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

451–460 of 472 posts

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#451

Post by epgui »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #225
epgui wrote: post #76

Answer: yes. It’s what teamshares.com does.

I don't think it's fair to say that. Teamshares will sell up to 80% to the employees. Many worker-owned cooperatives have laws specifying that shares can only be exchanged internally. Teamshares isn't particularly transparent on their actual structure. So for instance, an employee(s) might sell their shares back to Teamshares or another agency, at which point the worker agency is diminished. Particularly in the forme…

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it's relevant to the question.

I work for Teamshares, and while not everything about the company is public, what we do is buy small local companies when their owners retire, and transition the companies to an employee-owned model. Everyone gets to keep their jobs, workers get a share of the profits, and local communities benefit from business continuity. It seems to work very well, and there's no catch.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#452

Post by brnaftr361 »

epgui wrote: post #451
brnaftr361 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to say that. Teamshares will sell up to 80% to the employees. Many worker-owned cooperatives have laws specifying that shares can only be exchanged internally. Teamshares isn't particularly transparent on their actual structure. So for instance, an employee(s) might sell their shares back to Teamshares or another agency, at which point the worker agency is diminished. Particularly in the forme…

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it's relevant to the question. I work for Teamshares, and while not everything about the company is public, what we do is buy small local companies when their owners retire, and transition the companies to an employee-owned model. Everyone gets to keep their jobs, workers get a share of the profits, and local communities benefit from business continuity. It seems to work…

I don't really know how to state it more clearly.

The appeal of a worker-owned coop is the fact that the workers in aggregate have complete control. Relinquishing 20% of that by default, and one might surmise 25% due to the installed president, runs contrary to the purpose of a worker-owned cooperative.

And that's where things are unclear. That 25% can mean a lot of things. Is it simple tribute, or rent-seeking, which WOCs seek to dismantle? Does Teamshares vote with that? What sort of contracts exist to subordinate the companies to Teamshares?

How are the shares traded? Does/can the employee sell them back to Teamshares? Can they sell them to Yum! Brands? If so they're selling current and future employees' agency. If they can only be exchanged between the worker and the company - that would be more closely aligned with the idea of WOCs.

I just don't think it's fair to really draw the comparison without being completely transparent about how it works. However, I do like the idea and have an appreciation for what Teamshares is attempting to do, but I think they should seal the deal and completely abdicate if they're going to front like they're facilitating the development of WOCs.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#453

Post by logdap »

amrocha wrote: post #350
logdap wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In small groups where decisions must be made in a timely and decisive manner, a mediocre leader is often better than the best democratic committee. Even in programming teams, somebody needs to put their foot down eventually or things will be bikeshedded to death. FOSS projects too, generally benefit from a BDFL. Be careful about extrapolating this out to the rule of countries though, dictatorships can make things go…

Sounds like you change opinions to match whatever argument you want to support. No flame intended, that's just what it sounds like.

Are you alluding to some particular hypocrisy in my comment history, or do you consider me a hypocritical merely because I have nuanced opinions on leadership that depend on the stakes and context?

Democracy is a fine way to run a nation, but not a ship, plane or platoon of soldiers. Context is everything. If you think there is any one single system of leadership that is ideal in any conceivable situation, then I fear you must be a clueless ideologue. Lacking an appreciation for nuance is the mark of shallow thinker.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#454

Post by thefounder »

helpfulmandrill wrote: post #410
thefounder wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

You can become partner if you bring good clients with no cash buy in required. I think there are also different levels of partnership(i.e not all of them get their name in the office name).

I have a reliable source on this: Suits

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#456

Post by epgui »

brnaftr361 wrote: post #452
epgui wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it's relevant to the question. I work for Teamshares, and while not everything about the company is public, what we do is buy small local companies when their owners retire, and transition the companies to an employee-owned model. Everyone gets to keep their jobs, workers get a share of the profits, and local communities benefit from business continuity. It seems to work…

I don't really know how to state it more clearly. The appeal of a worker-owned coop is the fact that the workers in aggregate have complete control. Relinquishing 20% of that by default, and one might surmise 25% due to the installed president, runs contrary to the purpose of a worker-owned cooperative. And that's where things are unclear. That 25% can mean a lot of things. Is it simple tribute, or rent-seeking, whic…

A lot of this information is quite simply non-public, but again it's besides the point.

We're talking about employee ownership as a business model at a high level, and you're complaining that the specific terms (which you have no knowledge of) may or may not be generous enough.

I can't disclose non-public information, but what I can say is that if I didn't feel great about working somewhere, I wouldn't work there very long haha.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#457

Post by timbit42 »

kepler1 wrote: post #154

Like so many idealistic things, this kind of setup works only as long as the people joining or taking responsibility for the thing continue to have and practice the same ideals as what started it. Start to lose that just a little bit, where responsibility gets diffuse, the original intention gets lost, or you start hiring people who don't have the same understanding, and it all falls apart. Not every worker wants to…

If it is worker owned, then each worker has their own money invested. This is enough to ensure everyone will take responsibility for the success of the business. If someone did fail to do so, they would be voted out and their investment would be returned and someone else would be brought in to invest and replace them.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#458

Post by timbit42 »

Closi wrote: post #367
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.

The largest worker cooperative in the world, Mondragon, hires someone to head the company. Big decisions are democratic but decisions on how to execute the big decisions are left to the executive.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#459

Post by timbit42 »

chaverma wrote: post #365

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.

The worker leaving doesn't have to find someone else to buy in. They just leave and receive the value of their investment. The cooperative finds someone else to buy in. Usually there are lots of people looking to do so.

People save up for years so they can apply to buy in and work at Mondragon.

Re: Can a worker-owned restaurant work?

#460

Post by timbit42 »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #169

It can, but it will have problem scaling - If the business grows and starts needing management skills beyond what a cook or a waiter would have, you will have trouble hiring a qualified manager for same wages you pay to waiters - If you need a loan to expand, lender is likely to want some control over how a restaurant is run rather than leaving it up to workers If you are content to stay at a small scale where these…

Mondragon, the largest worker cooperative in the world, hires top level people with the skills to manage the company. Those people, instead of reporting to public shareholders, report to the worker/owners who decide the company direction.
Post reply on HN