Great comment. Quick reply:
Yes to creative rethinkings, but they demand more critical thought, not less.
Yes to worker control, but we need to unpack that term, Those of us with union movement background are intimately familiar with the ways that term can be stretched and abused.
Yes to union/co-op collaboration, but is this P2P grassroots-led collaboration, or collaboration between top officials and non-cooperative employers?
And, UHW-W has a history...
@Matt_Noyes @GuerillaOntologist dismissing as "funny" is not especially critical thought. And as you can see, I am not accepting the current proposal uncritically. I think Josh is making some important points, but is overly dismissive of the potential as well. I would rather see proposals for improvement or replacement rather than purity test dismissals. There is space and time for this proposal to develop, and we should enter into that.
What you read as overly dismissive, purity test, etc. is an expression of doubt & skepticism born of years of experience with some of the key institutions involved. I totally agree that these developments deserve careful analysis and where they cause us to question cooperative/union principles we should be eager to do that -- what good are principles that can't be doubted? But no need to be defensive about well-earned skepticism. It's another piece of the puzzle.
"...one proposal for improving this legislation could be to simply call the federation the co-op, and then have the individual lines of business operate as wholly owned subsidiaries."
-So incorporate a co-op. Why the legislation? Several ppl had this question on birdsite. We already have co-ops and federations, so why involve the Assembly and the Governor?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!