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

401–410 of 472 posts

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#401

Post by toyg »

derefr wrote: post #164
toyg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the long run, that is bound to generate a separate managerial class, with all that it entails. It's how most cooperatives eventually die: they turn into regular businesses.

I mean, that’s fine, no? As long as regular non-manager employees are still on the corporation’s Board, the managerial class (CEO et al) still all have the Board’s sword of Damocles dangling over their neck at all times.

In theory. In practice things will evolve in subtle ways that will effectively insulate managers - scheduling meetings at unconvenient times, passing rules that allow for fewer and fewer people to make big decisions, etc.

I mean, even regular businesses in practice end up this way - nominally with lots of shareholders, practically run by (and for) a few powerful individuals. That's why we have a concept of "activist shareholder" - in theory all of them should be "active" but in practice almost no one is, so the few who do are labelled (and often "bought" one way or another).

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#402

Post by dontlaugh »

monero-xmr wrote: post #313
asdff wrote: post #222

This model really should be expanded to just about everything. Revenue per employee ratio at Apple is $2.4 million a person or so. If that company were to shift from the present shareholder model to a cooperative model, its not hard to imagine labor seeing some substantial gains. Having more money in the part of the economy that actually circulates more of their income would probably bring on wider economic benefits…

WRONG - it should be voluntarily expanded to everything. One dealbreaker for me and far-left thinking is the required authoritarianism of implementing their ideas in society. If your ideas are so good, go start something yourself, and see if it catches on. If people still want to work for Apple, there must be a reason, despite the lopsided revenue distribution.

Workers don’t have capital, by definition. How would they start anything significant, in general?

The current authoritarianism of the capitalist class is what keeps workers from having capital, by not paying workers the full value their labour produces. They enforce this with laws, courts police and armies.

Workers did in fact also start things themselves and got attacked for it. From monopoly practices to starve co-ops to coups, sanctions and wars against countries that collectivise.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#403

Post by [deleted] »

rcme wrote: post #328
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.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#404

Post by IMTDb »

helpfulmandrill wrote: post #389
ralferoo wrote: post #382

This seems fine during the good times, but I can imagine a big problem of having a no-hierarchy worker-owned operation is what happens when the market shrinks and you can't afford to pay everyone the promised minimum salary. Do you all just collectively agree to take less money? What about the one person who actually can't afford to do that because they'd already budgeted assuming that money was coming in? What about…

Well, looking at real-world examples, one large Basque cooperatives managed a downturn by agreeing for everyone to take a temporary pay-cut. > the Erreka Group averted layoffs by temporarily trimming wages by 5 percent. It continued to pay workers stuck at home in exchange for the promise that they would make up some of their hours when better days returned. https://web.archive.org/web/20210103102831/https://www.nyti…

You are talking about a 5% reduction. No one even talks about a "round of layoff for hard time" when the number is that low. What would it look like if the company had to downsize by ~30% ? Would people still be able to pay rent ?

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#405

Post by IMTDb »

TFYS wrote: post #394
ralferoo wrote: post #382

This seems fine during the good times, but I can imagine a big problem of having a no-hierarchy worker-owned operation is what happens when the market shrinks and you can't afford to pay everyone the promised minimum salary. Do you all just collectively agree to take less money? What about the one person who actually can't afford to do that because they'd already budgeted assuming that money was coming in? What about…

I don't think it would be hard to collectively agree to take less money or reduce everyones hours if the alternative is to lose the business entirely. You could use majority voting to prevent a single person from sabotaging the business. I think the biggest obstacle for worker owned businesses is the funding, not the absence of a hierarchy.

Funding is the easiest part. Workers agree to bootstrap the business themselves by loaning their own money to the coop at a pre-agreed rate. Salaries are reduced until that loan is paid back. Increase the loan rate if not enough people are willing to pitch in money.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#406

Post by helpfulmandrill »

IMTDb wrote: post #404
helpfulmandrill wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, looking at real-world examples, one large Basque cooperatives managed a downturn by agreeing for everyone to take a temporary pay-cut. > the Erreka Group averted layoffs by temporarily trimming wages by 5 percent. It continued to pay workers stuck at home in exchange for the promise that they would make up some of their hours when better days returned. https://web.archive.org/web/20210103102831/https://www.nyti…

You are talking about a 5% reduction. No one even talks about a "round of layoff for hard time" when the number is that low. What would it look like if the company had to downsize by ~30% ? Would people still be able to pay rent ?

What sort of hard times are you talking about? Like the 2008 crash, for example?

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#407

Post by 666lumberjack »

This reads to me like it's written to evangelize the concept of worker co-ops more than to earnestly investigate the question posed in the title - which is fine, but this doesn't seem like a very good example to choose to make that point.

They say they have ten employees, and the buy-in for ownership is a thousand dollars. But there's no way the start up capital for a quality restaurant in Seattle was only $10k, so either the original founders absorbed those costs or some later employees paid in extra to cover them - either way with no expectation of increased control or return. That's more charity than alternative economic organization.

They also mention that the business has been around for ten years, but isn't profitable - and it's implied probably never has been on any consistent basis, or they would certainly have called that out. Somebody is covering that shortfall, and they're not getting anything in exchange for doing so - very noble, but again that's a reliance on charity for the business to continue existing.

Can a worker-owned restaurant work? Sure, I think there are plenty of examples that prove it. Does this one work? Not as a business, by any reasonable standard.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#408

Post by carlosjobim »

amelius wrote: post #137

Not in any successful way, because the entire profit margin is being eaten by delivery companies like Uber Eats. There is no financial future in restaurants, worker-owned or not.

The restaurant industry is a top contender for worst investment of time, money and effort. Wether you're opening a restaurant or want to work in one. Low profitability coupled with high demand on worker skill and efficiency makes sure you can never relax. Yes, restaurant work is highly skilled in order to deliver high quality food at acceptable speed. Restaurants not requiring skills do not offer any career advancement, but top restaurants requiring skills do not offer much of a career either.

Restaurant work is easy to get in to without having to submit yourself to academic humiliation and corporate humiliation, and since good workers are always wanted, you'll always have a job if you show good work ethic, whereas in other industries your job mostly depends on politicizing at the workplace.

But honestly, the restaurant sector I wouldn't recommend for anybody. The only way to expect a reasonable return on your efforts is to have your own place - and then you'll be working for your landlords who'll keep increasing the rent if they see you're being successful, or wasting decades paying interest on a mortgage. And since customers don't accept higher prices, you can't offer higher salaries. Then you start resenting your employees because they won't stay with you for a long time, and you're always rotating the roster.

Or maybe you have the money to buy a restaurant property in a good location outright. But then the question is: If you have that money, why not continue doing the thing that made you that money instead of investing in the worst sector?

Covid was the wake-up call. A huge part of remaining restaurant workers got laid off or put on "pause" without a salary. They realized that they were expendable to the employers and to the industry, so got new jobs and new careers. No matter what jobs they got, it was guaranteed better than their former restaurant job. With the added bonus that you can actually advance in your career and pay when you're getting more skilled at the job.

I don't know what the future holds for restaurants and eating. Maybe more mix-in with show business, so that people have more incentive to visit and don't mind paying a higher price? Maybe people start learning better to cook? It's not difficult. Maybe better quality microwave/air fryer food, in refrigerators instead of in freezers at the supermarket?

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#409

Post by randomdata »

TylerE wrote: post #307
randomdata wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If have to pay your people below market wages to survive you don't have a business How does one pay below market wages? Someone's market wage is established by observing what they are being paid. They will always be equal, unless you mean an employer is illegally withholding funds owed to the worker? > I cannot buy produce from a farmer for less than it costs them to grow it Haha. As a farmer, I have lost money sel…

Well, probably the most traditional way is to hire for approx market rate... and then given little or no raises/cost of living adjutsments. Bam, 5 years from now, you're well under market rate.

The market rate is established by observing the sales that have taken place. If the sale price continues to be the same five years later, the market rate hasn't changed. You would not end up being paid an "under market rate" just because five years have elapsed. You would still be paid the market rate.

An under market rate would only be significant to outside interests. If I am paying someone $20 per hour and you want to pay the same person $10 per hour, then the $10 per hour offer would be under market rate. However, if for some reason the employee jumped ship and accepted your $10 per hour offer, you would not be paying an under market rate. $10 per hour would become the new market rate.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#410

Post by helpfulmandrill »

thefounder wrote: post #398
helpfulmandrill wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of a long read, but the co-operative sector does have some ideas about how to offer "founder incentives" in workers cooperatives. https://jrwiener.com/cooperatives-and-founder-incentives/ The idea is that cooperatives don't have to treat everyone exactly the same. You can have different "classes" of members. You can have ordinary worker members, but also "founder" members. For example, for an agreed number of y…

Pretty much like the big law firms work?

Possibly. My impression, purely from popular media, is that only partners have any say in the running of a law firm, and becoming a partner involves cash buy-in of some sort, which might be a little different from co-operatives, where usually all permanent non-probationary workers have some sort of vote. But as I say, my knowledge of law firms is mostly from watching The Good Wife, so....
Post reply on HN