Thank you for the correction.

 Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@...> wrote:

From: "Kevin Hood" <kevinhoodistanbul@...>
>
> Hello and welcome to the group. If you are looking for resources on
> worker owned cooperatives, there are several on the net. One you
> might like to try is :
> www.geonewsletters.org


I think that should be http://www.geonewsletter.org/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
workerownedcoop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

From: "Kevin Hood" <kevinhoodistanbul@...>
>
> Hello and welcome to the group. If you are looking for resources on
> worker owned cooperatives, there are several on the net. One you
> might like to try is :
> www.geonewsletters.org


I think that should be http://www.geonewsletter.org/

Roderick,

Hello and welcome to the group. If you are looking for resources on
worker owned cooperatives, there are several on the net. One you
might like to try is :
www.geonewsletters.org

It has a wealth of information contained in articles and writings
about worker owned cooperatives.

Good Luck,

Kevin Hood

--- In workerownedcoop@y..., bugador roderick <rcbugador@y...> wrote:
> Good day!
>
> I'm Roderick Bugador from the Philippines, I graduated
> with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Cooperative
> Development.
> Now I'm studying in Kyoto University, Japan, to
> further
> research on Japanese Management on Co-operatives.
> I would like to join your group for I am interested
> about workers cooperative. I would like to do some
> research about it in the near future.
>
> Thank you and More power!
>
> Roderick
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com

The only one I know of for sure that's all pro and no con is that it's exempt
from the 4.5% TX state income (franchise) tax which regular corp's and LLC's
have to pay. I don't know if other states do the same thing.

The other advantage in that a T co-op is basically a C corp is for the health
insurance and medical reimbursement deductions, and income splitting if
desired; everything else in most cases is superior with LLC's if used properly
(and unless one's own particular situation dictates otherwise). I'd say most
likely the best ways to set up a co-op would be either an LLC or a T corp, so
the difference depends a lot on state issues.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug <doug07031863@...>
To: <workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com>; <egroups@...>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 09:02 PM
Subject: Re: [workerownedcoop] Which states have best co-op org. acts?


--- "Robert M. Pritchett" <eGroups@...> wrote:
>
> Co-op state imposes no business income/franchise tax on co-op even if they
do
> have income/franchise tax on businesses like corp's, LLC's, etc. (TX
qualifies
> here)
>
> Co-op state understands that co-op's are not all nonprofit e.g. consumer but
> that businesses in other industries besides farming may want to set up a
co-op
> to help them jointly do marketing, purchasing, joint projects too big for
them
> individually, etc. (TX does not seem to get this)
>

Are there tax advantages for a company that is established as a co-op as
opposed to a LLC which has by-laws that implement the 7 cooperative
principles?



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
workerownedcoop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- "Robert M. Pritchett" <eGroups@...> wrote:
>
> Co-op state imposes no business income/franchise tax on co-op even if they do
> have income/franchise tax on businesses like corp's, LLC's, etc. (TX qualifies
> here)
>
> Co-op state understands that co-op's are not all nonprofit e.g. consumer but
> that businesses in other industries besides farming may want to set up a co-op
> to help them jointly do marketing, purchasing, joint projects too big for them
> individually, etc. (TX does not seem to get this)
>

Are there tax advantages for a company that is established as a co-op as
opposed to a LLC which has by-laws that implement the 7 cooperative
principles?



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

I'm looking for the best state to incorporate a co-op in, see comments below
that I gathered from my other postings elsewhere... but mostly the ideal
criteria for a state's co-op act would be:

Co-op state imposes no business income/franchise tax on co-op even if they do
have income/franchise tax on businesses like corp's, LLC's, etc. (TX qualifies
here)

Co-op state understands that co-op's are not all nonprofit e.g. consumer but
that businesses in other industries besides farming may want to set up a co-op
to help them jointly do marketing, purchasing, joint projects too big for them
individually, etc. (TX does not seem to get this)

Co-op state therefore allows not just individuals or co-ops but also any
entity including corp's, LLC's, etc. to be member of co-op (TX does NOT appear
to meet this one)

Co-op state imposes no inflexible limitations on how co-op defines patronage;
leaves it up to the co-op (example, in a co-op consulting firm, patronage may
need to be defined and computed differently for consultants, admin/clerical,
and marketing/sales; anything the co-op members agree upon should be OK)

Co-op state doesn't tax co-op payments to out of state members, doesn't need
tax withholding or reporting, only the state where they reside should tax them
if at all (TX qualifies here, has no personal income tax anyway)

As few as possible incorporators/directors/members needed to start (TX
requires 5, does any state require just 2? or 3?)

Am I looking for an impossible combination here? If so, how close can I get?


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

.
----- Original Message -----

I looked at the TX law on co-ops and it looked cumbersome and confusing and
more restrictive than necessary. Someone here mentioned that CA law permits a
co-op to be organized in any fashion, even an LLC, as long as it has certain
by-laws and/or operates a certain way. Does anyone have more detail on that?
What are the best states to set up a co-op in, that are the most flexible? The
TX law also says only individuals, non-profits, other co-ops, and associations
of such can be members of co-ops. Our LLC has both individual and corporate
members (some consultants already incorporated before they discovered us). Do
the co-op laws in any state allow other entities as members? The entity could
be restricted to having only one vote if that helps.

TX doesn't impose its 4.5% income tax on co-ops, do most or all states exempt
co-ops (even foreign ones incorporated in other states) from their state
franchise/income taxes?

I looked at the TX act again and it says that just about
anything run in a "cooperative manner", whose definition looks general enough
to include the way we're already running our LLC, can call itself a co-op,
although it looks like only an entity actually organized as a co-op corp.
under the act gets the exemption from the 4.5% TX franchise tax. Of course the
act was probably written before LLC's.


What's the best state co-op org. laws? Texas looks interesting but a bit
inflexible. Are co-ops usually exempt from state business income/franchise
taxes? Which states allow the fewest members to start a co-op? Which states
allow members to be corporations or other business entities? this is relevant
because we're sort of a co-op of consultants, and some of them are already
incorporated. It wouldn't be that different from a farmer's co-op in which
some of the farmers are incorporated, I'd guess. Some states like Texas appear
to think that all co-ops are nonprofits, which of course is not true, worker
and producer and marketing co-ops are definitely profit motivated, it's just
that in co-ops (as in our firm) the profits primarily go to the members. Which
states are the most flexible in allowing co-ops to define patronage? Which
states are easiest on foreign co-ops? Do any states have provisions for
treating companies which are incorporated elsewhere and not as co-ops but run
somewhat like co-ops as co-ops or at least partly as such (Texas seems to
somewhat)?

At the Federal level, I noticed in the laws for T-corp's that certain
"personal expenses" may be tax free to members, and said there would be regs
on it, but I haven't found any. Does anyone know about this? Is it just
something for housing or other consumer co-ops or can it be used for worker
co-ops too?


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

I originally posted this on programmercoops and someone replied on Janet's
board but Janet deleted that entire forum, so I want to get a wider response
from more groups. RMPCP is a small computer consulting firm that's partly like
a co-op because our consultants get the bulk of the profits, but it's not
completely co-op because in legal/tax/admin matters concerning the entire
business, I run it myself (and this has turned out to be a good thing because
we had some bad members rip us off).

See http://rmpcp.com for what we do (I know I need to completely redo our web
site). See discussion below, but basically, could having a company that's
explicitly formed and marketed as a co-op provide an edge in marketing to
prospects/clients (especially gov't and nonprofit) and recruting consultant
members? Thanks.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert M. Pritchett - RMPCP <EGroups@...>
To: <programmercoops@yahoogroups.com>; <egroups@...>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 02:00 PM
Subject: [programmercoops] Should I convert RMPCP to an actual co-op?


I'm trying to get a handle on what RMPCP could do to do a better job of
attracting and keeping good consultants who bring good clients. I know I'm not
very good with marketing but I'm wondering what's the extent to which part of
the problem is how we're perceived, and within that, are consultants so burned
out by bad brokers etc. and distrustful as a result, that any umbrella or
consulting firm is automatically so distrusted at first that there's an extra
barrier between us and prospective members to overcome before we can even
reach them? If so, is part of that a distrust of any kind of profit motive,
e.g. even though some consultants are experienced as IC's and understand the
need to make a profit themselves, are there a lot of consultants out there
that are naively socialistic? or perhaps at least so cynical that if there's
any profit-motivated entity between them and the client, it must be out to
exploit them and can't be trusted?

If so, would it help to either reorganize RMPCP or set up a new entity as an
actual co-op? Tax and legal issues aside (and I've already started researching
these but could definitely use some leads), assuming it's feasible to do so,
would it create a more positive perception among our potential members out
there, and thus make enough difference to attract enough more consultants (who
have or can find clients) to economically justify the change? Would a co-op be
better perceived as having the interests of its members at heart (although we
already do)?

For example, would the co-op style "one member, one vote" rule and/or
requiring everyone to buy in and thus own a part of the company result in
attracting more enthustiastic members who would be more likely to value the
success of the entire group, to volunteer to get certain things done to help
the group succeed, to help run the business so I don't have to do it all
myself, etc.? RMPCP's current setup can already include most of these features
but our current membership doesn't seem that interested; like most umbrellas
we've attracted consultants who just want to do their technical work and get
paid and effectively pay me to run all the legal/tax/biz/etc. stuff for them.
That's a valuable service and a valid use of our setup, granted, but besides
our needing more volume to reach critical mass, I'd like to have some "real
partners" who would be interested and motivated to do some of the work
involved in running the biz (especially marketing and sales but not just
those).

It would take a lot of work and probably some money to research the legal and
tax issues and to set it all up in a way acceptible to the charter members and
likely to appeal to new members, so to make it worth doing, it would have to
be very likely to make a big improvement in our attractiveness to potential
members.

Compensation would be tricky too. Currently it works like, we get X% off the
top from each consultant's Division, and after we grow to the point where
we're making more than enough money to support me and my wife and the typical
needs of the company, we can then effectively reduce our fees by paying out
bonuses via our bonus points (which thus reward those members who have been
with us the longest); and in the meantime, to make ends meet if we're short on
people, I also work whatever contracts I can find, but that gives me a lot
less time to run it so that's a drawback. A more co-op type model might be
that my base pay is $Y/month and then as the company grows I get my share of %
profit just as everyone else does, and because I have a base pay we can charge
a smaller % fee for what we do for our consultants, but the only problem with
that is that we have to have a minimum number of consultants billing (or at
least contributing) to make the base pay, especially if we add a base pay for
others doing other important work. If we had enough billing or investing or
contributing members now, the issue would be moot, and would save me the
hassle of changing to a co-op. It might be worth it, though, if the change
would attract the right people.

An in-between method would be to set up a new membership class within RMPCP
that has a co-op structure with the typical co-op characteristics, and that
would be a lot simpler and cheaper than researching and creating a co-op, and
if it would be sufficient to attract the right partners, it would do the job,
but just adding a co-op class to RMPCP which already has various membership
classes might not adequately address whatever perceptions are out there,
consultants might think "well, it's still run by RMP, I wouldn't feel like
it's partly my company too". Forming a separate co-op and having it work
together with RMPCP on whatever's mutually helpful might work, or even
simpler, just forming a new LLC organized partly like a co-op and partly like
RMPCP might be even better, as suggested in some earlier discussions here and
on Janet's board; it could be more economical and simpler to run and then
could be converted to a full co-op later if it seems worth doing.

And again, if a full co-op is created, its tax treatment might not be as good
as RMPCP's. For one thing, what I've read so far indicates that a co-op is
similar to a C corp, it doesn't suggest any way to pass through losses, so at
least until the co-op starts making a profit, members who need to deduct
losses would need to use pass through entitites (e.g. their own sole prop. or
S corp or LLC or they could join RMPCP and use that) to funnel their
contributions through, and the co-op would then have to be providing useful
services (e.g. marketing or whatever) for their businesses to justify that.
Perhaps that's not a problem. A co-op might be limited in how it can pay its
members, it could certainly have employees but that would be an unnecessary
hassle to avoid, it could have subcontractors but that could look suspicious,
but it may have one advantage which almost approaches one of RMPCP's
advantages. A co-op apparently can pay "patronage dividends", which it can
actually deduct, unlike a C corp which can't deduct the dividends it pays, so
a co-op avoids double taxation, and dividends received by members would be
exempt from payroll taxes, like an S corp but much safer - however, my
preliminary research indicates that the % it can pay out as dividends is
limited, so again this advantage would not be as useful as our own technique.
Of course each co-op member could probably choose whether to be paid just
directly by the co-op or partly through RMPCP or their own biz or whatever
(assuming this is feasible) so that might not be a problem. But there could be
enough tax limitations and inflexibilities of the co-op structure that a co-op
could not effectively work as an umbrella (the back end anyway) but more
likely as an adjunct to one or just to do a separate service (e.g. marketing)
and could not serve as the primary conduit through which the consultants get
paid for their contract work. It therefore couldn't provide employee benefits
like an umbrella could. However, it might still be feasible (if desired) for
the co-op to work like the front end of an umbrella e.g. as a prime contractor
to receive the payments from the client and then deduct its own expenses
(including payments to co-op members doing the marketing etc. work for the
co-op) and then forward what's left to the consultants doing the work. This at
least would provide the ability to have one entity that clients pay even for
big projects involving several consultants, and each consultant could still be
paid through whichever entity they prefer, e.g. their sole prop. or corp. or
RMPCP or whatever. And then of course the co-op members would also get
dividends from the profits of the co-op, and the co-op would retain some
earnings to help keep it going.

So, I guess that a co-op could be useful in at least this partial role, if it
could attract enough members willing to volunteer/contribute/etc. to make it
work. As far as my original question about whether it would help increase
RMPCP membership to do this, I still need feedback on that, but maybe having 2
separate entities and publicizing both might make a good combined offering
type approach, e.g. here we have a marketing/whatever co-op and an umbrella,
join either or both, and if I could make enough money from my earnings through
the co-op and RMPCP then I guess it doesn't matter that much which one does
better.

>From what I read, at least in Texas, only natural persons or other co-ops or
nonprofits can be members of a co-op, so RMPCP couldn't, and neither could any
consultant's own corp., but the co-op could be a member of RMPCP, and/or a
shareholder in your corp's, so there could be some advantage in that. If not,
it would probably be simplest to keep it separate. I don't know if 1706 would
be less of a concern with a co-op, but if the co-op acts as a prime contractor
(like most "brokers"), 1706 would apply, so that could be a problem. Or maybe
not.

Again, if anyone wanted to create a marketing entity, I could set up an LLC to
do it very easily without the co-op restrictions and with good tax advantages
and avoid spending a lot of time and money on research, but then the question
arises as to whether the perception of an LLC that's run sort of like a co-op
and is separate from RMPCP would be sufficiently attractive or if it would
take a real co-op to attract the people we need. Maybe the ideal strategy
would be to announce that it'll be started as a joint venture LLC and run very
much like a co-op, and as time and money permit, it would research the issues
and then convert to an actual co-op if appropriate?

Lots of room for brainstorming and feedback here - what do y'all think?


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!

Good day!

I'm Roderick Bugador from the Philippines, I graduated
with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Cooperative
Development.
Now I'm studying in Kyoto University, Japan, to
further
research on Japanese Management on Co-operatives.
I would like to join your group for I am interested
about workers cooperative. I would like to do some
research about it in the near future.

Thank you and More power!

Roderick


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

1. General References

F. B. Fajardo and F.P. Fabella, Cooperatives, Manila, Rex Book Store, 1986. ( HD 3545 A4 F35 )

L. Onagan, Cooperatives, Principles and Practices, Manila, National Book Store, 1977. ( HD 2961 053 1977 )

ILO, Cooperation, A Worker’s Education Manual, Geneva, 1956. ( HD 2952 I 58 ) & A Workers Coop – Basic Economics and Organization, Vienna, Matcom, 1985.

P.E. Weeraman, The Coop Principles, New Delhi, International Coop Alliance, 1973.

Jorge V. Sibal, Selected Readings in Coops and Labor Entrepreneurship. UP SOLAIR, Diliman, Q.C., 1998.

2. Specific Refences

1. Cooperative Theories and Principles

G. Baldacchino, Worker Cooperatives with Particular Reference to Malta, The Hague Institute of Social Studies, 1990 (Part 1, Theory Building). (HD 3195 4 A4 B 35)

W. Hasselbach, Public, Trade Union and Cooperative Enterprises in Germany- The Commonweal Idea, London, 1971.

H. Thomas and C. Logan, Mondragon An Economic Analysis, London, Institute of Social Studies at the Hague, 1982. ( HD 3218 M66 T48 )

F. Rosario-Braid, "Cooperatives: The Emerging Third Sector", The Entrepreneur, Vol. , No. 8, May 1990.

2. World Coop Practices

Jose Maria Ormachea, The Mondragon Cooperative Experience, Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa, Spain, 1990.

Wlliam Foot Whyte and Kathleen Foot Whyte, Making Mondragon- The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, New York: ILR Press, 1991.

Y. Suresh Reddy and A. Raddeppa Reddy, Cooperatives and Rural Development, Annual Publications Pvt., Ltd., New Delhi, India, 1997.

M.C. Garg and N. N. Joshi (Eds.), Cooperative Credit and Banking Strategies for Development, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, India, 1997.

Lionel Gunawardana, Amalgamation of Primary Cooperatives, the Japanese Experience, International Cooperative Alliance, India, 1973. (HD 3547 A4 G85)

Walter Freuss, Cooperation in Israel and the World, Jerusalem, 1960. (HD 2956 P 712 1961)

Elberhard Dulfer and Walter Human (Eds.), Cooperatives, London, Guiller Press, 1985 (various countries). (HD 3271 C6)

W. Cumpbell, Practical Cooperation in Asia and Africa, Campbridge, 1951.

E. R. Abarientos, "Cooperatives as Strategy for Development", Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 25, 1977.

3. Philippine Cooperative Experiences

There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. thanks
From: "Margaret Lucas"
2. New Member from the Philippines
From: "ir2162001"
3. Re: New Member from the Philippines
From: drc@...

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:47:35 -0000
From: "Margaret Lucas"
Subject: thanks
[This message contained attachments]

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:31:23 -0000
From: "ir2162001"
Subject: New Member from the Philippines

Hi everyone,

I just joined your group.

I am Prof. Jorge V. Sibal of the University of the Philippines School
of Labor and Industrial Relations in Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.

I teach a subject on cooperatives at the graduate school of
industrial relations.

Thanks and regards.

Jorge

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 01:29:32 -0800
From: drc@...
Subject: Re: New Member from the Philippines


Welcome Jorge,

Glad you could join us!

I'd love to see any of your coop course materials and/or bibliography if
you are willing to share.

Thanks,
--David Chilcott
drc@...
www.outformations.com
510.655.7122 Voice

You might see if the co-op statute of another state is better and if the DC
treatment of foreign co-ops isn't too bad. Also LLC's are great for
flexibility and a very workable way to run a co-op, but there are lots of
options and it takes work to design them optimally. You might see if the DC
co-op laws recognize a "cooperatively run" entity and allow it to call itself
a co-op, like Texas does.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

Peace to all,

I'm currently involved in setting up a worker-owned cooperative that will be a cafe oriented towards activists, artists, and members of Washington, DC communities.  This is our first such effort, so it's slow going.  Is there anyone else in the DC area who has experience with a small start-up? The DC cooperative statute isn't the best, and we don't qualify for S-corporation status, so we're thinking about becoming an LLC (and thus not an "official" coop). We'd certainly appreciate any insight any of you have. Thanks.

Jasmine

Hi,

I live in Brasilia where I'm involved in the formation of a new co-op.
It is located in one of the poorer outlying communities called Sao
Sebastiao. The name of the co-op is Cooperuniao. We aren't registered
yet, but this intended multi-purpose co-op already has a beauty salon
functioning informally. We are working on the construction of a large
kitchen in which we intend to produce a number of items including
pickles, pickled peppers, sausage, and beer. Later we intend to launch
a restaurant, a silk screening shop, and a wood shop. It is an
interesting time now for co-ops in Brazil because a new president was
just elected who promises to give the co-op movement a big boost, but
I understand that this list wishes to avoid political topics, so I
won't go into that. Anyway, I'll be looking forward to exchanging
ideas with people on this list with respect to the nuts and bolts
issues of cooperatives.

Scott

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RevolutionaryCooperatives/

Welcome Jorge,

Glad you could join us!

I'd love to see any of your coop course materials and/or bibliography if
you are willing to share.

Thanks,
--David Chilcott
drc@...
www.outformations.com
510.655.7122 Voice




                     "ir2162001"
                     <ir2162001@ya        To:     workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com
                     hoo.com>             cc:
                                          Subject:     [workerownedcoop] New
Member from the
                     11/04/2002           Philippines
                     12:31 AM
                     Please
                     respond to
                     workerownedco
                     op






Hi everyone,

I just joined your group.

I am Prof. Jorge V. Sibal of the University of the Philippines School
of Labor and Industrial Relations in Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.

I teach a subject on cooperatives at the graduate school of
industrial relations.

Thanks and regards.

Jorge




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
workerownedcoop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi everyone,

I just joined your group.

I am Prof. Jorge V. Sibal of the University of the Philippines School
of Labor and Industrial Relations in Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.

I teach a subject on cooperatives at the graduate school of
industrial relations.

Thanks and regards.

Jorge

From: "Doug" <doug07031863@...>
>
> The messages do get indexed.  Try typing in "Open IT Forum" into Google
> and you will see some hits on http://pub21.ezboard.com/bopenitforum.

Google will sometimes index URLs with a "?" but won't follow any links from
that page.  With ezboard, only the first page of listings doesn't have a "?"
which means that on the occasions that Google's robot passes through, it
will pick up posts that are on the first page at the time.  So some random
posts get indexed.

> Anyway Franklin, I'm not convinced that everything needs to be in Google.
> If it's group promotion that you are interested in, then getting posted
> as a topic on slashdot would probably do the trick as far as the IT
> community goes.  All of this takes time and somebody willing to do the
> promotion.

This is something I have experience with and being well indexed on search
engines is extremely important, more important than all the links from all
other types of sites combined.  Right now, my entire focus is on promotion.
If I can't get enough visitors to this group then it will fail.

--- Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@...> wrote:
> I am open to the idea of using a forum but ezBoard is no good because its
> URLs contain "?" which means that they won't get indexed in Google.  If we

The messages do get indexed.  Try typing in "Open IT Forum" into Google
and you will see some hits on http://pub21.ezboard.com/bopenitforum.

However, I noticed that when I search on phrases in the home page which
describes the group as:

Welcome to the world of free thinking and open discussion!
Please help yourself while respecting the rights of others.

No hits are found.

Anyway Franklin, I'm not convinced that everything needs to be in Google.
If it's group promotion that you are interested in, then getting posted
as a topic on slashdot would probably do the trick as far as the IT
community goes.  All of this takes time and somebody willing to do the
promotion.

> agree to go with a forum format, then someone needs to find a good hosted
> BBS.  I wouldn't even mind paying a little each month.  And someone needs to
> contact the workercoop group to see if they are interested.  I personally
> don't have much opinion about mailing list versus forum, so I will go with
> the consensus.

I can't post to workercoop, although I could send a message to Tim Huet
and ask him to forward it. For all I know there are other mailing lists
and message boards dealing with worker co-ops.

- Doug



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

--- "Robert M. Pritchett" <eGroups@...> wrote:
> 24 members!? That's a lot compared to the very few of our 85+ registered
> mostly-inactive members which are really interested in participating actively

Robert,

   It's true that there are 24 members, but email groups are funny beasts.
Most people just observe.  Look at the number of people who anonymously
identified their status in the poll: 7. I think this is about the number
of people who have ever posted.  The two sets may not completely overlap,
but my guess is roughly 1/3 of the 24 members want to communicate with
the group.  So I think that Franklin is right about group size.  You need
a lot of people.

- Doug



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

I am open to the idea of using a forum but ezBoard is no good because its
URLs contain "?" which means that they won't get indexed in Google.  If we
agree to go with a forum format, then someone needs to find a good hosted
BBS.  I wouldn't even mind paying a little each month.  And someone needs to
contact the workercoop group to see if they are interested.  I personally
don't have much opinion about mailing list versus forum, so I will go with
the consensus.

I frequent Janet's board and also the Open IT forum there, and it seems
workable. Perhaps we should consolidate programmercoop, workercoop, and
workerownedcoop there with appropriate sections.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

24 members!? That's a lot compared to the very few of our 85+ registered
mostly-inactive members which are really interested in participating actively
in RMPCP and working together to help us grow (which is why I'm looking for
real partner/co-op type people). If we had 24, even 10, members that are
partner/co-op type people and really want to work together to make a viable
consulting firm designed by and for consultants (whether or not a co-op or how
close to one), we would be in orders of magnitude better shape and able to
help our members. If we had 10 members billing at all times, we could start
accumulating profits toward lots of worthy helpful ideas, plus our fees could
be reduced to the point where they're more than paid for by our tax savings so
that our net cost to each member is negative. If we had 25 members billing at
all times, we certainly would outgrow the brokers because of internal
referrals from each other. Certain advantages about the way I set us up give
us the ability to get by with 3 or so billing members, while other umbrellas
and consulting firms need 20-50 to break even. Having 10 would be great, and
25 would be fantastic.

I had been thinking that RMPCP's advantage would make it easy for us to grow
into a more participatory structure like this where teamwork could help us
grow into something more solid, more like a "real consulting firm" with
permanent marketing/sales partner(s) etc. and doing just "real consulting
projects" instead of mostly placing bodies. But this hasn't happened, probably
partly because I still need to learn more about marketing, sales, and
recruiting, and also because we've attracted mostly contractors just wanting
umbrella service rather than partner/co-op type people. If there were 25 or
even 10 people here or elsewhere that would really want to grow something,
combining them with RMPCP's advantages and everyone's co-op experience here
should produce the critical mass we need.

So how do we accomplish this?


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@...>
To: <workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com>; <egroups@...>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 03:51 PM
Subject: Re: [workerownedcoop] new workerownedcoop group


From: "doug07031863" <doug07031863@...>

Step 2, finding partners, can't happen until there are enough people.  The
programmercoop group has 24 members which I don't think is enough for useful
networking.

--- Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@...> wrote:
>
> Something like this might make sense.  Would you want to move
> programmercoops to one forum in a board like this?  I have a problem with
> ezboard itself because they use a "?" in the URL of messages which means
> that messages won't get indexed in Google.  But if people here like the
> message board idea, we can look for something.

Yes, I would recommend moving programmercoops and see if anybody
objects.

>
> Thinking more about all this, is there really a big difference between a
> mailing list with archives and on-line forum with e-mail notification?  I
> think the point that you are trying to make isn't so much the means of
> posting as the idea of having several related areas for discussion.  But
> couldn't we do this just as well by having on static HTML page somewhere
> that lists all worker coop Yahoo groups and then have the home page of each
> group link back to this page?  What do you think?
>
I think that ezboard would be a cleaner solution for aggregating
co-op newsgroups.  I could send a message to the moderator of workercoop,
Tim Huet, and mention the idea that it
really doesn't address all needs for education, looking for partners,
industry specific interests and off-topic chat that an Internet
group about co-ops should address.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

From: "doug07031863" <doug07031863@...>
>
> It's steps 2 and 3 that are the hardest to do.  workercoop
> doesn't even attempt it and programmercoop, which I was
> hoping would do it, failed.   The difficulty of this
> step: 2, over the Internet cannot be underestimated IMO.

Step 2, finding partners, can't happen until there are enough people.  The
programmercoop group has 24 members which I don't think is enough for useful
networking.

> c) I had mentioned on programmercoops that an ezboard
> group with many forums might be the way to go since there
> are so many different interests.

Something like this might make sense.  Would you want to move
programmercoops to one forum in a board like this?  I have a problem with
ezboard itself because they use a "?" in the URL of messages which means
that messages won't get indexed in Google.  But if people here like the
message board idea, we can look for something.

> Certainly co-op
> education is important, but this might be handled with
> links to sites like the Univ. of Wisconsin's co-op site
> and the ICA site.

The Univ. of Wisconsin's co-op site is about coops in general and isn't a
particularly good introduction for someone who knows nothing about worker
coops.  The only educational page on the ICA site is their FAQ page, but I'm
not sure I agree with all of it and it could use more questions.  I had been
thinking that we should write our own FAQ.

> There should be a off-topic chat forum where people talk
> about anything.  Off-topic chat is useful for getting to
> know people in email groups.  It's one way of
> personalizing people over the Internet.

Makes sense.

Thinking more about all this, is there really a big difference between a
mailing list with archives and on-line forum with e-mail notification?  I
think the point that you are trying to make isn't so much the means of
posting as the idea of having several related areas for discussion.  But
couldn't we do this just as well by having on static HTML page somewhere
that lists all worker coop Yahoo groups and then have the home page of each
group link back to this page?  What do you think?

--- In workerownedcoop@y..., "Franklin Schmidt" <fschmidt@d...> wrote:
> If one considers the steps people take in developing a successful
worker
> coop as:
>
> 1.  develop an interest in worker coops
> 2.  find partners and plan the coop
> 3.  go into business
> 4.  keep working at making the coop successful
>
> Steps 3 and 4 are addressed in the workercoop group, but steps 1
and 2 are
> not.  So this group really would be addressing a need by focusing
on steps 1
> and 2.  Naturally, people already in coops would be invaluable here
to
> inform others.  Existing coops may also benefit from attracting new
members
> here.

What I have observed:

a) workercoop is primarily interested in 4.  It talks about
patronage dividends and how existing co-ops are
structured -- members vs. non-members, etc.  Although it says
that people who are actively trying to form a co-op can
post, I see almost no posts from such people.

b) 1, parts of 2 and parts of 4 can be done publicly. "Finding
partners" may start off publicly, but you are soon
going to want to feel pretty comfortable with your partners.
This can only be done privately.  I think this private process
definitely extends into  3) too, where you want to simulate
sitting around coffee table and not be on stage in front of an
audience.
Once formed, then you might feel like you want to start
sharing information publicly again.  This is why I closed
off programmercoops to the public because I thought it was
time to start finding partners and get serious about starting
something.

It's steps 2 and 3 that are the hardest to do.  workercoop
doesn't even attempt it and programmercoop, which I was
hoping would do it, failed.   The difficulty of this
step: 2, over the Internet cannot be underestimated IMO.

c) I had mentioned on programmercoops that an ezboard
group with many forums might be the way to go since there
are so many different interests.  Certainly co-op
education is important, but this might be handled with
links to sites like the Univ. of Wisconsin's co-op site
and the ICA site.

Finding partners could be a standing forum.  Note that
programmercoops went for a year and as far as I know nobody
ever found a partner on it.  workercoop could be subsumed
into a forum for functioning co-ops.

There should be a off-topic chat forum where people talk
about anything.  Off-topic chat is useful for getting to
know people in email groups.  It's one way of
personalizing people over the Internet.

- Doug

If it was on the home page to do so, I'm sure I did, it was so long ago I
don't remember.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

.
----- Original Message -----
From: Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@...>
To: <workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com>; <egroups@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 04:15 PM
Subject: [workerownedcoop] Re: workercoop group


Did you email the moderator at wie@... as described on the group
home page?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert M. Pritchett" <eGroups@...>
>
> Sure, I'd love to participate in the WorkerCoOp group too, I thought they
were
> dead, since my membership has been pending for months with no message or
> anything.




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
workerownedcoop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: <drc@...>
>
> 1. I'd suggest that you (or we) write up a "call". Or perhaps several.
> Short, pithy, focused descriptions of the group, it's mission, who we'd
> like to have participating and specific recommendations for the KIND of
> participation we think would best be in alignment with the purpose of the
> group.

I changed the group home page description to answer these questions.  Does
anyone have any comments or suggestions about this description?

> 2. Additionally it might make sense to make explicit any assumptions or
> norms we'd like followed or intend to implement. For example, that this is
> explicitly a PUBLIC group with PUBLIC archives, that we intend to cross
> post with other groups, that we'd like to support and encourage cross
> fertilization and connections between like-minded groups, etc.

I think the norms follow from the mission.  If we agree that one of the
missions is to attract interest in worker coops, then obviously the group
should be public and we cross post where appropriate.

Did you email the moderator at wie@... as described on the group
home page?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert M. Pritchett" <eGroups@...>
>
> Sure, I'd love to participate in the WorkerCoOp group too, I thought they
were
> dead, since my membership has been pending for months with no message or
> anything.

Sure, I'd love to participate in the WorkerCoOp group too, I thought they were
dead, since my membership has been pending for months with no message or
anything.


Robert M. Pritchett - RMP Consulting Partners LLC - member ICCA
Quality means doing it right the first time - http://rmpcp.com
Tired of hearing "W-2 only"? Work the same contract on our 1099 instead!
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMPCP-Applicants to apply.

Your message made me think more about what I want this group to do.  My
personal goal was for this group to be a networking resource for people
interested in forming worker cooperatives.  But the problem with this is
that there just aren't that many people interested in worker cooperatives.
So I think another goal should be to sell the concept of worker cooperatives
to the public in order to attract more people.  This would be best done in
conjunction with a web site.

If the market that we are trying to reach with this group is just those
currently interested in worker cooperatives, then that is a very small
market.  But if our market is those who should be interested in worker
cooperatives, then that is huge because it includes everyone who is unhappy
with currently available employment options.

Another rational for this focus is to fully complement the workercoop group.
If one considers the steps people take in developing a successful worker
coop as:

1.  develop an interest in worker coops
2.  find partners and plan the coop
3.  go into business
4.  keep working at making the coop successful

Steps 3 and 4 are addressed in the workercoop group, but steps 1 and 2 are
not.  So this group really would be addressing a need by focusing on steps 1
and 2.  Naturally, people already in coops would be invaluable here to
inform others.  Existing coops may also benefit from attracting new members
here.

> 4. As for the group itself I'd like to try to focus both on conversations
> AND on collecting pointers to relevant resources and skills, including
both
> professional service providers and members of existing coops that may have
> technical or other expertise and experience. I know that for myself I have
> often benefited simply from having a conversation with someone who already
> understands the issues and concerns so I can focus more on the problem at
> hand than on bringing someone up to speed about what the heck a coop is or
> not having to spend the time justifying why I'm even bothering to think
> about how to run a coop business.

But this seems to be exactly what the workercoop group is supposed to be
doing.  Why doesn't that group satisfy this need?  I'm not a member, so I
don't know how well the group works.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Hey Franklin,

Here's a couple of thoughts:

1. I'd suggest that you (or we) write up a "call". Or perhaps several.
Short, pithy, focused descriptions of the group, it's mission, who we'd
like to have participating and specific recommendations for the KIND of
participation we think would best be in alignment with the purpose of the
group.

2. Additionally it might make sense to make explicit any assumptions or
norms we'd like followed or intend to implement. For example, that this is
explicitly a PUBLIC group with PUBLIC archives, that we intend to cross
post with other groups, that we'd like to support and encourage cross
fertilization and connections between like-minded groups, etc.

3. We can then post these calls to other groups where interested
participants might find them.

4. As for the group itself I'd like to try to focus both on conversations
AND on collecting pointers to relevant resources and skills, including both
professional service providers and members of existing coops that may have
technical or other expertise and experience. I know that for myself I have
often benefited simply from having a conversation with someone who already
understands the issues and concerns so I can focus more on the problem at
hand than on bringing someone up to speed about what the heck a coop is or
not having to spend the time justifying why I'm even bothering to think
about how to run a coop business.

I've taken the liberty of also posting this message to the group as well.

--David Chilcott
drc@...
www.outformations.com
510.655.7122 Voice



                     "Franklin
                     Schmidt"             To:     <drc@...>
                     <fschmidt@dig        cc:
                     db.com>              Subject:     Re: new workerownedcoop
group

                     10/28/2002
                     06:44 PM






I'm not sure.  Right now I just want to get people to join.  Do you have
any
suggestions for what to do with this group?


From: <drc@...>
>
> Please let me know how can I support you as a co-moderator of the new
> workerownedcoop group?