Sanders - legislation

Here is a list of worker owned cooperatives in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives#United_States

And here is a list of worker owned businesses (presumably through an ESOP)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies

To answer your question about how worker owned cooperatives are funded, Wikipedia says the following about the Evergreen Cooperative:

Evergreen Cooperative Laundry (ECL) is an industrial laundry serving local hospitals, hotels, and other institutions. The ECL was funded with $5.8 million: $1.5 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the City of Cleveland, $1.8 million in New Markets tax credits, $750,000 from the Cleveland Foundation, and $1.5 million from two banks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Cooperatives

Edit: and here's a youtube video on the Evergreen Cooperatives:

YouTube

Originally posted by sh76
They can vote their stock like any other shareholder.

I'm not a stocks expert, but I had heard that generally their given stock which earns them dividends, but does not allow them to vote. Even in Europe, which encourages profit sharing, there are laws which limit the union stock vote to five percent or something like that.

I'm all for it actually. I would be more likely to accept a pay cut if I knew that I would have at least some offset in dividends due to increased productivity. You would even sell me more on the concept if CEO and the salaried class of the company had to accept the same percentage in cuts. It would certainly promote a "we're in this boat together" kind of consciousness.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I'm not a stocks expert, but I had heard that generally their given stock which earns them dividends, but does not allow them to vote. Even in Europe, which encourages profit sharing, there are laws which limit the union stock vote to five percent or something like that.

I'm all for it actually. I would be more likely to accept a pay cut if I knew that I ...[text shortened]... in cuts. It would certainly promote a "we're in this boat together" kind of consciousness.

Employee options and share compensation packages are typically with common stock, which does come with voting rights.

Okay, here's the basic point.

Every successful business has to have an infusion of capital from somewhere. Either a person or small group can invest lots of time to start a business with little capital and spend their time and efforts to build the business or they can convince a venture capitalist to front them the money to hit the ground running. Either way, people don't make this kind of investment/risk without expecting a big reward if things go well.

Is it possible that a bunch of people will work hard to start a business or invest oodles of their own cash to hand the business over to the Johnny-come-lately workers who they hire later on? Sure. Is it likely to happen often? No way.

So, to start a worker-run business run as a real democracy, you're generally not going to get the cash from investors or the effort from entrepreneurs. So, who can fund these businesses? The government, of course. Sure many of them will fail, especially since nobody really has a motivation to run the business particularly well, but some may succeed. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So the government is using taxpayer dollars (well, deficit dollars, but whatever) to fund and prop up a worker-owned business. Great.

Okay, now what about the neighbor who actually worked to build his business?

I open sh76 burgers. I work my butt off for 5 years until I break even, burning through all my and my parents' savings. But I earn a profit finally. After 15 years, I have a thriving establishment. I'm not rich, but I've worked my butt off and I'm doing okay.

Now, next door, Uncle Sam plunks down a million bucks of deficit spending to throw together a competitor restaurant. Sure their service isn't as good as mine, but hey, they can undersell me by a buck a burger because Uncle Sam will pay whatever they need with my taxpayer dollars to prop up its inefficient utopian commune next door.

Gee, that's fair.

Actually, it's not.

Let the government promote fiscal policies that promote business building and entrepreneurship. I don't need my government spending my money to buy businesses to turn over to a bunch of random people who didn't do squat to earn it but who have a competitive advantage over me because my government is on their side.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, here's the basic point.

Every successful business has to have an infusion of capital from somewhere. Either a person or small group can invest lots of time to start a business with little capital and spend their time and efforts to build the business or they can convince a venture capitalist to front them the money to hit the ground running. Either way ...[text shortened]... but who have a competitive advantage over me because my government is on their side.

Well stated.

Originally posted by sh76
Depends on how you define worker.

Is Mark Zuckerberg a Facebook worker?

Facebook workers are not allowed to sell any stock shares until August according to NPR. Since Mark Zuckerberg sold shares shortly after the IPO I am guessing he is not considered a worker.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mark-zuckerberg-saved-111m-by-selling-facebook-shares-before-stock-slumped-7786269.html

Originally posted by normbenign
Well stated.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Facebook workers are not allowed to sell any stock shares until August according to NPR. Since Mark Zuckerberg sold shares shortly after the IPO I am guessing he is not considered a worker.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mark-zuckerberg-saved-111m-by-selling-facebook-shares-before-stock-slumped-7786269.html

For that limited purpose perhaps, but nobody can deny that he works for the company.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, here's the basic point.

Every successful business has to have an infusion of capital from somewhere. Either a person or small group can invest lots of time to start a business with little capital and spend their time and efforts to build the business or they can convince a venture capitalist to front them the money to hit the ground running. Either way ...[text shortened]... but who have a competitive advantage over me because my government is on their side.

Unless you can convince investors that it's in their interest to avoid future labor disputes. It's certainly been the selling point in Europe, which despite the union and socialist influence actually has fewer strikes than we.

How did REI get their capital? You certainly can't knock their success.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, here's the basic point.

Every successful business has to have an infusion of capital from somewhere. Either a person or small group can invest lots of time to start a business with little capital and spend their time and efforts to build the business or they can convince a venture capitalist to front them the money to hit the ground running. Either way but who have a competitive advantage over me because my government is on their side.

sh76: Sure many of them will fail, especially since nobody really has a motivation to run the business particularly well


WTF?? So if the owner is a capitalist he's going to put that legendary amount of hard work you talk about into the business, but if the workers own the business they have "no motivation"?

The brainwashing done in favor of laissez faire seems to have worked very well on you.

EDIT: Of course, your objection to government propping up failing businesses (which the Sanders bill doesn't do BTW) didn't apply when you supported TARP.

Originally posted by no1marauder
sh76: Sure many of them will fail, especially since nobody really has a motivation to run the business particularly well


WTF?? So if the owner is a capitalist he's going to put that legendary amount of hard work you talk about into the business, but if the workers own the business they have "no motivation"?

The brainwashi ...[text shortened]... ng businesses (which the Sanders bill doesn't do BTW) didn't apply when you supported TARP.

"So if the owner is a capitalist he's going to put that legendary amount of hard work you talk about into the business, but if the workers own the business they have "no motivation"?"

The owner/capitalist knows it is a business founded on his invested money. To the worker it is a job. How many workers will essentially work for nothing until they break even, or debt is repaid? The worker gladly takes the profit sharing check, but if the accountant reports a loss you'ld have hell to pay to get the employees to share in that loss.

Originally posted by normbenign
"So if the owner is a capitalist he's going to put that legendary amount of hard work you talk about into the business, but if the workers own the business they have "no motivation"?"

The owner/capitalist knows it is a business founded on his invested money. To the worker it is a job. How many workers will essentially work for nothing until they brea ...[text shortened]... ountant reports a loss you'ld have hell to pay to get the employees to share in that loss.

That is capitalist mythology i.e. that rich guys work hard and workers are lazy slackers. It's BS.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is capitalist mythology i.e. that rich guys work hard and workers are lazy slackers. It's BS.

As usual, and argument without either reason or fact, just a blanket assertion.

Plus I never made a difference between rich and workers. The difference is between someone who has a stake in the business (skin in the game), and those to whom it is just a job. I did not say they are lazy slackers. That is your BS, and a straw man to boot.

I know many workers, who also own and run their own businesses as well. You can guess where more enthusiasm and effort is directed.

Originally posted by normbenign
As usual, and argument without either reason or fact, just a blanket assertion.

Plus I never made a difference between rich and workers. The difference is between someone who has a stake in the business (skin in the game), and those to whom it is just a job. I did not say they are lazy slackers. That is your BS, and a straw man to boot.

I kno ...[text shortened]... d run their own businesses as well. You can guess where more enthusiasm and effort is directed.

What part of "worked owned business" didn't you understand?

Have someone read those words VERY SLOWLY to you. Perhaps then you'll be able to grasp that the workers in a worker owned business DO have "skin in the game".

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part of "worked owned business" didn't you understand?

Have someone read those words VERY SLOWLY to you. Perhaps then you'll be able to grasp that the workers in a worker owned business DO have "skin in the game".

How do they get "ownership"?

If it is an old company on the downside like McClouth, it is likely to fail without an infusion of capital, and innovation. If it is a startup, is it a group of people or an individual who has the seed of an idea? By the way, McClouth eventually was bankrupt a second time, the employee owners sold to another group of capitalists who got the company on its feet again.

In either case, people hiring in, have put nothing into the venture. I can see them after a period of time getting stock options, but to consider them "owners" is just crazy and not fair to those who actually are.