Talk:Worker cooperative

Major Commercial Characteristics of Capitalism, Socialism, and Cooperation

Hi, I added this section because it very clearly lays out the difference between the three different types of ownership patterns. When I first saw this it really helped me understand the differences. I'm not sure where it should go on the page though. Is it okay where it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdGJones (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The chart is very nice. However, the "Socialism" section represents only a single form of socialism. On a broader scale, collectives and socialism overlap, i.e. it is possible to have non-socialist collectives and non-collective socialism, but it is also possible to have socialist collectives and collective socialism. I am changing the page slightly to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.213 (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucratic collectivism is pretty specific (and loaded) term to be using in this context - the link should go to state ownership instead. I think there are some problems with the chart section. Here are a few issues:

1. US-centric bias

2. The operating practices section claims that in non-union workplaces, it's entirely up to the bosses to decide what workers' rights are. Not true; in the US and Canada, at least, workers have certain basic rights (including minimum wage laws, health and safety standards, and the right to form and join unions) that are protected by the government.

3. The same section's "socialism" row ignores the role of unions in state-run organizations. Some of Canada's strongest unions represent public sector workers.

4. Capitalism is a type of economy, and so is socialism, but worker cooperatives are not. Cooperatives can exist in a capitalist economy or in a mixed or socialist economy (such as Chavez's Venezuela or Tito's Yugoslavia). I think the appropriate comparison is between privately owned companies, publically owned companies, and worker cooperatives, not capitalism, socialism, and worker cooperatives. -Father Inire (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to start addressing these issues. -Father Inire (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The difficulty with what you are saying is that I directly took that chart from the book by Adams, Frank and Gary Hansen (1993) Putting Democracy To Work: A Practical Guide for Starting and Managing Worker-Owned Businesses, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San Francisco. I was originally intending on keeping it how it is. However, if we are to change the chart then we need to completely overhaul it away from the original, especially because, as you point out, it has a real US bias. Feel free to keep changing it. Also, I much prefer state owned enterprises to bureaucratic collectivism in the chart. I see your point about capitalism and socialism, but is there no way of including those terms in there? After all, the corporation is the fundamental economic organisation of modern day capitalism. Finally, if you feel there is a section missing on unions on the chart, why not add a row on unions? Also, after all that, you may be interested in reading my paper on workers co-ops. Comments welcome! -EdGJones (EdGJones) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• State/commonly owned coops for non-profit would be a coop under socialism. Or simply coops without capital is under socialism.
• Private/corporate owned coops for profit would be a coop under capitalism. Or simply coops with capital is under capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 October 2011‎

(1) What does that mean? It doesn't seem to be comprehensible English. (2) There is probably little point in posting replies to comments from three and a half years ago: the likelihood of any of the original posters seeing your comment is probably very low. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

India Coffee House Claims

Regarding claims that the indian coffee houses are the largest cooperative movement in the world. The International Co-operative Alliance list of the leading co-ops does not list any of the Indian Coffee Houses. Thanks to Martín in the Indian Coffee House, Kerala article.

Section also claims there are today over 150 branches, when its own website only lists 51 branches.

I am removing this entire paragraph because it

• 1. contains factual errors.
• 2. contains bold claims which are not cited.
• 3. is poorly written.

—greek lamb 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

sources, sources, sources

do you hate that 'no citations' banner at the top of the article? i'm proposing that we work towards getting rid of it by launching a campaign of citation-finding. i've set up a references section at the bottom and already thrown in three sources. if you have any questions about citations, please see WP:CITE -- frymaster 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Price of member share equity

I don't know about the US, but worker cooperatives in Canada still operate by the "ownerwship" model of paying a share price. The value of the share DOES increase, which benefits members. Some worker cooperatives will finance a share price.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TLJMP (talk • contribs) 15:58, 25 September 2006

I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia page but it occurs to me that visitors to this page may find it beneficial to review my forthcoming article in the Social Enterprise Journal specifically on cooperative social enterprises

• Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2009) "Cooperative Social Enterprises: Company Rules, Access to Finance and Management Practice”, Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), forthcoming.

This was peer-reviewed by Roger Spear - probably the UK's leading authority on cooperatives. It contains a meta-theory of different forms of worker co-operative encompassing those that either do or don't issue shares, and those that embrace different ideologies (communitarianism and liberalism) in their political orientation. The result is four distinct approaches to worker co-operatives. Further insights can be gain from obtaining academic texts in the field (e.g. Professor Rob Paton)

• Paton, R. (1989) Reluctant Entrepreneurs, Open University Press

as this examines the range of issues in developing employee-controlled organisations. His work also provides some theory to navigate the different orientations and issues arising from different approaches to worker cooperation. Another excellent paper, published in 2007, comes from Paulo Kalmi

• Kalmi, P. (2007) “The Disappearance of Cooperatives from Economics Textbooks”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4): 625-647.

who writes extensively on both co-operatives and employee-ownership (principally in response to their growth and potential in the former Eastern Block states). The importance of worker co-operative principles to the early thinking of the social enterprise movement can be reviewed in

• Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2002) Silent Revolution: Creating and Management Social Enterprises, Barnsley: First Contact Software Ltd. ISBN 1-904391-01-X.

Most of these sources will eventually surface in a 2010 textbook from Sage Publications, but these key references on worker cooperation will help to frame the debate.

When a worker cooperative does not charge a share price, there is little "buy-in" from the members. The share price creates an ownership mentality, strengthening the cooperative. Evidence to support this can be found in the above papers and books, and particularly work undertaken at the Open University in the 1980s

• Cornforth, C. J., Thomas, A., Spear, R. G. & Lewis, J. M. (1988) Developing Successful Worker Co-ops, London: Sage Publications.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 January 2009

Trade Unions

I placed a neutrality tag at the top of this section because it sounds like it is pleading a case for unions in the worker co-op. I'm also concerned about the notability and relevance of this section's inclusion in the worker co-op article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

More than six months has passed without any follow-up comment. I'm removing the tag. Richard Myers (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Future relevance

Especially considering the recent failings of large parts of the financial sector, would it not be relevant to mention co-cooperatively owned firms as an increasingly sensible section of the economy? 82.16.76.164 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. As much as I personally agree that co-operatively owned firms are sensible, 'sensible' is an opinion and NPOV.

Germany

I was surprised Germany has not been mentioned as a big european country, here as some english articles mentioning the Worker cooperatives that are worth mentioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverband_der_Deutschen_Volksbanken_und_Raiffeisenbanken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Bosch (talk • contribs) 18 March 2011

Good suggestion. However they are not worker co-operatives, they are co-operative banks and credit unions. Raiffeisen banks are mentioned in those articles but more could be written about both types of bank in English Wikipedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Third way?

The text mentions the "Workers Cooperative" as a third way(centrism). But it seems more related to anarchist movements, which are more like extreme left. How come? Daniel de França (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)