[shoto_io]

I came here to say exactly that. There is pressure everywhere. CEOs are scared of boards. Boards are scared of shareholders. It's just not that visible because there is no tool like "OfficeVibe" showing this transparently.

Sure, they get paid well. So you could argue that they have to take the pressure.

[geofft]

Stop having boards and shareholders then.

Or, at least tell them, our growth target this year is 2%, our growth max is 10%, if we grow more than that I'm concerned about the pressure on my employees and my goal is to have a great and sustainable place to work and not to fill the universe with paperclips, and I'm going to start laying off sales and marketing if we're taking on more commitments than we can handle. We're not letting you into the board if you disagree with it, and you'd better price this assumption into the stock if you want to hold stock.

You don't have to grow forever just because you're a company.

(I think I've heard companies register as a public benefit corporation to make it easier to push back on growth-seeking entryists.)

[PeterisP]

I don't understand what the target audience of your suggestion is - it's certainly not something CEOs, managers or employees can do.

I mean, there's a strict hierarchy there of who answers to whom and who gets to choose who to work with.

If the CEO tells the board "our growth target this year is 2%, our growth max is 10%, if we grow more than that I'm concerned about the pressure on my employees and my goal is to have a great and sustainable place to work and not to fill the universe with paperclips" then the board is likely to answer "it seems that our goals are not aligned, you'll be replaced with someone who does not share your concerns". If the board tells something like that to shareholders, then there's going to be a shareholders' meeting to replace the board.

"We're not letting you into the board if you disagree with it" - who's "we"? CEO's certainly can't say that unless they happen to be majority shareholders since e.g. founding the company; CEOs don't get to veto who comes on board, the board gets to choose who will be appointed CEO.

"you'd better price this assumption into the stock if you want to hold stock." - those who bought the stock get to set the rules including changing most company bylaws, so it's a legitimate tactic to buy stock in a company that's focused on being a great workplace instead of growth (i.e. the stock is likely to be cheap due "pricing in that assumption"), then destroy that assumption and replace the management to focus on growth, and sell the (now more expensive) stock. And it's very likely to happen since there are organizations whose whole business is to identify such opportunities and execute on them.

You don't have to grow forever just because you're a company, you're required to try to grow forever because the company shareholders want to. Companies can register as a public benefit corporation iff shareholders choose to do so, it's certainly not a way for someone to stop having shareholders.

[geofft]

The target audience of my suggestion is founders who don't yet have board members or CEOs who currently have like-minded board members, and who don't currently have public ownership.

You're right, once you've given up ownership to the public, it's a little too late for the current legal entity. But it's not too late to quit your job and start a new workplace.

[PeterisP]

Okay, that makes sense. However, that's plausible only if the founders can afford to start a new workplace from their savings alone without ever attracting external investment. A fully bootstrapped company can keep full control, but any significant investment will require the company to cede that control and have a "standard" board structure that can ensure that the interests of the owners are taken into acocunt.

[Grustaf]

In other words, founders without investors. They seldom have a lot of employees though.

[_huayra_]

I wonder if anyone works in a worker cooperative software company. I'd imagine there are some, but I wonder what kinds of software they do / products they make.

From what I've read about co-ops, I would definitely love to work at one one day. Even having to work more hours would feel more meaningful because I'd by benefitting my own bottom line in a way, not just going towards the CEO's private island fund.

[ryanchants]

I've actually thought about starting one. It seems like a software consultancy would probably be the best fit.

[eitland]

I work for a employee owned software consultancy in Oslo, Norway.

It is in deed ideal in many ways or ay least has been while I've worked there.

(It doesn't hurt either though that it is the first place I've worked for more than two - three years without spotting an a__hole or two. Take this into account.)

[_huayra_]

Do you think a worker co-op either/both avoids hiring a-holes in the first place and/or avoids bringing out a-hole tendencies in otherwise normal folks?

Being ~8 layers deep in the corporate hierarchy at my current place is very frustrating, and I think it probably affects my current a-hole level just due to apathy...

[eitland]

I think we've been lucky.

Maybe it also helps that everyone has a financial incentive in making sure everyone else performs at their best since that means more bonus and also higher stock prices.

[_huayra_]

Yes it seems like software consultancy would be the most obvious choice. I wonder if such a structure could expand to build a complicated B2B product, for instance. The example that comes to mind is some sort of enterprise wifi / networking thing. Could a co-op grow to encompass a manufacturing supply chain?

I just wonder how one would handle this beyond ~Dunbar's number. I've only heard of the company that makes Gore-tex handle this in a creative way [0], essentially splintering organizations into separate orgs once they became large enough.

[0] https://blog.gembaacademy.com/2011/06/21/dunbars_number_span...

[Narnach]

Yep, I think for long term sustainability we need many more B Corps, because otherwise we’re all working ourselves to the bone for private equity companies (which often seem to be the aggressive profit seeking shareholders).

There is a lot of value in being good for your people, the environment and the rest of your supply chain.

[vageli]

Do you mean B Corps as benefit corporations defined by some state statutes, or those certified to be B corporations by B Lab certification?

[shoto_io]

Well, it depends what you want to achieve I guess. Apple and the like are very, very successful. And not because the pressure there is low. Quite the opposite.

[ghaff]

A private company can do more or less what the owners want. Of course, they'll probably have less access to capital and employees should expect commensurate compensation/no opportunity for public stock appreciation/etc.

[kenjackson]

And there are people who say we’re paid well. There’s always someone who thinks you need to suck it up because of how much you get paid.

[shoto_io]

I’m not saying it’s fair. I’m simply articulating what most people think, I believe.

[ganzuul]

Shareholder liability is much too limited.

[shoto_io]

Liability for what? Burn-outs? They are liable. When the company goes bust they lose their money.

[patrickk]

If the case of CD Projekt Red with the recent Cyberpunk 2077 game is anything to go by, the shareholders will get large bonuses while the cannon fodder get mandatory crunch time, stress, overwork, are forced to ship out shoddy work etc. Of course the bonuses are due to the companies prior good reputation so it remains to be seen whether or not that continues. But this situation is quite typical in the games industry and most likely others too

[ganzuul]

Don't a lot of those employees have options?

[ganzuul]

Unless they lose more it's not liability.

Ed: I can't take the first question seriously... Is it really a serious question?

[shoto_io]

Yes it is! I wouldn't even know how to measure the responsibility of a shareholder. What if I own just 1 stock of Apple? Am I then liable? I don't get it

[ganzuul]

Sure you are liable because you can sell at any time. You voted with your money to approve all that Apple has done. You don't approve a measure of it; that would be absurd. If you missed a shareholder meeting where they discussed doing something terrible, you are liable. As a shareholder you have the ultimate responsibility for the company because no one is there to tell you otherwise. You don't abolish yourself of your wrongdoing be remaining ignorant of what is being done in your name. This results from the very basic ethics of how society works so... I really don't like having to explain this to one of its members. ED: and once again the courageous mice of HN arrive to mindlessly downvote... you people sure are an endless source of disappointment

[pdimitar]

Not sure where your assumptions about HN are coming from but there's plenty of us around here who don't know the dynamics of being a shareholder simply because we are almost always at the bottom of the food chain.

Or do you think HN is an exclusive forum for actual business owners and shareholders?