You indicated that there was a problem with me doing a spot check on something not directly related to co-ops, so let me instead do a spot check on something directly related to co-ops:
Let’s look at what the literature indicates as the benefits of socialist firms:
I’m confused about this study because the abstract seems to say that conventionally owned firms are better than co-ops:
In our experiments, subjects in conventionally-owned firms exhibited higher productivity, perceived greater fairness in the pay they received and the method used to pay them, reported higher levels of involvement in their tasks, had more positive evaluations of their supervisors, and showed a greater propensity to interact with and provide assistance to their co-workers than did those in employee-owned firms.
However, this seems to contradict table 3, where co-ops did better. So maybe they swapped around the labels in the abstract or something.
I’m also confused about what role the owner/supervisor was supposed to play in the work. It looks like the experimental simulation-company had workers do fairly independent tasks (spellchecking), and that there were not significant coordination or risk-management tasks for the owners to solve.
You indicated that there was a problem with me doing a spot check on something not directly related to co-ops, so let me instead do a spot check on something directly related to co-ops:
I believe this is the cited study?
I’m confused about this study because the abstract seems to say that conventionally owned firms are better than co-ops:
However, this seems to contradict table 3, where co-ops did better. So maybe they swapped around the labels in the abstract or something.
I’m also confused about what role the owner/supervisor was supposed to play in the work. It looks like the experimental simulation-company had workers do fairly independent tasks (spellchecking), and that there were not significant coordination or risk-management tasks for the owners to solve.