Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

southseattleemerald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 472 posts

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#361

Post by [deleted] »

berkes wrote: post #341
rcme wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is the implication. Starting something requires raising money and organizing things. Generally, at the start, only a small number of people care to do this work. And once they do it, why would they give their ownership stake away to their employees when they could just keep it for themselves?

If that's true (I doubt it) the reverse has to be true too: that those great at starting (a restaurant) are bad at sustaining it. If there are distinct phases, and certain people or topologies are good at just one of those phases, then it follows that people starting restaurants must be bad at running them once they've established.

[deleted]

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#362

Post by dagw »

fouc wrote: post #326
andsoitis wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this example, someone else had to get it off the ground. The sibling commenter's example of Zachary's is similarly the product of entrepreneurs who got it started https://zacharys.com/about-us/our-story/

> someone else had to get it off the ground implying what? that "workers" can't start something? Even if we imagine there's a category of people that are suited to be "starters" or "entrepreneurs" that category is still plenty numerous, easily 10-35% of the population, if not more.

implying what? that "workers" can't start something?

Technically if there's no company yet there is nowhere to work and thus no workers. You need "founders" to get the company started for there even to be workers. Now those people have to decide if they want to never hire anybody new, 'give away' a a piece of 'their' company each time they hire, or give up on the worker-owned idea all together.

Of course most "founders" used to be "workers" and often become "workers" again after the company is founded, but the act of founding a company is fundamentally different from the act of working at a company

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#363

Post by dagw »

BartjeD wrote: post #333
sudosysgen wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worker co-ops aren't less likely to expand because of risk, it's because more employees diluted the pie, so they don't have an incentive to grow for the sake of growth, but only if there are significant economies of scale or social need.

Why cant they hire non share packaged employees? Why do they have to shrink their pie? To me this sounds very annecdotal and intuitive based on what you think you know. I'd like to know if it has been studied and what those studies found.

Why cant they hire non share packaged employees? Why do they have to shrink their pie?

How many non-owner workers can you have before you stop being worker-owned? If four workers own 25% of the shares each, and the company employs 400 (or 4000) people are they still "worker-owned" in any meaningful sense?

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#364

Post by zem »

satvikpendem wrote: post #344
zem wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you could have a worker-owned business where one person is appointed "benevolent dictator for now" when things need moving fast. "worker-owned" doesn't mean "every decision has to be collective"

I can't tell if this some subtle satire on the 20th century of other similar "benevolent dictators for now" that, any day now, will relinquish control to the masses of workers. If not, that would be some true irony.

no, just a play on "benevolent dictator for life" - my contention is if the situation calls for a "dictator" who can make decisions fast and unilaterally, that could as well be a job as a position of power.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#365

Post by chaverma »

Curious about how the business responds to workers leaving/joining. I expect that a worker wanting to leave needs to find someone to buy in, and the new worker has to be approved by the collective. This sounds like a recipe for inflexible departure.

Next, expansion. I expect expansion is a tricky proposition because it means dilution, which is both a hard sell and a risk to the workers.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#366

Post by JamesBarney »

wjnc wrote: post #327
fouc wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone else had to get it off the ground implying what? that "workers" can't start something? Even if we imagine there's a category of people that are suited to be "starters" or "entrepreneurs" that category is still plenty numerous, easily 10-35% of the population, if not more.

Please be kind in your interpretation. Build and run are two very different phases. You need lots of capital for the former, mostly hands for the latter. Capital formation is probably harder for a group of workers because it leads to messy questions about residual earnings.

I think this is the issue. Starting a company is a lot riskier than working at one. To do that you usually need capital and/or someone who is willing to work their ass off for peanuts for a couple of years. The only reason people will take risks is for outsized returns.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#367

Post by Closi »

larsrc wrote: post #348

Coming from the Socialist Republic of Denmark, this seems like a very silly question. Why should ownership be a problem for restaurants? If a restaurant is owned by an investment fund, the fund will try to get as much money out of it as possible, regardless of the restaurant's long-term fate. But owned by the workers, they have a common interest in having good and secure jobs for a long time to come, and so can set u…

Agree - although in the model described in the article there isn’t a leadership element so I struggle to see how this would work long term.

It says any decision needs a 100% vote from all owners on a discord server.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#368

Post by christkv »

exabrial wrote: post #88

Yes, absolutely, but there are pitfalls: * Somehow finances have to work, which is usually a harsh reality for some. Ex: Hey we can't pay workers $250/hr without raises prices to above what customers are willing to pay * Consumers despite "Least common denominator" which is often the result of "design by committee". Usually consumers are after something niche, unique, artistic, and creative, which is the inspiration…

As a parent who is part of running a co op school where only the teachers are paid I can tell you that there is a day to day executive function with delegated powers. The assembly deals with functions similar to a traditional board.

That said the two main problems that come up over and over again in our setup are.

1. People don’t understand what being a coop member means legally and financially. They are on the hook for losses for example. 2. It’s hard getting people to volunteer to do needed day to day work. 3. To much drama, every little thing is blown out of proposition and sometime we are forced to use executive privilege to get something done. 4. Coop can distract from delivering the actual services (school).

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#370

Post by dagw »

clarionbell wrote: post #369

Isn't that literally what family restaurants are?

Family restaurants almost always come with a lot of built in hierarchy, even beyond the owner structure. Non-family members always rank below family members and the internal family hierarchy tends to become the restaurant hierarchy, almost regardless of what the formal ownership and leadership structure on paper is. 4 waiters and 2 line chefs will never be able to vote down 'mom' no matter what the paperwork says.
Post reply on HN