|
|
|
|
@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ much feedback on these ideas as possible from potential members!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Worker control: 1 worker = 1 vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means that every member of the co-op has equal say in the major
|
|
|
|
|
decisions affecting the co-op. There can be no "bosses" except those
|
|
|
|
|
voted for by the members themselves (who can then also be removed by
|
|
|
|
|
@ -74,6 +75,7 @@ decision is made. Possible options:
|
|
|
|
|
- California provides a legal framework for creating, running, and
|
|
|
|
|
operating worker-owned co-operatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This appears to be a decent option with many advantages including it
|
|
|
|
|
is very cost-effective both in terms of corporate fees and tax-pass
|
|
|
|
|
through schemes. The likely big downside is that few companies use
|
|
|
|
|
@ -84,6 +86,7 @@ decision is made. Possible options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Standard Delaware Corp or LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like some co-ops have been able to form under more
|
|
|
|
|
standard business vehicles. This would provide the advantage of a
|
|
|
|
|
much more developed legal framework and services but may not provide
|
|
|
|
|
|
