Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What's wrong with workers running the factories?

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 4:43 p.m. EST by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Parecon--workers self managing their own industry, what is wrong with this? This is real democracy, the workers have an equal say and there are no bosses. Everything is on consensus.

Collectives are such a better idea than top-down corporate oligarchs.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

As a toolmaker, I have been saying this for 30 years.

My family owned a tool and die company, we were all toolmakers. There is no reason why someone in management is not elected by the workers. The workers know best who can run a company.

I would never vote for someone to run a company, unless they had experience in that type of production.

I cannot tell you how many good tool and die companies were ruined by MBA's. Once a company started by a toolmaker became big enough, the capitalists would sweep in and buy it. It is very rare the company would last more than three years.

All the people who put time in would have to switch jobs, and,of course. lose all their time in terms of vacation and the like.

Worker run companies NOW!!!

[-] 4 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

And that's what anarchist have been saying for centuries ;)

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 12 years ago

I like the idea of an elected manager. You still need leaders to make practical decisions in a timely manner. What we don't need are these get-rich-quick CEO's that are only out for themselves.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Germany has kept its manufacturing and is a huge exporter, with major worker input. They are the strongest economy in Europe.

[-] 2 points by bugbuster (103) from Yoncalla, OR 12 years ago

Amen to that. I once worked for a tech firm with an engineer at the helm. Then the little bald-headed Monopoly board guys took over. I don't think they even knew what the company did for a living. All they ever talked about was the stock price. They finally ran it into the ground and sold it cheap to the next bunch. It's now a cash cow for these parasites, still a good organization because it's loaded with great engineers. We live in Podunk, and they have nowhere else to go.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

You'd probably like "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business" See http://www.amazon.com/Car-Guys-vs-Bean-Counters/dp/1591844002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321402117&sr=8-1

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

Once the Accountants and lawyers take over that's the end of it for many companies.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Amen to that.

The only people who should run companies are workers. End of story. IF people want to risk money and invest, I would agree to very, very limited investments. But no control in the investments of the company, day to day operations, and how much the workers make. All decisions should be made by the worker councils, and only the worker councils.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago
  1. Who in the company voted for the capitalist to sweep in an buy it out?

  2. Who profited from the original sale of the worker owned company?

  3. What kept all of the workers from buying the bankrupt company and turning it back into a worker owned business?

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago


  1. These were small companies, nobody votes.
  2. There was no worker owned company, as far as I recall.
  3. Money and political connections, big government and big business do not just do business with you because you are efficient and do the job correctly. The Ruling Class cares who makes money.
[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 12 years ago

Wrong on all three!

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

I would have to disagree with #3. The ruling class as you called it are primarily interested in profit. So those that make the best and cheapest product gets the contract. The government, however, is the one that will reward a contract based on race, or financial need.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Brain, it is my experience that those in power will sacrifice short term profit for long term gain.

As for the government and awarding of contracts, they are not alone in awarding based on background.

Think about it. I have a relative who is a mason. I have personally witnessed him meeting other masons for the first time in a business setting. Work was exchanged without any type of formal process. I was stunned the first time I saw this happen.

As far as race, there is discrimination in hiring base on ethic background, sexual orientation, and gender. I have no reason to doubt it go on in the process of distribution work. I CANNOT prove that, but I have seen enough to have this opinion.

[+] -5 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

If what you say is true, and capitalists buy companies from toolmakers only to have them shut down in three years or less..........then the toolmakers are the only winners!!!!! You should be happy!!!!!! You win!!!!! You, see? In your scenario, the capitalists lose their investment. They go broke on that business. The toolmaker gets to pocket the cash they got from the capitalists. And when the capitalists go broke, the toolmaker can use his know how and the cash he got from the capitalist to start a new business to serve the demand.

You just described how the system works for you and you seem to think that is a bad thing?

[-] 4 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

No, the companies, that I am aware of, shut down due to mismanagement. It is not a universal rule, but it sure as hell happened a lot.

As for the toolmakers, no, we do not win in this scenario. We pocket nothing, expect a pink slip. Also, as you get older, you will find it is harder, not easier, to get a job. Toolmakers also operate as a team, it takes years to build a good company.

Also, as far as starting a company, that is not just up to you. There is no such thing a free market. Contrary to what they teach in business school, you are not a free agent. Most of the serious top line work is farmed out from the government to big business. You have to be on the inside to get this work. Most Working Class men and women are not on the inside.

Can you start a small company, sure, maybe get second hand and repair work. But in the vast majority of cases, it is nothing like when this country was the center of the industrial world 40 years ago. It is now pathetic, at least in the tool industry.

Also, having more knowledge and experience is a good way to stay unemployed. Why? Because you are worth more money, this is a reason why older people have trouble finding work in their field. They can command higher rates of pay based on education and experience. This is not a plus in your job search when you are middle aged. It is a detriment, at least in most fields I have been employed in.

As an example, worker's compensation is much higher on older workers.

However, if you had worker run, not corporate capitalist run companies, this practice would end, if not be curtailed. Workers are not going to create a for profit structure that discriminates against their fellow worker. They will sacrifice profit for solidarity.


[-] -3 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Wait a minute...you said, and I quote "the capitalists would sweep in and buy it". The toolmaker who started the company and owns it, did not have to sell. But they did. Most likely for cash, in an amount to which they agreed. They got the CASH. The buyers, who you call capitalists, with their MBA's ran the company into the ground within three years. Are those the ones that you now say shut down due to mismanagement? Well, to follow your original scenario, the capitalists must have lost money. They bought something that went belly up within three years. Who got the cash? You are the one who said the toolmaker/owner sold the business, so he got the cash.

You are looking for someone to blame. So, who is the bad guy? The ones who paid cash for a business and ran it into the ground? Or, the toolmaker/founder who chosen on his own volition to take the cash and run. So, where is the greed? Taking the money and running as the toolmaker did in your scenario sounds pretty greedy to me, huh?

[-] 5 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

You sound young, here is a lesson, do not be so presumptuous to know what I, or anyone else, is thinking or their, or my, motives. I have seen this type of reasoning destroy companies. There is a hell of a lot more going on then some sort of Socratic reasoning process.

As to the reason(s) why someone sells a business is a varied as why someone starts one, and yes, some people start business without the intent of getting rich. I do not think you have owned one, I have.

As to why someone sells, it is not always because they are greedy and want to "cash out" like in a movie. They just might be old, sick, or may have a sick wife and the insurance company will not cover their obligation as stated in the insurance policy and they need a couple of million up front to cover the cost. Some may have been cut out of the work supply loop by time and death of contacts.

The only bad guys here are the people who teach and fool people into a vision of the world and economics that does not exist, or never has existed. After having spent many years in the financial industry, I found some people do this with the intent of getting rich off the backs of others.

[+] -5 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

You sound young, here is a lesson, do not be so presumptuous to know what I, or anyone else, is thinking, or my, motives. Sound familiar?????? I am 55 years old and have been in the financial services industry for over 30 years, from commercial banking to investment advisory services. So, I have most likely seen more varied reasons for the sale of a company than most people, because I have been involved in many of those transactions.

I caught you on your first scenario, and you don't like it. You described how a dirty rotten scoundrel capitalist swept in and bought a company from a toolmaker who had grown the company to be big enough to be purchased. You said nothing about health issues or age. In most cases, the seller does not have to sell. But, they want to for any of a variety of reasons.

And I see how you slipped in your disgust for health insurance companies. You bought the canard as described by Obama, didn't you. You said "the insurance company will not cover their obligation as stated in the insurance policy". That is an out and out lie. When there is a dispute about non-payment of a claim on and insurance policy, the dispute is about whether it was a covered item. If the item was not covered by the policy, and therefore premium paid for that coverage, then, no the insurance company should NOT pay the claim. They are not a charity. If, as you say, the insurance company denies payment for what they are contractually obligated to pay, then there is an entire judicial system to adjudicate such a claim.

So, when you blithely say that an insurance company denies claims they are contractually obligated to pay, then you lose all credibility.

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Sorry about the age thing. I thought you did sound young.

You caught me on nothing. I was painting with a broad brush over my years of seeing many companies ruined. Was it all of them, of course not. But this is so common in the Tool and Die and Tool and Mold industry that it was a joke. If you were in the industry, you would know exactly what I mean.

You simple do not sound like someone who has worked in a production level business. I have worked in the financial industry also, and you do not trade toolmakers around like accountants. You do not build a tool company by moving workers in and out, you lose company production cohesion. And when a crew breaks up, it is lost forever.

Also, I am stunned that someone your age would find anything joyous or positive about someone buying a company, running it into the ground and declaring "capitalism works." That is why I thought you were young. I would not expect that from a middle aged person.

As for the Insurance piece, I put it in there becuase it happens. I have been involved in many of these type of scenarios. You know how? Because I worked in the Insurance industry. Do not tell me about the industry. I WORKED THERE. I saw what they do to people.

If you are serious about believing insurance companies pay the claims they are contractually obligated to do, i would bet on one of two things. One, you are wealthy and the companies rarely go after people like you, why would they you can fight back, or two, you have never had a serious large claim. This is why we have an insurance commissions, and why capitalists want to get rid of them.

Also, it is why I want universal national health care, I do not want to deal with private insurance companies. Or should I say, if I could afford health insurance I would not want to deal with insurance companies.

I am not arguing Insurance companies never pay, but they sure as hell try to find every way not to. Look at what happened in South Florida after the Hurricane in the early 90's. The insurance companies just walked. It took years of lawsuits to get that mess worked out. I know, my family owns property there.

You need to come to OWS, many former financial people come out and tell their stories of what they use to do to people. It is cathartic.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

You have been a toolmaker, a financial advisor, and worked in an insurance company. I can believe that. What I have difficulty believing is that you never worked as a writer. Your posts are well written, to the point, enlightening, and most of all fun to read. As someone who has reached an older age, this seems like a wonderful career choice. Wouldn't your life experience benefit you in this case? I'm sure you would have a lot to teach us all.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

LOL I have to show this to my ex- she always complains what a poor writer I am. Then again, she is one so maybe that is why.

As a career that would be great, just as soon as I find the money to pay the rent I will get on it. :) My career choices have revolved around my families' business involvements. But it is something I have considered, I am working on an outline. The internet makes it much easier to research. I am from the generation where the internet was just up and running and not what it is now. So I am working on it.

Also, I read a lot, none of my ideas are original. As an example, this whole post started over worker run companies. Two examples, in Germany there is the co-determination law, which requires all companies that have 500 plus(?) workers to have half of the board represented by labor. And two, Mondragon Corporation is the massive worker owned company in Spain.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Truly original ideas are very rare. Even the greatest philosophers like Descartes only wrote a few lines they could claim solely belong to them. More often than not, it's about re-shaping an existing concept with our personal experience than it is about giving birth to truly new and original concept. Coming up with one new concept is the holy grail. If you ever do this, you'll be known forever and all your life story will be plastered on the Internet and in history books. Do we really want this? Do you want future generations to know about the problems you had with your ex ;-)

Keep posting here. I enjoy reading your posts, and it's good to practice writing every day.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

health issuance should cover health

[-] 5 points by Unger (22) 12 years ago

This is a very reasonable idea. There are worker co-ops in many countries, including the US. The largest are in Spain. For a short survey of the topic, see http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/workerCo-Ops.html

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Argentina is doing good work on this. If Chavez would get out of the way Venezuela could do more on this.

[-] 5 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago
[-] 3 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

Alvarado St makes good bread, I buy it here in NY

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Compare it to Wonder bread that kills you.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

Oh, yuk. I stopped eating wonder when I was 11. My mother wasn't too happy with my bread rebellion but I did what I had to do, lol.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

The internet says Alvarado St has revenues of 23 million and Isthmus has est revenue of 10 to 20 million.

Not too shabby.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

You're seen as a failure in this sick society if you do not make billions. lol

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

That's right, it is not in the Fortune 500, therefore it doesn't matter.

[-] 2 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Thank you for the examples, I will read the handbook linked to by the isthmuseng company website.

The next problem centers around your suggestion that "we" take over factories. This is illegal and should remain so. Private ownership must be honored as a rule of law.

Start your own collectively-run business but do not steal others' businesses.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

We could pool our money & buy them. Perfectly legal, & doable, too.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Taking over factories is as American as apple pie.

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Nah, not really. I mean, who would work for one? Where's the upward mobility in that?

[-] 2 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

Where is the upward mobility in being a ceo?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

A working collective discourages the competition that drives upward mobility. What's absent here is the human element on the level of interpersonal relations.

Its all about power because power gives us the ability to control our own destiny. Resources arrive in many forms... one of the most prized resources amongst the majority population is access to reproductive possibilities. I've always worked for large companies and there is no doubt that women to this very day are possessed of a particular intelligence that allows them to utilize the rhetoric of equality to search out those with wealth and power as a means of acquiring some lasting stability and security. It continues as their choice despite all the rhetoric.

Heterosexuality drives competition. And a CEO arrives only by but a matter of luck.

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

That makes no sense at all.

[-] -3 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Those two are about to take over the Fortune 500, aren't they.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Like that matters. You just made the case against small business..lol

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Not at all. The proportion of total business represented by communal type of operations is but a fly speck of the total economy. Which means, it does not matter in the big picture.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

that's what needs to change

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 12 years ago

Because only super-big is good?

[-] -2 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

I said nothing of the kind. My point is that if they are so fantastic and wonderful, and the wave of the future, wouldn't there be a few more of them, and might there be a larger one? or two? Those have been around a long time with no impediments to their formation. But the total affect of all of them is a fly's speck.

[-] 5 points by rxantos (87) 12 years ago

What you describe is a cooperative.

[-] 4 points by You (62) 12 years ago

well, that wouldn't leave any room for extremely overpaid middlemen, i mean execs.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 12 years ago

Nothing wrong with it, all they have to do is buy their own factory and run it any way they wish. Or buy the stock in the company and take it over that way. Profit sharing can improve a company greatly.

[-] 2 points by oakforest (5) from Sarasota, FL 12 years ago

Read the book "Sin Patron: Stories from Argentina's Worker-Run Factories." Here's a review http://upsidedownworld.org/main/argentina-archives-32/2223-the-unpredictable-future-stories-from-worker-run-factories-in-argentina

Argentine workers essentially did what OccupyTogether is, except in the workplace and not just city plazas. They took the rights and changes we've been begging for.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Argentina is a good example. They tried it in Spain in the 30s before the fascists crushed them. Tacitly supported by the US, obviously, since we allowed our oil companies to give oil to the fascists.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

What factories? They're all in China.

[-] 1 points by IndigoRed (87) 10 years ago

Too many CEO's only know business and finance and b2b negotiations. They know how to calculate if they should shut down an office or factory in a location or to open one. I believe CEO's should personally know or be skilled in the trade of the company they run and mix executive tasks with micromanagement of workers to be respected at least.

[-] 1 points by JCroft (5) 12 years ago

Factory Co-ops could be formed from skilled workers and their friends/families, just have to have a product that will sell and do it at a profit. And marketing, etc, so marketing majors can also join the co-op.

Just have to get around the us government doing everything possible to economically strip mine the country.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Get a bunch of friends and start a collective. It's fun.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

they should all have a say in who leads them. but none should have a say in how he leads.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

There's nothing wrong with the workers running companies.

When the workers want to expand and need capital, they can either get it from the banksters, or they can make their case to their fellow citizens that it's a good investment and ask them to contribute in exchange for some small part of the company's success. This is a perfectly reasonable way to get the capital needed to expand their business. It's called "stock."

People today can run their corporation. All they need to do is band together, buy an appreciable portion of the company's stock, and decide how to vote regarding operation of that corporation. It's been done.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

As I've said a million times they already exist. They are a success.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Yep, but ironically, they would likely want to issue stock if they see their product as become very popular and they need capital to expand quickly. I find it remarkable that folks demonize corporations without end here. Some may be "corrupt," but the basic mechanism is valuable... even to "The People's Factory."

[-] 1 points by armchairecon1 (169) 12 years ago

because if they ran their own factories, they would increase benefits, decrease productivity, increase workrules until they went bankrupt

which is basically what happened to the auto and airline industry.. weren't those clear enough examples

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 12 years ago

Nothing, but we can do much better than that! I know it's hard to believe but you have to: “WE ARE FREE!!!” (Take off the blinders) Isn't that why we're here? http://WeAreFree.osixs.org Wake----Up! It's time to throw off the chains...

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

america used to have a system that did not produce an oligarchy.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Cooperatives are the only way to fix this mess! They maintain the customer-responsiveness of the capitalist economic model, but prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. SHOP CO-OP! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

[-] 1 points by youarebottom1percent (1) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Start a company, hire some workers, then give them the right to vote you out of management. LOL What an idiot you are!

[-] 1 points by youarebottom1percent (1) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Start a company, hire some workers, then give them the right to vote you out of management. LOL What an idiot you are!

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Why do you think we need masters? Don't you wanna be free of coersion?

[-] 1 points by CEOSalaries (9) 12 years ago

Look at these CEO Salaries

CEO and board member salaries for NON-PROFIT Banner Health in Arizona --- WOW

Peter Fine, an American dream comes true. Peter, a former New York taxi cab driver, has made it big in the health care industry. Now making

$1,300.00 an HOUR managing his NON-PROFIT health care corporation, Peter can easily buy a new car for CASH after working only 12 hours. An

American dream comes true! How do your wages compare?

Ronald Bunnell, another American dream come true. Bunnell was an auditor for the accounting and consulting firm of Peat Marwick and Mitchell

for two years and now makes $880.00 an HOUR in the NON-PROFIT health care industry. After working only an hour he can pay his monthly grocery

bill. Ronald's wages are probably closer to yours.

Susan Edwards, may hold the record for a woman working in NON-PROFIT health care endeavors, making over $1,600.00 per hour. She can pay the

average house payment by working only 42 minutes, not much more than a coffee break. Susan is advancing her career, currently with NON-PROFIT

ProHealth Care a Wisconsin. How are you doing on your house payments?

All data is based on compensation figures that are public information. Internal Revenue Service, tax year 2009, DLN# 93493316013240, Employer ID

45-0233470. 40 hrs/wk 50 wks/yr 2 weeks paid vacation. Current wages may be up to 20% greater. Travel expenses and other benefits are not


Web Archive, Twitter and Face Book short URL's:





[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Charities are the biggest scam in America. United Way used to just throw money away.

[-] 1 points by SvenTheBarbarian (84) from Phrao, Chiang Mai 12 years ago

Just as a side line that I do not see discussed here, there are a lot of people saying if co-ops are good start your own, that is the American way. But the corrupt political system also affects whether they can survive.

If the uber-wealthy control politics, and are anti co-ops, as they would be, and co-ops became a real threat to their stranglehold on power, then they will control legislature that will gently destroy such entities, unfortunately also the American way as it exists now.

How can they do this, some examples:

  • Opening trade barriers with countries that have terrible labour laws such as China/Mexico etc, the ultra-wealthy control and profit from the trade coming from those counties and the local co-ops cannot compete.

  • Using legal tricks to drag co-ops into lengthy court cases they do not have the resources to battle.

  • Is it Merrick(?) that owned the Genetically modified corn strain that has infected all the fields in US, then they sue independent farmers out of business.

  • Holding monopolies and under-pricing co-ops until they fail, then hiking up the prices.

  • Gently greasing money in bureaucracy that could stifle competition such as the co-ops, tricks like zoning changes, traffic control..

These are pretty loose ideas I am throwing out there, what I am getting at is that if you have ultra-wealthy groups (the 1%) controlling the government and the media then community initiatives like co-ops can be squeezed under their thumb. We can see this in the mega-monopolies that exist now.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago


Cooperatives are thriving. England even has one specifically protected by the legal system.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

We need to ban all forms of using money to influence Washington.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

That would be a great start.


Lets try to extend that line of thinking to self-managed communities and their economic policies.


Also keep in mind mechanized and automated labor must be accounted for since it has replaced many workers yet produces goods more efficiently. And this technological unemployment will continually push more and more people out of the current job sectors as machines are generally more profitable.

The only way around that is to align the economic system to support this.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

If everyone owns a share in every business, when all jobs are automated we'll all be able to live off the dividends.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

Technically it is possible to automate all the necessities now however it would require a reorganization of society.



[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 12 years ago

There are many worker run operations,. from bakeries to bike factories. This seems the best way to organize an operation. everyone gets and equal share of profits, and all have a say in GA for organizing the operations.


[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Localism, coops, protectionism. Beauty.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

coops are beneficial even when they're not local! People power!

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 12 years ago

I like the first two,. not sure 'protectionism' is as good but I suppose it depends on how you define that word.

Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalization, Slowmoney,. these are concepts I support.

[-] 1 points by bugbuster (103) from Yoncalla, OR 12 years ago

I think there are all kinds of arrangements built around that idea. Costco is a worker-owned business last time I checked. I have heard of privately held companies where the owner wants out and makes a buyout offer to the workers. I'm sure it works great for some, and it's not for everybody. If I were offered a stake in a factory making some product that was becoming obsolete, for example, I might decline the offer.

We ran a business for 15 years. It was kind of nice to go to work for somebody else and let them have the headaches for a change. If you run a business, you come to realize that while you might own the business, the business definitely owns you!

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 12 years ago

Parecon can't work on a large scale. If radical social change is what you're after instead of piecemeal reform, there can be 'model' of a future society here and now. The most we can hope for is to subvert existing structures (global capital, the state, the technological infrastructure, etc) as well as experimenting with different modes of social/economic cohesion. Perhaps elements of parecon can be adopted towards this end, but the future is far too uncertain to assume that it could constitute a pre-established framework.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Parecon is large scale! And there are lots of others!


[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Give special tax breaks to coops, fini.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 12 years ago

In other words, address symptoms while ignoring root causes.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

No, the root cause is a system that, in the process of effectively meeting peoples' needs, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few business owners. We need everybody to be a business owner, and co-ops are an effective way to make that happen.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 12 years ago

Who needs workers when you have robots?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

I want Mitt Romney to say that. Ask him to quote you in his next debate.

I also want you righties to be mad that the media and the GOP elites are telling you who to vote for.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 12 years ago

Me, a "righty"? How presumptuous. Fun fact: I often play devil's advocate in order to spur discussion.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 12 years ago

because that would make too much sense when there are laws passed that make much more cents for shareholders to dictate production and quality

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Shareholders also lower wages--an important thing to remember the next time you can't pay the rent.

The shareholders and their thievery must end.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

So if co-ops are such a great idea...why can't a country be run with a co-op?

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Technically, a democracy is government by co-op, but ours unfortunately has been co-opted...

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Collective government is another good idea.

[-] 1 points by solidarity1 (25) 12 years ago

There's nothing stopping you from starting a worker-run factory...

[-] 1 points by AnnArkey (31) 12 years ago

Great ideas! Union owned companies are the way to go.

[-] 3 points by RonnieStRaygun (74) from Sacramento, CA 12 years ago

There aren't any more unions, dear.

I got rid of them all in the 80s!

You're probably too young to remember.

Obedience is autonomy!

Slavery is freedom!

Money is GOD!

[-] 2 points by JoeSteel (58) 12 years ago


I hate you.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Customer-owned is even better! Coops are the way to go.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

who would be in charge of salaries? Does the engineer that is single and works 60+ hours a week at the factory and at home get the same salary as the front desk person that works 40 hours and never thinks about the factory once they leave? Does the highly skilled craftsman get the same salary as the janitor? If not, who decides? Do we all vote for our own salaries?

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

They would vote on that, share in the chores like janitor. There would be no elite--everybody would do the mundane work and the regular work. You could elect people to do billing and the like.

[-] 0 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

better yet, everyone can work to the best of their ability, and everyone can get paid based on their need. We can vote on who's needs are greater.

[-] -1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

Cool. So everyone will share in the R&D and the engineering.

Do we expect everyone to work to the highest common denominator, or the lowest? in other words, if someone is working 60+ hours, do we expect everyone to share those hours, or everyone ONLY puts in 40 hours and goes home? I ask because I am an engineer/project manager, and I tend to work 40 hours in the office and another 10-20 a week at home. I have to answer emails and work on drawings at home. While my assistance only works 40 hours and goes home. You can not get them on their cell at night. I dont have that luxury. However, I get paid more than the assistance, so I dont complain.

I am not convinced the other employees would see the extra efforts I put into the company, so they might not vote me a reasonable salary. Where as my boss now does indeed see my efforts.

[-] 3 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

There are over a thousand working collectives. They work.

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Name one in the US. Provide financials. I'll contact them myself. I run a business and would love to speak to a company bigger than say, $1,500,000 revenue a year. That's not a lot for a business. Many little retail shops do that with 4 employees (revenue, not profit).

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago


I don't know what U.S. Provide is, but here's an (incompletete) list of cooperatives. There are some household names on this list.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Some are non-profits, like South End Press, which puts out lefty books.

[-] 0 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 12 years ago

such as? what size? what industry?

If someone at the factory does something wrong, by mistake of course, and someone gets sick, and the factory gets sued, who is responsible?

[-] 2 points by JoeSteel (58) 12 years ago

Wheatsville Cooperative. Based in what appears to be your hometown of Austin, TX. Go drop in on them on Guadalupe and ask them how they've been doing for the past 35 years.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

They might be just fine. It doesn't matter. But if they are so wonderful and there is one in Austin that has been around for 35 years, why aren't there more? Go start one. That's the American way.

[-] 2 points by JoeSteel (58) 12 years ago

I never said I wanted to start a cooperative. I want to own my own business and do well enough to hire some workers and pay them well and provide benefits. Maybe even have a potluck lunch every Friday,

Wheatsville was doing great when I left Austin. There's also the student housing co-op, the bookstore co-op, the pub and brewery co-op and I'm sure other co-ops that are still doing well from themselves since they have a very loyal clientele.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 12 years ago

Sure. That means you share in losses and put up money too. Go for it.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by cityrep (20) 12 years ago

It works so well that is why most companies have workers running the factories.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

If people knew it was an option, they would take it. The Wall Street centered media ignore it because it is a dangerous concept--democratic rule. We know longer would need masters.

Bloomberg, you aint our daddy.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 12 years ago

Because you don't have any right to do that. If you want a collective shop, start your own. Raise capital and go for it!

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

Nothing is really wrong with this so long as the previous owner made some agreement to have the property transferred.

So long as nothing is done by force or fraud its all groovy.

[-] 0 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

The state would take away their charters.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

If workers collectively run factories, who will decide whether to leave the toilet seat up or down?

[-] 0 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 12 years ago

Do you see what a cluster this forum board is? thats what a business would be like without bosses. Except the lunch room would have shit in it.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Workers would run it, not own it. Ownership of big companies would be banned, eventually.

Workers who feel their work has meaning will do a better job. A coop will work better. More quality, less thinking about just making a buck.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Distributed ownership is key! It results in distributed wealth -- what the protesters are really asking for. And to ramous: there are tons of successful coperatives already in existence!

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Are these workers also putting up their own money to fund a new company?

Are these workers also signing the personal guarantees their vendors will want? (btw: personal guarantees mean that if you don't pay your bills they can go after your personal assets, not just the company's. We make our customers sign them all the time to ensure payment.) Are employees going to be willing to put their homes, cars, and bank accounts on the line? And how do you equalize out that fact that someone with a house, car, and retirement account has a lot more to lose than the new kid with 100K in student loan debt and no assets?

[-] 3 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

A bunch of people putting up money is different than one person with a small business. It's run the same as any business, just with democratic control. This isn't hard.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Then go start a company with all the workers putting some skin in the game. What's the big deal here? You are free to do that. Nobody cares if you can or not. Just do it and quit complaining about others.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

The problem here is ignorance of the solution, which is why a public forum where people can complain and be heard is good: it spurs dialog, which is inherently educational (apart from trolls...)

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Curious, what job do you have?

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Self-employed business consultant, why.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

When you lose your job don't come running to us.

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

When you work for yourself, you never get fired.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

But who's taking the fall when the company goes bankrupt. That's what I'm asking. You see, there's this little thing about companies called "risk". And the the people that own businesses are also the ones who assume it.

So what I'm asking is how is risk assumed.

[-] 2 points by JoeSteel (58) 12 years ago

The board of directors as elected by the workers. The business would be incorporated, as most businesses are.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 12 years ago

So it's OK for these fictitious workers to hide behind the corporate veil to protect their personal assets, but not OK for current corporate leaders?

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Distributed ownership = distributed risk.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

And how to we account for the 40 year old having a house, car, retirement account, etc as having more risk from the new hire 20 year old with nothing to lose?

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

No one is stopping you except you. Try it. Try to hire people on the grounds that they contribute the same amount of their personal assets to start a company with you in return for an equal share of the revenue.

Tell your initial employee/partners 8-months into it that you need to hire 5 more people and this will mean their original share of the ownership (and potential revenues) just got cut a bit. See if they cheer or grumble.

Provide a model that works in reality not in fantasy and maybe the world will follow suit. Good luck but don't hold your breath.

See how much I've grown? I didn't answer your post question with "Ask the Stalin-murdered Russia factory owner what's wrong with it..."

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Self management is not Stalinist.

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Nope, but that was a prime example of when this experiment of worker-owner has been attempted. It belittles your hope which is why I first pointed to the pitfalls of the theory and added the comment in jest.

Then again, you do say "You gotta take over the factories first" so maybe murdering the resistant factory owners isn't too far off the table for you . . .

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Worker control was stopped by Lenin. Next!

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

LOL It does work in reality! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives And it's a capitalist solution, not a communist one.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

My dad, my ex husband, and another man started a business. They all handle different things. Their employees are paid pretty well and they make more than could as manager of a commercial chain store in their field Half the time they are helping out the employees. Car in shop, drive company truck. Car died, loan them money for new car and let them make payments. Its unheard of to have boss that hands you a few thousand dollars and lets you make monthly payments. Yet they have done it on more than one occasion. I think the business would have failed without all three of them. Once they had a massive theft but their crew now is honest so they don't mind going out of the way for them. Sometimes they hate each other but they need each other.

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Very nice and commendable.

Do the workers own the company with them, taking the risk to private assets along side your ex? Do the workers vote on company decisions?

Otherwise it is just a nice example of very nice people - not a worker-owned factory.

Commendable people to model after - but not the system frankchurch1 wants. That would be taking the company away from your dad entirely.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

Its not a worker owned factory. Its just a store. It is owned by three of the employees, not all of the employees. Baby steps! My dad put up his farm to get the loan. He gave the other two some stock at the start, and retained a controlling interest until the loan was paid off at which time they bought up to be equal partners for a very small sum of money. The bank wanted the person with the most to loose to loose to hold at least 51% of the shares until the loan was paid off. To have a worker owned factory, it seems you need to find people with collateral or assets and divide up the shares based on what each was bring in or agree to sell share cheap to people labor will be a big asset. I think many banks would try to screw with organization of a worker owned fractory. They had a sewing factory for many years that was worker owned not 15 miles from here but China eventually won and it had to close.

[-] -1 points by KahnII (170) 12 years ago

Cause you're stealing it from the person who paid for it, that's why. If a bunch of workers get together and build their own factory, that's fine they can run it, but stop preaching the theft of property from others.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 12 years ago

What are you talking about? Do you live in your own little dream world? Where did anyone say steal the factory??


[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Who said steal it? Why not start a coperative? Or purchase a company & turn it into a cooperative?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

The property laws have to be changed. You can co-own the factory as well.

[-] -1 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

like GM was? where workers bought blue chip stock with every paycheck over years and years, earning a right to having their say in what legally WAS their company? great idea it was, well. until Obama overstepped his authority and fired the C.E.O then gave it all to the Unions.

well, what other than "an offer they couldn't refuse" from a Chicago Lawyer/Activist (cough cough criminal)

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

GM fired a bunch of workers as well. I didn't support the bailout.

They should have refitted the factories, retrained the workers to build bullet trains.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

For profit organizations are based on efficiency and you cannot have that without command structure. Just look at OWS... it has no idea what it's doing other than collectively voting for Obama.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

cooperatives do not preclude a comand structure. Most cooperatives elect a CEO who calls the shots -- just like we do for our national president, but with less corruption.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

There are some examples of this in the US; I can think of at least one right off the top of my head and that is United Airlines. But they've had tremendous difficulties over the past ten years or so.

[-] -1 points by packetStorm (128) 12 years ago

workers don't take risks ... that's why they are workers. geez ... we don't have a caste system here ...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 12 years ago

It's not a risk when you can buy politicians and get a %22,000 ROI.

I've had my own businesses since 1980.

I guess since I've not seemingly made enough money to put a meat puppet in office and squeeze money out it's ass... this means I haven't taken enough risks?


[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 12 years ago

A man has an immutable right to the fruit of his labor.

You have no claim to wealth gained honestly ... thru hard work of others.

We all can agree TBTF banks et al. and the central banks are scams. The wealth created thru corruption is not fair.

I am all for getting rid of the privately held central banks, returning to mark-to-market accounting practices ... and letting the TBTF fail in the free market.

But certainly ... you can't be talking about someone stealing another mans property ... his labor ... from the large portion of the 1% who have worked hard and earned their share honestly!?!

Life, Liberty and property ...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 12 years ago

How's this for starters?



Neither are more than a few minutes and show police legally stealing cash from anyone they pull over and keeping it without any charges being made...

What I was talking about was the ROI for lobby and campaign money

Google search this with %22,000 included in your search.... it's well documented.


this is interesting, huh?

[-] 1 points by PiedPiper (2) 12 years ago

Being a worker on a world run by the 1% is risky by itself.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Lets own it ourselves then. Support coops!

[-] -2 points by Foreverleft (9) 12 years ago

And let's let prisoners run the prison. I guess the tail wags the dog. Holy fuck your a dumb shit. Your fired! Get the fuck out. Jesus, you've been promoted to Franks job. Frank had a dumb ass idea.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

It works. Sorry if it sounds stupid to you, but it's not. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

At least you admit workers are in prison.

[-] -2 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

frank.....what collectives have produced world changing products and services. Things like life saving drugs and ways to increase the yields of crops so we can feed an increasing population? I'm sure you may have an example, but which produces more of the things that affect us positively? Yeah, the so-called corporate oligarchs.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

Oh most innovations are made by people not employed by a corporation at all. They grab up a patent, generate some interest and the Corporation buys the innovation so it can't be implemented by competitors. They never use it themselves because its cheaper to keep doing what they are doing than to use the new technology they now control. Corporations see to it some things never see light of day. Electric cars etc. Honestly, we could have quit oil a long time ago, what happened with that? The above is exactly what happened with that! Corporations impede progress at every turn. They don't try to be the best they can be, they try to be the best you can get and there lies the problem.

[-] -2 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Wow. That is so delusional. If a truly efficient electric car could have been made, it would have. Just think how wealthy those people would become. You said something odd. You said corporations buy patents and then pocket them because that is cheaper than using the new innovation. Well, the new innovation must not have been worth much since evidently the consumer wasn't going to pay for it. If the consumer would pay for the innovation, then the corporation will produce the product to make more money. As far as quitting oil. The cost that is never discussed by the greens is the cost of generating the energy they want to replace oil with.

I think you would be better off learning how business works in business school rather than in some sociology class. Geez.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

It was that they were leased only. Jay Leno had one but they eventually came took it away. They were all taken away and parked inside a gate. They were photographed and put on tv. Later I heard they crushed them. Electric cars that ran just fine on the highway were made leased and taken away the company refused to to sell even one of them outright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 Check it out! I got to tell you something new. Seriously this link proves my point and its quite an eye opener. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F if you wanted more!

[-] -3 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

You believe those films? Really? Wow. So, what you are saying is that GM is the ONLY on in the entire world who could make an all electric car. Really? If GM was so smart, they wouldn't have gone bankrupt, eh? Also, the logic completely breaks down when it is said that the car manufacturers refuse to produce all electric cars because it would hurt big oil. Huh? The car manufactures are not big oil. Big oil doesn't share their profits with the car manufacturers. There would be no financial benefit to the car manufacturers for helping big oil. However, there would be a huge financial benefit to be the first car manufacturer to develop an efficient, affordable all electric car that would be demanded by the mass market, not just movie stars and celebrities like Mel Gibson and Jay Leno.

You argument totally falls apart.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

"Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions." these are detailed briefly in the second link. And how the oil companies laid some ASTROTURF. Please, the articles were not that long, slow down and scroll down and read. This is how the 1% works. I didn't make it up. I backed up my claims with data. What more could you need?

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

I expected you to use real data. What you showed is bogus and you have been hoodwinked. Astroturf? That's is even more than a stretch. The car manufacturers have no motive to help the oil companies. You conspiracy people amaze me.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

The articles are there for anyone to read. I bet you believe or have believed that global warming is a hoax? There is nothing wrong with people knowing they could have bought electric cars if Big Oil didn't AstroTurf the same way they are with the Tea Party. Everyone knows deregulation doesn't work, its just an attempt to legalize the criminal activities of the 1%. You can't stop people from finding out the truth if they want to. You just have to hope people swallow your lies and don't ask any important questions. Good luck with that!

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

Please explain how big oil did this astroturf thing you talk about. It would help everyone if you could articulate how they do that.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

It is in the article, which you did not read. Are you a slow reader or something? If you have problems with reading comprehension then I don't think I can be more help to you. Perhaps you should seek the the services of a professional who specializes in learning disabilities? You are never too old to learn new skills that will serve you well in life, like how to google and read and understand what you read. The first step is admitting there is a problem. You can't do it alone, you've tried and tried and it doesn't look like its working out for you. I do not have the specialized training need to help you. I'm so sorry.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

It is funny because it is so predictable. The old "go look it up yourself" response. Laughable.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

The first sign of someone who doesn't have anything, is when they always say that you have to go look it up yourself. Go google it. Go read the article. It always happens like this. You can't articulate how big oil astroturfs, so you resort to name calling and attempting to demean the other person. Well, that doesn't work. Until you can articulate how big oil astroturfs, then you it doesn't happen.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 12 years ago

They set up groups with different names to make them appear to be citizens groups, and give them a lot of money to hire people to pose as mere concerned citizens and demand legislation that furthers their agenda. This was detailed in the article. This is called AstroTurfing. Big Oil did it with electric cars, the Koch brothers do it with groups funding the Tea Party and paying trolls to come on the boards and be trolls. 22 billion dollars can hire you some trolls apparently. And the more I talk the less knowledgeable you appear. While you may recognize how important the issues I've raised are, others may have over looked the significance of it if not for you calling so much attention to it. Thank you! Happy Trolling!

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

We have enough crops. We throw tons of food away.

Collectives work--make them bigger and they will function much better than the oligarchs, who turbocharge on profit over benefits to mankind. The ample reason why there is no cure for cancer yet.

[+] -5 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 12 years ago

What? Are you saying corporate greed is why there is no cure for cancer yet? Really? So, if we take all the food we through away....and I must include that awful spinach at school......we can feed all of those malnourished people in Africa? Are you kidding me? Just saying what you said doesn't make it true. I"m calling you out on that. You said we don't need any more food because we waste so much. Show us how you are correct. Come, on show us. You said it, so it must be true, right? Come on, show us.

[+] -4 points by stevo (314) 12 years ago

Yea..try running a business...where EVERYONE gets a say in all the decisions.

You morons. Those are thoughts people have.. who never, EVER ran a REAL fucking business.

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

They already exist! What about that fact don't you understand?

[-] -2 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Name one. Cuz this I've GOT to see. Along with that unicorn you apparently have somewhere.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

These are all co-ops. Co ops work differently than corporations do (although I do believe they may be able to be incorporated)

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

I think that was the point. (maybe I'm mistaken)

It has a much smaller hierarchy than traditional corporations. This in turn allow more people have a greater influence on how the business operates.

[-] -2 points by brooce (65) from Minneapolis, MN 12 years ago

to many chiefs and not enough braves-looks where it got OWS.

[+] -4 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

The consensus driven approach has worked so well for OWS. People can't even decide who to rape each night.

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Turn off Fox news ya goof.