The founder built an $8 Billion dollar employee owned company, SAIC - and then allowed it to be carved up once he left having failed to ensure the culture of employee ownership was rooted as firmly with the board of directors as it was with the rank and file employees. I worked there for 12 years and saw firsthand the slide away from the ownership model, and it was instructive for me in my early career years.
I know of several examples of worker-owned coups where the product is excellent: Cheeseboard pizza in Berkeley, Moog synthesizers, etc.
I've always wondered whether this model could extend to cutting edge technology, where the contributions of a few extremely talented individuals could be the decisive factor.
That's not to say Bocoup is limited by this question, because it could be their work does not require any cutting edge research, but instead is deploying existing stable technologies in an artisan/workman/guildsman like professional manner--which I think is the sweet spot for worker-owned/worker-directed activities.
I’m curious why aren’t there more and why they generally have mediocre success if not failure
Cooperatives face complex tax structures that can be less advantageous compared to traditional corporations. Unlike C-corporations, which have clear tax advantages and deductions, cooperatives must navigate unique tax rules, such as Subchapter T of the IRS code, which governs patronage refunds.
The tax code heavily favors investor-owned firms through incentives such as lower capital gains taxes and deductions for stock-based compensation, which cooperatives do not benefit from in the same way.
Beyond that, banks and financial institutions are often hesitant to lend to cooperatives, as their ownership structure does not provide the same level of collateral or control as investor-owned firms. Government-backed loans and grants that support small businesses often don't adequately accommodate cooperatives. For instance, SBA loan programs historically have been difficult for cooperatives to access.
And because co-ops are a niche business structure, many federal and state laws are designed with traditional corporate structures in mind, making it difficult for cooperatives to navigate compliance requirements. Cooperative incorporation laws vary by state, leading to inconsistent legal protections and administrative burdens.
Ownership structure doesn't change many of the business risks, but coops can avoid the "expand or die" that sometimes normal companies experience.
The largest coops are mutuals (think: insurance) and banks (think: credit union).
Others exist in farmer's coops (Land o' Lakes, Dairy Farmers of America, etc).
https://ncbaclusa.coop/blog/2022-world-cooperative-monitor-r...
The hardest part is converting an existing corporation into a coop.
The vast majority of coops are, like credit unions, relatively small and local. Instead of expanding to new areas, they often "split" into new areas, so you'd expect them to remain just below the noise threshold of the large multinationals.
I'm just straight-up offended at this. Co-ops are the job most people want. What you refer to as "amazing success" is dismantling our society and the people who run them appear to struggle to empathize with other humans.
Granted, i'm sure coops can be equally antisocial and misanthropic. But growth surely isn't what we want to be optimizing for.
There's something deeply wrong with a society that can label moderate success as "mediocre".
I wish society gave more incentives to healthy, moderately successful, profitable companies instead of "growth and greed at all costs" success.
Or, as you put it, "amazing/startup-style success". Fuck that noise.
expand or die is a bullshit concept employed by those more concerned with a quick buck than creating something lasting
(which happens to be featured somewhat prominently in Kim Stanley Robinson novel 'The Ministry For The Future', which I am currently working my way through, and recommend for anyone who (a) likes coops and (b) is feeling overwhelmed by humanity's current situation)
Americans rejected this worldview in the recent presidential election. While I have no issue with people advocating for their flavor of justice, I can't imagine this being the most savvy business decision in the current climate. I certainly would not be interested in hiring or working with an agency for whom caustic ideology appears to be more important than any other concern. Their hostility towards people with my skin color is palpable.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/george...
maybe their principles are more important to them than "current climate" and a profit motive? if you don't care for it, don't hire them - i'm sure they wouldn't want to work with you anyway as your values seem completely incompatible.
Really? Because I'm getting extremely strong "I have an issue with people advocating for this kind of justice" vibes from your comment here. Might want to take a look again if you didn't intend that.
