I don't think it's fair to say that. Teamshares will sell up to 80% to the employees. Many worker-owned cooperatives have laws specifying that shares can only be exchanged internally. Teamshares isn't particularly transparent on their actual structure.
So for instance, an employee(s) might sell their shares back to Teamshares or another agency, at which point the worker agency is diminished. Particularly in the former case.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say or how it's relevant to the question.
I work for Teamshares, and while not everything about the company is public, what we do is buy small local companies when their owners retire, and transition the companies to an employee-owned model. Everyone gets to keep their jobs, workers get a share of the profits, and local communities benefit from business continuity. It seems to work very well, and there's no catch.
The appeal of a worker-owned coop is the fact that the workers in aggregate have complete control. Relinquishing 20% of that by default, and one might surmise 25% due to the installed president, runs contrary to the purpose of a worker-owned cooperative.
And that's where things are unclear. That 25% can mean a lot of things. Is it simple tribute, or rent-seeking, which WOCs seek to dismantle? Does Teamshares vote with that? What sort of contracts exist to subordinate the companies to Teamshares?
How are the shares traded? Does/can the employee sell them back to Teamshares? Can they sell them to Yum! Brands? If so they're selling current and future employees' agency. If they can only be exchanged between the worker and the company - that would be more closely aligned with the idea of WOCs.
I just don't think it's fair to really draw the comparison without being completely transparent about how it works. However, I do like the idea and have an appreciation for what Teamshares is attempting to do, but I think they should seal the deal and completely abdicate if they're going to front like they're facilitating the development of WOCs.
A lot of this information is quite simply non-public, but again it's besides the point.
We're talking about employee ownership as a business model at a high level, and you're complaining that the specific terms (which you have no knowledge of) may or may not be generous enough.
I can't disclose non-public information, but what I can say is that if I didn't feel great about working somewhere, I wouldn't work there very long haha.
