this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
28 points (91.2% liked)

Canada

7170 readers
283 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So a publicly "invested" coop. You know like those publicly invested private EV battery plants.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would make the comparison to SaskTel or Canada Post

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Kinda but Canada Post and SaskTel are crown corporations which means pipsqueak can sell them like Manitoba sold MTS. A private workers' co-op (could even be a non-profit) can't be sold by an ideologue and its workers are likely to keep it sustainable and a good place to work. Theoretically they could vote to sell, but I think that would be unlikely since they would be giving up a lot. But don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a crown corporation than a foreign grocer.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mountain Equipment ~~Coop ~~ Company is a sad example of a coop that got sold pretty much out from under it's membership.

I'd posit the best option would be a crown corporation operated at arm's length, for the reasons you cite about MTS (and Potash, and Telus, and Petro Canada, etc, etc.) so that the company could remain solvent, but would be relatively immune from the neoliberal addiction to public/private partnerships.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

MEC was not a workers' co-op though. It was a members' co-op and I don't even know what the voting structure was - whether it was one member one vote or something else. Simply saying co-op is kinda meaningless but I think the original comment mentioning it meant a workers' co-op, one-person-one-vote. That's a specific configuration that creates a democratic workplace which has been shown to be resilient. It mitigates bad decisions being done by a small exec team. I certainly mean this when I say co-op.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm mostly in agreement, and would prefer worker-owned co-ops over crown corporations in theory, my only issue is one of scale, and that's unfortunately where a crown corp wins out, unless UFCW starts opening union co-ops across the country to compete with Loblaws.

Which they should, but UFCW doesn't have the guts to try