91–100 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly its not clear mentioning John Lewis is a bit of a warning flag - JL being the black sheep of the uk coop movement.
Black sheep in what way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're just going to attribute anything that happened during capitalism as a result of the "free market" then I get to say that communism invented satellites, discovered stem cells, and cured maternally transmitted HIV. Electric cars and solar panels won't save us. You're not fooling anyone with that. Solar panels are not nearly efficient enough to replace anything major any time soon, and electric passenger cars w…
Do you have a source that natural gas is the largest carbon emissionss contributer? Genuinely curious, because over here in Germany gas companies (Gazprom.. ;)) market themselves as the opposite and the same argument is used for cars running on natural gas. I know that's just PR, but I thought it produces less emissions because it burns more efficiently than other fossil fuels.
I've already loved these guys, now my admiration just increased. Reading HN we start to think that life is to get bigger and richer. These guys spend their time spreading intelligence, art, and fun.
That is the point of a worker coop just that the rewards are distributed equitably :-) an d yes that does mean the cleaner / office admin get as much as the CTO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the point of a worker coop just that the rewards are distributed equitably :-) an d yes that does mean the cleaner / office admin get as much as the CTO
Can you elaborate on "gets as much as". Do you mean they get as many shares? Earn the same salary? I'm a bit unclear on that.
Sorry for the naive question, but how does this work? So let's say the employees now are part of this trust which owns 75% of the shares. What is the benefit? The trust owns the shares legally correct? Is it some sort of profit sharing scheme? I assume you don't hold on to the shares when you leave the company (as they are with the trust)? Does every new hire dilute the ownership? How does this actually impact the da…
Sorry for the naive question, but how does this work? So let's say the employees now are part of this trust which owns 75% of the shares. What is the benefit? The trust owns the shares legally correct? Is it some sort of profit sharing scheme? I assume you don't hold on to the shares when you leave the company (as they are with the trust)? Does every new hire dilute the ownership? How does this actually impact the da…
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company. Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the founders have been fairly clear in the past about not be…
Maybe I'd be wrong, but I feel like it would be far easier to buy a company from a group of middle-class minority shareholders than a couple wealthy owners. A big payout sounds easier to refuse if you're already satisfied financially.
Are we sure that remaining independent is the motivation here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked with some consultants who did this sort of thing for companies, and their main spiel was... Sometimes a company’s owners have no one to pass their ownership down to (not having kids or their kids not wanting to take on the family business, etc). So they either sell the business off or do layoffs and liquidate and move on. There have been instances where companies that employed a good amount of people in a to…
I work for a ~80 employee company, the two founders probably want to retire in 5-10 years, and this is an important topic for us. What about the monetary value of the company, do the employees buy it (probably too expensive, cheaper for the employees to shut it down and form a new company with the same people) or is it usual for the founders to give away the companies? Do they just keep a good percentage of the share…
Employee ownership is a very old concept. All studies have shown that they are risk averse and have poor growth. I’d love for this to work, but you can’t fantasize your way to results.
Both of those things sound very good. Corporate growth for the sake of growth is what got us to an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 400PPM. If your idea of a company's success is how much profit it accrues, maybe it's time to question why it is you think that's a good thing.
Too right. If the USSR had come to dominate we wouldn't be using fossil fuels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one watches a movie because it's made by Aardman (99% of the people would not know who they are anyway). Speak for yourself, I know I certainly do.
He has a point that it is very niche though (I never heard of them for example)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case I think the primary reason is to protect the company. Aardman is probably a fairly hot company right now. Probably prime for a purchase by one of the big studios. But then it would most likely just get broken up and turned into a mill for churning out look-a-like content. Or possibly even just a logo stamped on contracted out content. I believe the founders have been fairly clear in the past about not be…
> It can now only be sold if the majority of employees vote to accept the sale Maybe I'd be wrong, but I feel like it would be far easier to buy a company from a group of middle-class minority shareholders than a couple wealthy owners. A big payout sounds easier to refuse if you're already satisfied financially. Are we sure that remaining independent is the motivation here?