United States

This is a PowerPoint presentation delivered at the 2013 Beyster symposium in La Jolla, CA. It accompanies item 072, the conference paper of the same title.

We will be using the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives (USFWC) as the example to examine the larger question of “authority versus liberty”; of which authority can be defined as a federation where co-operatives are members of a larger organization and therefore limiting individuals control over certain aspects and decisions; and of which liberty can be defined as the autonomy of individual co-operatives and their members to control their fate.

This case study discusses a pathbreaking strategy in Cleveland, Ohio, that addressed the economic challenges facing the city by generating local wealth, economic opportunity, and jobs. The strategy involved the expansion of the University Hospitals, an important anchor institution. The study is based on in-depth interviews with key stakeholders.

This PowerPoint outlines the recommendations for item #107, which is the full masters thesis on building cooperative infrastructure in New York City based on Quebec's ecosystem

By emphasizing wealth creation, communities can not only cultivate streams of income, but also build wealth. Through collectively owned and democratically governed assets, communities can build wealth. Economic development policy and practice should emphasize wealth creation. Employee ownership, through worker cooperatives is one way to build wealth. But worker cooperatives are rare in the United States; this is because there is not a supportive cooperative ecosystem.

This guide explores the worker cooperative network as a neighborhood, municipal and regional strategy for generating wealth. It presents two examples: the well-established Mondragon Complex in Spain and the nascent Evergreen Cooperative Initiative in Cleveland Ohio. Drawing from these two cases the authors then put forth a general framework for building a scalable cooperative network in post-industrial American cities.

The initial draft of this paper was written in response to a request for research on the relationship between self-direction in the workplace, employee ownership, and organizational outcomes. It outlines three aspects of shared decision-making: autonomy, participation, and influence. It then explores the relationship between two of those aspects (autonomy and participation) and a series of productivity-related cultural norms, including ownership identity.

One key rationale for the creation of ESOP law in 1974 was to share wealth with the workers who helped create wealth. Today, many companies use the wealth sharing aspect of their ESOPs as an effective retention and recruitment tool. But just how effective a means of distributing wealth are ESOPs? Two studies, one conducted in Washington State and one in Massachusetts, have looked at the wealth consequences of ESOPs.

In the 28 years since Congress established Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), over 10,000 U.S. companies have adopted and maintained ESOPs—dozens of studies have evaluated the effects of ESOP on company performance. After reviewing the research literature, Dr. Douglas Kruse concluded: “25 years of research shows that employee ownership often leads to higher-performing workplaces and better compensation and work lives for employees.” Study 1 (below) indicates that this “ownership effect” averages 2 to 3% per year on a variety of measures.

The cooperative ownership model is used in a wide variety of contexts in the United States, ranging from the production and distribution of energy to delivery of home health care services for the elderly. Although cooperative businesses have been responsible for many market innovations and corrections of market imperfections, little is known about their impact as an economic sector. Until this project, no comprehensive set of national-level statistics had been compiled about U.S. cooperative businesses, their importance to the U.S.