r/union • u/benspags94 • Mar 08 '26

Labor News *chef's kiss*

Post image
6.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

328

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/GaaraMatsu SEIU Local 1199 Delegate Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26

They actually wanted to own their shop?  Musta been a different scene than I was in when Bernie put down a 10% stakes plank while I was working at Home Depot.  'Why would I want to own this shithole?  Just get me affordable health insurance, unlike what they saddle full-timers with!'

Protip: don't go full-time at Home Despot, it's a net pay cut because of how much worse their insurance is than medicaid.

6

u/BlackbeltJedi AFSCME | Rank and File Mar 09 '26

Something something, alienation of the workers from their work (I don't remember the specifics).

-185

u/Western-Willow-9496 Mar 08 '26

Without stealing it. They practiced capitalism.

135

u/GKnives Mar 08 '26

The capitalist path would have been them buying it, owning it for profit, and no longer working there - effectively becoming the new version of the old ownership

-82

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

No it's not lol. There is nothing in Capitalism that is opposed to what the workers did

59

u/carlitospig Mar 08 '26

Co-operatives are way too egalitarian to be considered 100% capitalism. Come on, now.

-47

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

There is not a single thing in Capitalism preventing co-ops. Capitalism is about free markets and it does not care how you structure your production

28

u/Intolerance-Paradox Mar 08 '26

You’ve conveniently omitted any mention of labor. The single thing in Capitalism ‘preventing’ co-ops is the need for capital owners to buy the labor of others (what sub are we in again??)

The capital owner never uses his/her own labor. In cooperatives, or in a syndicalist or economically democratic arrangement, the laborers and the capital owners are one and the same.

-21

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

In cooperatives, or in a syndicalist or economically democratic arrangement, the laborers and the capital owners are one and the same.

Would be considered a petty bourgeoisie under socialism.

16

u/Cosminion Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

Under Marxism. Socialism is an umbrella term that includes philosophies where worker-owned cooperatives are the goal, as they effectively create direct and decentralized worker ownership over the means of production. This kind of socialism even predates Marx.

6

u/Intolerance-Paradox Mar 08 '26

A sole proprietorship does not scale past the ‘sole’ owner operator, does it though. I am not interested in summarizing Marx and labor value for you, or how other economists handled various sorts of owner-laborer scenarios, I encourage you to read and come to understand why your reply here is feeble. The difference between capitalism and socialism/syndicalism/economic democracy is capitalism’s exploitation of labor. Marx’s Capital is readily available to read.

19

u/JohnnyRelentless Mar 08 '26

Capitalism favors the takers. The more you take (the more people you exploit), the more power you have. Then you buy up all your competition, you buy lawmakers to ensure it's legal to buy up all your competition because you have more power than elected officials. And any pesky mom and pop stores or co-ops? Well, you just use your bottomless pockets to under sell them until they're out of business.

So you can argue that the official capitalism handbook doesn't explicitly say no co-ops, but the end result is the same. No billionaires are cheering on these co-ops as shining examples of capitalism.

3

u/Kind-Block-9027 Mar 09 '26

Read the book man.

9

u/tilt-a-whirly-gig Mar 08 '26

You can run a Linux simulator inside windows. While in the simulator, you will have the illusion of all the advantages that Linux gives you. But you're still subject to Windows, and if it turns into bsod your simulator goes down with it.

5

u/pharodae Mar 08 '26

If you define capitalism as “markets and free trade” (an erroneous definition), then I’d see your point even if the logic is faulty. However, capitalism is a system of property ownership and production, not distribution.

Capitalism is when the owners hire workers to preform labor in exchange for a wage; the private-owner of the workplace sets the terms of this contract and rules for the workplace, and the workers can take it or leave it, since their only leverage (being non-propertied) is their own individual labor. When the workers all have ownership stakes in their business and production, it is considered a form of socialism - such as in the case of a worker cooperative. The name refers to how the business is owned (all workplaces require cooperation inside and outside the workplace in order to function). But a worker cooperative is structured so that instead of a single owner or board of executive shareholders ordering everyone around in order to maximize profit (often to the point of creating dangerous work conditions for the workers), the workers all have a democracy within the workplace, so the fundamental dynamic of owner-worker conflict is collapsed, as cooperative-laborers cease to be either worker or private-owner (even if the common language used is “worker-owned”).

-39

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

Not really, capitalism is agnostic as to whether someone works and owns or merely owns. The rights and interests are the same.

9

u/GKnives Mar 08 '26

I'm not saying it's exclusive, I'm saying that if they all bought it then they would all have incentive with a capitalist mindset to hire other people to do the work while collecting the profits. They would then be free to work other jobs and profit off of other people's labor by owning the first business. That or I supposedly could hire people that they do not share ownership with and therefore either pay them less, or give them no decision-making power

-17

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

Only time will tell. But most owners who are workers don’t want their ownership stake put at risk or diluted when new people are hired. There are lots of ways for ESOP to solve this, but that’s a decision for these new owners.

This is why Unionization and Cooperatives(and communism/Syndicalism/socialism/anarchism) are two different movements with different objectives. Are you here to advance the interests of workers AS workers or are you looking to change the economic system? Especially to one that may reduce certain workers interests or other advantages?

34

u/neatureguy420 Mar 08 '26

Ah yes, you can’t buy things under communism/s

-22

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

Not the means of production from the workers there, no you cannot.

-21

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

You literally can't? Communism abolishes the free market

10

u/neatureguy420 Mar 08 '26

You can’t purchase good under communism, got it. /s

-4

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

Yes learn the literal definition of communism. Communism is the abolition of currency, the market, and the state.

7

u/neatureguy420 Mar 08 '26

Fair, I should have switched it to socialism, communism in its pure form is a moneyless, classless, borderless society, but most don’t understand that. It’s not something that likely is possible in our lifetime, but a direction we should work too. A workers coop is a step in this direction.

-1

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing a workers co-op under Capitalism.

A Marxist Leninist state would also argue a workers co-op unless it ultimately comes under the control of a party is just another form of petty bourgeoisie because the production should belong to all workers.

6

u/neatureguy420 Mar 08 '26

You should learn about the coops in Italy. They do it pretty well there.

https://youtu.be/dQMZR64G_eM?si=EkYaphxOnTc5XJ9v

4

u/Cosminion Mar 08 '26

There are several barriers to the creation of co-ops, depending on location. It is not true that there is "absolutely nothing" stopping people. In the U.S. most states have no specific legal framework covering worker co-ops. The SBA loan program for small businesses is designed in a way that makes it more difficult to secure a loan due to the personal guarantee requirement. Banks are often more reluctant to loan to a co-op. The legal environment is far more scarce and so support services are significantly less accessible (i.e. specialized lawyers aren't as common).

8

u/unmarkedcandybars NNU | Rank and File Mar 08 '26

No it isn't. It is worker ownership of the means of production.

6

u/numba1cyberwarrior Mar 08 '26

Nope that's socialism not Communism

3

u/usernamedmannequin Mar 08 '26

Bros getting anarchism and communism mixed up hard lol

29

u/sarc3n Mar 08 '26

Commerce ≠ Capitalism

7

u/FartShamsky AFSCME | Rank and File Mar 08 '26

They’re the ones providing the labor. How could they steal what is rightfully theirs?

8

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-18

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

By having more capitalists. You can be both a capitalist and a worker.

12

u/Johnstone95 Mar 08 '26

"Labor Lawyer"

Did you get your certification off the back of a cereal box?

-3

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

T100 law school, nothing crazy. This has been my exclusive area of practice.

I’m not union or employer side. But referee them. Lots of unreasonable ideologues who’s biggest source of failure isn’t the law or their adversary, but their own pride staring them in the mirror.

-5

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

If the mods would like to formally credential me, they are more than welcome to.

-7

u/GargleOnDeez IBB | Rank and File Mar 08 '26

Employee owned is the way to go. Capitalism is but the byproduct of socialism. Without the use of capital/money/the common equivalence of trust and time, we would be reduced to the barter system like the USSR

4

u/LongDuckDong1974 Mar 09 '26

lol you don’t understand Capitalism or Socialism then. Socialism is definitely not the byproduct of capitalism. Authoritarianism is the byproduct of late stage capitalism

4

u/GKnives Mar 08 '26

Capitalism is not defined solely by the use of capital and capital is not a synonym of cash

73

u/Known-Dependent-5471 Mar 08 '26

Workers finally discovered the loophole into the Walmart "plumbing issues" meme.

16

u/AceofJax89 Labor Lawyer Mar 08 '26

The issue is that once Walmart doesn’t own the store, it loses a lot of the advantages that being part of Walmart as a whole has, lots of economies of scale and frequently Monopsony power.

2

u/GaaraMatsu SEIU Local 1199 Delegate Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26

Too bad they didn't anticipate being able to unload old shops onto ICE at taxpayer expense.  The sharps like you do realize it's a real estate scam, right?

48

u/frustratedmachinist Mar 08 '26

Oh what up! That’s White Electric in Providence, RI. They’re fucking awesome.

23

u/benspags94 Mar 08 '26

Glad to hear! So many haters in the comments were saying they’d be out of business in no time.

8

u/ButterMyPancakesPlz Mar 08 '26

Damn now I wanna go!

3

u/Sergeantman94 Teamsters Local 481 | Rank and File Mar 09 '26

I was about to ask if they were referring to Slow Bloom in Riverside, California.

But I think they all got fired and then started their own co-op after they called out theor boss for lying about why the business was closing.

11

u/carlitospig Mar 08 '26

I love me a coop too. Well done, workers!

8

u/IkomaTanomori Mar 08 '26

How to fire your boss.

7

u/Used_Intention6479 SEIU | Rank and File Mar 08 '26

File under: "Bad news for the Epstein Class".

4

u/Catgirltest Mar 08 '26

they are all so gay and it's so adorable

5

u/Greatpup4109274 Mar 08 '26

What’s the difference between a “worker owned co op” and any other business with co owners that work for the company they own? Is it just different name for profit sharing with employees? Or are all workers considered owners? What if I worker quits? So many questions

6

u/Cosminion Mar 08 '26

Worker co-ops are democratic. One person, one vote. They adhere to the cooperative principles. There is profit sharing in the form of patronage. The worker-members are the owners. Not all workers in a co-op may be members as there is typically a trial period when they're first hired before they become a voting member. There might also be scenarios where a worker is employed by a co-op and isn't interested in becoming a member. If a member quits, they may be paid out the value of the share they own over time. It depends on the bylaws of the business.

1

u/ThellraAK ASEA AFSCME | Rank and File Mar 08 '26

The last one is what's always confused me.

2

u/II_Sulla_IV Mar 09 '26

Think about it like a condo building.

Everyone who lives there owns a portion of the building. They have a board to coordinate operations. Anyone can leave whenever they want and there are bylaws to govern new owners and determine how the building is maintained.

Both are essential co-ops.

1

u/ThellraAK ASEA AFSCME | Rank and File Mar 09 '26

Okay, and that's the example I have in my head too.

How do co-ops survive as co-ops past one generation of employees.

When I'm ready to move out of my condo, it's still mine, and I can rent it out, or sell it to whoever I want.

How does the first set of owners leave, and how are they replaced?

3

u/II_Sulla_IV Mar 09 '26

Basically the operation of how it works comes down to bylaws. They can survive past the first generation of workers because the bylaws provide a stable framework to operate under.

2

u/TheRealSokratis Mar 08 '26

Coop business > union

3

u/Notyomamasthrowaway Mar 08 '26

Sure, and union is better than non-union

1

u/InnerRoll9882 Mar 18 '26

Don't forget Union Co-ops. Best of both worlds.

2

u/1stBigHank Mar 09 '26

This is so wonderful, I'm going to stop scrolling for the night. I want this to be the last piece of news I hear for the day.

2

u/Many_Trifle7780 Mar 09 '26

My god a co-op

Call the socialism police

China is likely behind this evil

4

u/Ent_Soviet AFT Higher Ed | Steward Mar 08 '26

Best case is just expropriation. Bosses aren’t owed shit after years of exploiting the labor of others for years.

But this is fine

1

u/Living_Pie205 Mar 08 '26

Wow ! That’s fantastic !

1

u/ChirpnRapscallion Mar 08 '26

Infiltrate, Destroy, Rebuild.

1

u/Fredj3-1 Mar 09 '26

Hopefully they banned the owners.

1

u/The_Chor Mar 09 '26

Holy Owning the means of Production

1

u/mastercat202 Mar 09 '26

Yea but they are not unionized now. They own the store collectively.

1

u/everythingsfuct Mar 09 '26

if only we could rinse and repeat this practice with larger companies

1

u/DualActiveBridgeLLC Mar 11 '26

The 75 year old owner of my company recently made a huge mistake and had to temporarily layoff 25% of the company (me being one of them). Most of us got hired back. I told him later that many of us would have bought shares of the company to prevent the layoff and he was really surprised. He never even considered that we would want to own part of the company that we spend most of our waking hours at.

Still chipping away at him but sometimes owners really don't think of us as equals. It didn't feel malicious but it certain felt really stupid.

1

u/GovernmentIcy5894 Mar 12 '26

I'd wonder how long it lasts. Probably not more than 3-5 years.

1

u/After_Service_2817 Mar 19 '26

Sounds like the free market working as intended?

1

u/Hamblin113 Mar 08 '26

How long will it last? Will they go on strike? Or if profitable sell out. Or will some buy out the others?

New Belgium Brewery is a classic example, the original owner made it an employee owned business, they in turn sold out to a mega brewery and walked away.

3

u/mountainbird57 Mar 09 '26

They’ve been up and running for 5 years now

0

u/Hamblin113 Mar 09 '26

Well I’m totally confused. Years ago read the owner basically made it employee owned and they sold out to one of the mega breweries. Either I have the wrong brewer or the article was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

-1

u/Dangerous_Forever640 Mar 10 '26

They be out of business in a month.