Ask HN: Examples of tech worker cooperatives?

It would be a bit naive to think that they are inherently better managed or more "democratic" (egalitarian?) than a regularly run business. Like any democracy, not only do they come in different flavors (ie, representative democracy vs "pure" democracy etc), but they come with their own quirks of implementation. In many democracies the individual voters have little actual power and organized and concetrated special interest groups game the system. And there are plenty of co-ops run by CEOs.

And most co-ops do not offer order-of-magnitude improvements in working conditions or pay. You are looking at a 10% type improvement, not a 10x one. The downside of a co-op is that it might have a 10% improvemnet in (potential) conditions, but a poor implenetation but will be -10% as productive due to inefficiencies and execution problems.Which basically runs the risk of zero net improvement for the typical person there.

All of which means that you really need to analyze any proposed or actual implementation. Broad-brush generalizations are often misleading in this context. Just something to keep in mind.

There's probably a lot of decisions that could still be left up to workers, but I agree that having some clear direction is important, and there's lots of questions that just need a "no". The BDFL model of open source is a good example of how this can work without excessive hierarchy.

To give an example that's more to do with worker cooperatives, suppose the member-owners are discussing whether to work 35- or 45-hour work weeks. The 35-hour work week might be good for work-life balance, but bad for the business itself, while the 45-hour work week might be the reverse. Nevertheless, the majority of members might vote in favor of the 35-hour work week, and whether or not that is bad for the business, it will be good for the majority of the workers.

Granted, the democratic process isn't perfect -- you need only look at U.S. politics if you need proof of that -- but when you compare it to its alternatives, it's not at the bottom of the pack.

This is how a lot of co-op living arrangements work. Everyone has a say, but the final decision is made by someone whose job it is to manage the health of the house.

By the way even companies can adopt some of these ideals without being a full-blown co-op. I have worked in several organizations where decision-by-committee is highly popular, and in each case, there are processes to prevent deadlock or processes for override if something starts to go badly. Usually these processes are triggered by very senior level individuals who have decision rights, or by regulatory experts (e.g., someone in Legal).

Depends on the co-op.

I lived in a student co-op in college. Every Sunday night we had a group meeting. Every major decision was made by a consensus making process. Other decisions were delegated to committees or individuals in a particular position: food manager, garden manager etc.

I also worked at a student composting/waste disposal co-op that operated the same. Everyone has a voice in either the actual decision or in electing someone to make a decision.

This type of decision making basically requires lots of communication between members and usually at least one long meeting a week. It also demands that people have mutual respect for each other and the group decision making process.

In both instances it definitely helped me learn to relate with, communicate with and respect others and their opinions.

So, what's the difference between a coop and a private, for-profit company in which everyone who works for the company owns the same portion of the company and gets an equal say in decision making? Not much practical difference, really, although with a coop, those things are enshrined, whereas with a private company, they're optional.