There is another relatively recent tech movement -- Platform Cooperatives. In the worker cooperative case, employees are the members of the cooperative. For platform cooperatives, it's the users that are the members. Examples of platform cooperatives include https://www.stocksy.com/, https://www.savvy.coop/, among others. For more details about Platform Cooperatives, see https://platform.coop/, https://ioo.coop/ and https://start.coop/
One of the most potent kinds of coop that I've ever encountered is exemplified by DATEV. It is a cooperative founded by the tax advisory profession in Germany in 1966 to create accounting software which is, to this day, the market leader in Germany for all accounting not having to do with corporations that are big enough for SAP.
In 1966, the potential for computers to be used in accounting had just become apparent, and by thinking about companies and markets the way we now do, you would have thought that the situation should have been a slam dunk for IBM. That's not how it played out in Germany. Instead of individual tax advisors entering into individual deals with IBM, the tax advisory profession set up a coop to buy and operate central mainframe infrastructure (don't know if it was IBM or not), to be used by all the coop's members and, while they were at it, instead of buying software from anywhere (like from IBM), they hired some engineers to write their own software. Personally, I find this an absolutely baffling turn of events. The profession realized what a giant disruption the introduction of computers would be. They realized the strategic importance of maintaining control over software and computer operations. They realized that, by sticking together and acting in a coordinated fashion, they had the power take on a corporate behemoth like IBM at their own game and tell them to go stick it. Absolutely inspiring, if you ask me.
As I look at things like Uber and YouTube and Twitch, it reminds me of a friend's definition of Web 2.0: "You do all the work, we take all the money." Given the history of business, there's no reason to think VC-funded platforms will do anything other than extract maximum cash. Great for VCs and execs, not so great for the people doing the work.
I've been thinking about what those companies might look like if they were truly centered on workers and creators from the get go. Sounds like the platform coops are thinking along the same lines.
Platform cooperatives in my opinion are just another name for a cooperative who conducts the bulk of their business online. this can be a worker cooperative (https://www.upandgo.coop/), a multi-stakeholder cooperative (https://www.savvy.coop/) or even a producers cooperative (stocksy.com). I think the term is actually a bit arbitrary. The more important thing to think about is a) who owns the equity, b) how does the business make money c) how do the members participate.
Well _I_ don't need a new term lol. The term was popularized by folks at the New School who brought people together under the name platform.coop. I actually think it is a bit problematic, because it creates a false narrative around the utility of a service. My biggest fear is people saying we should just make a "co-op version of X company". I think that doesn't really work in real life. Cooperatives are businesses first and foremost. They exist in the market and are not immune to market factors including competition. I would much rather people think about the value they are bringing to people first then build a structure around it that matches the value. IE basic stakeholder theory but baked into every facet of a business (including it's equity structure).
Why doesn't the phrase "we should make a co-op version of X company" fit well with the platform coop model? Or rather, the focus on employee happiness is a product all its own. Just like consumers are willing to pay higher prices for "organic" produce, simply being a coop is a product feature.
Yes, competition (from corporations) means it's not enough to say "we're a co-op" if the product doesn't actually work, but well-funded corporate competition could clone any feature that isn't linked to a more egalitarian equity structure. My "co-op for Doordash but we don't steal tips" is far harder to copy, business-wise than "co-op for Doordash, but with a 'food me now' button that picks food for me".
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. I don't mean to say that there should not be a focus on member (employee or otherwise) happiness. Actually quite to the contrary. Co-ops do a much better job of aligning incentives for all stakeholders (especially worker-coops in the case of employees) and most track engagement as a business metric. I totally think that simply being a cooperative makes the business model more defensible, I just think it is not the only differentiator needed. So if you are a b2b saas business that just so happens to be structured as a worker-coop or a media outlet that is owned by media producers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press). It just boils down to designing around a business case first, then adding the layer of mutual aid.
Not sure why you felt the insult was necessary, but yes, that exactly!
Co-op doordash turns the entire concept of tipping on its head, contrary to traditional corporate governance, which has incentive to funnel money to a CEO and a board, compared to a more egalitarian co-op structure.
Very little lol. I actually submitted a talk to conference.coop titled "Platform Cooperativism AKA A Worker Co-op with a Website."
But like any cooperative you can expand your membership to include any stakeholder. Users, workers, customers, investors, etc. It is mainly about aligning ownership incentives and control/voice according to whatever the design goals are of the company.
Do the workers then have to be considered as an employee of the coop as per the co-op law? We are running into that issue. Our freelancers are all over the world and we cannot figure out if they have to be reclassified as employees of the coop.
Hey Sorry just seeing this. Well this depends on your co-ops operating agreement. For us patronage (and membership) is defined by any person (like a beating heart human not "person" like entity) doing work for the cooperative on a per hour basis. So ownership in the form of dividends are allocated pro rata by time worked. We think that this is the most straightforward way of doing it, instead of tying equity to $ made, etc.
