Hacker News Reader

Comment by vincent-toups | Hacker News Reader

Vote the freeloader off the island. A cooperative is not a charity, though it does have the freedom to be more charitable if that is what the employee/owners decided to do. And obviously, it operates in an external market place which places some pressure on it to operate efficiently.

The primary difference of interest here is the way an employee owned cooperative is directed by people the employees (who know what is really going on in the company) and for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of disinterested shareholders.

View on HN

> Vote the freeloader off the island.

Wow, great solution!

Except that, of course, you're missing the problem. Firing the employee isn't the problem - I don't think it's relevant whether it's done democratically or if the CEO "dictates" it.

The problem is, how to find freeloaders? In absence of objective metrics (which is what the parent raged against), it's an art! Or, it will come down to internal politics, ass-in-the-seat time, popularity contests, ... not that much better than in a non-cooperative company.

In an employee owned company, the stakeholders are closer to the problem and more invested in the solution. Does that mean it won't fail sometimes? Of course not. No solution is perfect, but the incentives in an employee owned cooperative are significantly better than the incentives management in an ordinary company typically has.

Except, in identifying the freeloader, being far less invested in the outcome (e.g. further from the problem) is a benefit as it provides some objectivity. Create a co-op group and convince them their survival is dependent on each other...I highly doubt a group beyond 5 will agree on who the freeloader might be.

Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round. We should be extorting people with capital through the nose for them and making sure that we are taken care of instead of treated like disposable cogs.

I tried to start a tech co-op. Ours failed because of a lack of shared definitions on too many topics. What was 'work'. What was 'learning/training'. We could agree on goals, but intermediary steps towards those goals were all over the place.

Without a clear provider of vision and decision, it crumbled. This part is true of any venture, but I think becomes even more critical in a co-op since the authority is necessarily shared.

A cooperative can be democratically run but still have a powerful executive figure who is invested with the ability to determine these sorts of things.

I think in broader terms, cooperatives are bound to be less efficient than an equivalent capitalist controlled venture, but that difference doesn't have to be a death sentence for the cooperative.

> Why this model isn't more popular is really confusing to me. Technically trained people have the skills that make the world go round

If you are brilliant at engine design does not mean you are brilliant at selling cars.

Selling cars make money. There is negative value in a bunch of engines lying around.

As software engineers we design automation to make a business more efficient.

To make money you need to run a business.

This sort of system simply encourages the formation of feuding power blocs. And woe be to those who refuse to join one of those cliques. Finally, if you can be "voted off the island", are you really an owner? IMO, you are not.

You are an owner, you're just not the owner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com