Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Unions should put their money where their mouth is and invest in cooperatives.

Unions aren't structured for investing, and that's not their reason to exist.

I don't know where you are from so I can't comment on how unions function in your society, where I live they're definitely not in the same realm as a potential investor for cooperatives.

You are also asking for unions to compete against VCs, and banks, let's be realistic that even a large and wealthy union is not even close in terms of wealth management as a small to mid-size bank/investor. On top of that the union has responsibilities to provide benefits to all members, a bank or investor has none of that, tilting the scale even more in disfavor of an union assuming the role of investment.

It's a good thought though, another entity such as a credit union supported by workers in an industry which also takes the role on investing in cooperatives to foment them, would still be an uphill battle but if some good cooperatives came out of it maybe it could be another viable (albeit smaller) model to start companies.




Only partially true. Unions themselves aren't structured for investing, but unions have some of the largest pension funds and the managers of those pensions are some of the largest institutional allocators in the world.

Think CalPERS, CalSTRS, Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, and many others.


> Unions aren't structured for investing, and that's not their reason to exist.

Depends on the union. A credit union is structured for investing and is literally their reason to exist.


Yk a Labor Union is entirely different from a Credit Union right?


Typically[1], but both are unions. Had the previous commenter been talking about labour unions then you might have something, but it clearly says "union" and "union" alone.

[1] Although definitely not necessarily. A group of labour unions in these parts collectively own one of the largest hedge funds out there.


> Unions should put their money where their mouth is and invest in cooperatives

As in Labor Union.

Pedantry and HN - name a more iconic duo.


If labor was somehow significant to union, it would have been mentioned.


In colloquial American English, "Union" denotes "Labor Union".


What, then, does American English call a union?


What do you mean? In English a single word can have multiple meanings.

A "Labor Union" is colloquially a Union. A marriage is also called a "Union". And so is the mathematical operation joining two sets.


Union in the broad labour union sense, but without the labour specificity. The same union we’ve been talking about all along.

Not sure why you think we’d randomly change the topic all of a sudden for no reason…


For sure, but who says that they can't become more similar ...


Most marriages - a kind of union - also don't invest in cooperatives. Even if they meet the accredited investor standard.

Neither does the Union of European Football Associations, otherwise known as UEFA. They make up for it with a dope anthem.

Neither the Kalmar Union, nor any other personal union of monarchs, ever invested in a cooperative. Although some may have invested in joint stock companies, such as the various East India companies.

Maybe the Soviet Union was into worker cooperatives? Not sure.

And finally, the union of the set of workers at cooperatives and the empty set invests in cooperatives. Hey look, we found one type of union that definitely invests in cooperatives!

(I was just having fun making this as absurd as possible. Sorry, no malice intended).


> Most marriages - a kind of union - also don't invest in cooperatives.

Is that because most marriages exist in urban centres where cooperatives are uncommon to non-existent? Out here in rural country, where cooperatives are the norm, most married people invest in cooperatives as most of the cooperatives are customer owned. You don't have much choice but to invest, assuming you want to be a customer – and no doubt you want to be, given that they provide basic services for the region.

I'm certainly an investor in several co-ops, and not because I went out of my way to do so. That is, with the exception of one co-op, which I provided additional investment to. That particular co-op runs a very successful operation and provides healthy returns in what is a comparatively stable environment to those who provide an over-and-above investment. They attract quite a lot of investment dollars as a result.

Which says something about unions that aren't investing. Why aren't they investing? Simple: The companies they see in front of them aren't worth investing in.


> On top of that the union has responsibilities to provide benefits to all members, a bank or investor has none of that

A bank has responsibilities to its shareholders.


But not to all members participating in the machine, hence my point that unions have a responsibility over all its members.


To the extent the bank wants to retain employees, it does need to provide some minimum level of utility. That may be as simple as an hourly wage for some, but both shareholders and employees are participating in the machine.


> Unions aren't structured for investing, and that's not their reason to exist.

They seem to have plenty of extra money to fund political candidates.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: