be justified by the lower external costs (including social costs) imposed by the co-op sector of the economy.
I have to disagree. I think the Lassalleans in Germany were right about the extent of "government interference" required, unlike the more timid social-democratic calls for favourable tax treatment or generous state loans and mortgages.
The kind of taxpayer funding / state aid / dirigisme required at the outset would be like a multiple-whammy combination of:
1) obtaining investment funds from a venture capitalist
2) obtaining those same funds even though the other side knows that the short- and medium-term rate of return won't be as high
3) obtaining favourable "management services" arrangements
4) obtaining favourable credit rating services
5) obtaining favourable mortgages
6) obtaining favourable loans and lines of credit
7) obtaining favourable tax treatment
8) obtaining favourable labour law treatment from an employer's perspective
9) obtaining favourable environmental treatment from a "moderate" polluter's perspective, and
10) obtaining favourable miscellaneous regulatory treatment
Again, all rolled into one.
It's still not clear which of those -- #'s 1 through 10 -- apply only to co-ops.
And to be honest, I have to think that if a private developer said "we expect favourable tax treatment, favourable labour law treatment from an employer's perspective and favourable environmental treatment from a "moderate" polluter's perspective" we'd say "hehehehehe.
It's still not clear which of those -- #'s 1 through 10 -- apply only to co-ops.
Individually no, but collectively yes.
However, small business lobbies don't care much about 1, 3, or 4. Venture capitalists fund businesses bigger than the usual small business, and management services are the stuff of larger enterprises. Credit rating regulation and "interference" goes against "free market principles."
Ok. But you're still not saying why one person can do this alone, but 1000 people collectively joining forces needs the state to intervene in the form of money or special exceptions.
Given low interest for the time being, such an investment by government need not lose money over a term. There is no reasonable reason such a public investment cannot be made.
OK, but I'mma ask again: what's the reason why a public investment needs to be made in the first place? What is it about "co-ops" that require investment of public money, or special rules??
If it's a plain and sensible thing then someone just say. But I assume that private investments also sometimes require legal assistance, or management services or whatever, no?
The public good of having decent jobs that are locally based and controlled by the people employed in them is self evident unless you think that having Canadian workers at the quarterly whims of hedge funds is a system that is working. To get into the economy groups of bright, motiovated people need access to capital and for the government to give them that access it would require ensuring that they have the capability to succeed. If they succeed then the community they live in has a stable business that is not going to be sold off when it gets profitable and the jobs shipped abroad.
The public good of having decent jobs that are locally based and controlled by the people employed in them is self evident unless you think that having Canadian workers at the quarterly whims of hedge funds is a system that is working.
Sounds super! I'm not quarreling with that. I'm asking why the public needs to fund it.
To get into the economy groups of bright, motiovated people need access to capital and for the government to give them that access it would require ensuring that they have the capability to succeed. If they succeed then the community they live in has a stable business that is not going to be sold off when it gets profitable and the jobs shipped abroad.
S0unds great, but again, could you tell us more about why this can only happen when taxpayers pitch in?
S0unds great, but again, could you tell us more about why this can only happen when taxpayers pitch in?
Because the typical worker is risk-averse, and doesn't want to sacrifice things like EI benefits to form a small business, let alone a co-op. Only taxpayer funding to the magnitude and latitude I'm proposing would incentivize workers forming worker co-ops. "Socialize the risks, cooperativize the profits" sounds a lot better than socializing actual losses and privatizing profits or gains.
Because the typical worker is risk-averse
So's the typical taxpayer. If a worker who stands to benefit directly from the success of their co-op is reluctant to take that risk, why should some taxpayer -- whose benefits are going to be nebulous at best -- supposed to want to underwrite it?
That is exactly the argument people use about public schools. You either believe that viable communities are a societal good or you don't. Currently letting only the oligarchy have the say on investment decisions means we get pipelines and our kids and Grandkids get retail service jobs. I think our economy is failing on all cylinders when it comes to providing sustainable vialbe businesses across the country. It has nothing to do with risk adversion. If I have a million dollars and I invest a thousand it is not a large risk. If I have a thousand dollars then that same investment becomes a extreme risk.
You either believe that viable communities are a societal good or you don't.
OK. I guess I remain unconvinced that a business owned by its employees is necessarily this "viable community" in a way that a business owned by shareholders is not.
Credit unions are basically co-ops, yes? And yet here at babble I seem to recall hearing that they're almost indistinguishable from "the big" banks now, and are ironically just as reluctant as the big banks to invest in co-ops!
I have nothing against co-ops. I was just a bit surprised to hear that I should effectively have to "buy shares" in them, without any voting rights, and with nebulous silliness like "viable communities" as my only dividend.
Magoo since the status quo is working for you I do understand why you like neo-liberal economics so much. Its a great system for some and I am happy that is your reality.
Because it is an investment in the economy that if it is spent right will reap multiple rewards. One of the areas of growth in the cooperative sector is in home health. If government can help small co-ops get started they will provide services at low overhead and with more people centred values (in general). And if they are smart with who they support the economic activity (check out the Italian examples) will more than repay the investment.
Magoo since the status quo is working for you I do understand why you like neo-liberal economics so much. Its a great system for some and I am happy that is your reality.
I'm surely not a 1%er -- probably not even a 20%er here in Canada -- and I'm not asking all of this to give a big shout-out to neo-liberalism.
My question was (and remains) why a group of people who would like to start a co-operative business require the help of the taxpayer. So far the answers seem to be "because co-ops are awesome" and "because those people who want to start that co-op are risk-averse".
I figure if as citizens we can collectively prop up Bombardier then I think we need to look for economic alternatives where the public money doesn't get wasted on bonuses for the 1%'ers running the company.
I figure if as citizens we can collectively prop up Bombardier then I think we need to look for economic alternatives where the public money doesn't get wasted on bonuses for the 1%'ers running the company.
I don't disagree, other than to suggest that we shouldn't need to prop up Bombardier, nor a co-op.
There are a number of barriers to entry for co-operatives. Often they are the smallest form in their marketplace and start from behind the eightball regarding economies of scales. Financial institutions equate ignorance with risk and risk becomes extra expenses. I am sure someone closer to the cooperative movement could outline the hurdles better, but they are there. If you want a critical mass of cooperatives in your economy you can pray that they will overcome the hurdles and grow organically or you can provide seed money to get them started.
prop up Bombardier
I guess I am a better Magoo stalker. I watched his anti Bombadier rants.
Geez. That makes it sound like I'm "anti" everything.
But I do think it's always reasonable to question government spending here at babble. And ya, it's also not clear to me why Bombardier can't seem to stay in the black without some enforced "crowd funding".
Although the Spanish government doesn't do this, the extent of taxpayer funding, preferential services, preferential treatment, state aid, etc. that I envision for worker coops would be akin to aggressively treating Mondragon as their country's own Bombardier by a factor of... three or more. :)
One of my ideas on coops has been popularized, finally, by one Peter Ranis:
Eminent Domain: Building Toward Worker Cooperatives in the United States
Build it yourself: a growing housing alternative
quote:
Like the Church Grove project, the Bunker Housing Co-op in Brighton is planning a self-build project on a local authority site considered unattractive for commercial developers – in their case it is a small infill site with tight road access. The co-op is starting to build two three-bedroom homes this year.
The houses’ superstructures will be built using pre-fabricated, structural insulated panels, making the build itself easier, and members of the co-op will help in the building of each other’s homes.
Bunker are project-managing the build, and members will have hands-on involvement in most stages of the build, in particular carrying out most of the site clearance and the ‘second fix’ – including electrics, decorating, plumbing, carpentry and external cladding – with the supervision of professionals to certify the work. It’s ‘half-way from self-build to grand designs’ says co-op member Martyn Holmes on Bunker’s mixture of self-build and project management.
Because the homes will be available for a very affordable rent rather than as part-ownership, Bunker is unable to use a ‘sweat equity’ model, but what the self-builders will get out of it ‘is a house with cheap rent for as long as we want to live in it,’ says Martyn. The initial rent will be set at £175 a week, less than half of the average market rent locally.
Members of the co-operative must be on the local authority housing list, and the build will be 80 per cent funded by mortgages taken out by the co-op, and 20 per cent by the issuing of loan stock (a process by which co-operatives can raise money, similar to a company issuing shares).
The workers who bought out their bosses and secured their future:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/workers-bosses-new...
Jobs, Jobs, And more Jobs!
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/04/03/Growth-Co-operative-Business-BC/
The workers who bought out their bosses and secured their future:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/workers-bosses-new...
I read that article too. In my opinion any company going bankrupt should have no choice but to allow employees to buy them out with government support.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/retail-feature-1.4577670
In Toys "R" Us's case, the first steps toward its own downfall seem to have been taken in 2007, when it was taken private in a leveraged buyout from three firms who specialize in such things: Bain Capital, KKR & Co. and the ominously named Vornado Realty Trust.
Leveraged buyouts are a procedure whereby firms like the ones above take over operating companies, but lack the financial muscle to do it in cash.
They do it by borrowing the money they need, using the purchased company as collateral. The debt itself then gets dropped onto the books of the acquired company.
When a company goes bankrupt it's cheap to buy.
I also think if companies buy other companies the parent company should remain responsible for debts. If the parent company doesn't go bankrupt then neither can the company that is owned. None of this nesting companies 6 deep to avoid responsibility.
