
Ask HN: Examples of tech worker cooperatives? - jboynyc
Cooperatives are an intriguing business model for reasons addressed in a recent <i>New York Times</i> article [1] as well as a recent documentary film called <i>Shift Change</i> [2]. The discussion sparked by Thomas Piketty&#x27;s <i>Capital in the Twenty-First Century</i> [3] provides further reasons for seeking out an alternative business model. Wikipedia has a good entry on the worker coop model [4].<p>I&#x27;ve come across Quilted [5] and Colab [6], two worker-owned and run cooperatives working in the tech space in the U.S. Both have a fairly impressive lineup of worker-owners and compelling portfolios, indicating that the model can really work.<p>Does anyone know of other examples of such coops, both in the U.S. and around the world?<p>1: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;30&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;who-needs-a-boss.html<p>2: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;shiftchange.org&#x2F;about&#x2F;<p>3: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7618971<p>4: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Worker_cooperative<p>5: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;quilted.coop&#x2F;<p>6: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.colab.coop&#x2F;about
======
wingo
Igalia, [http://www.igalia.com/](http://www.igalia.com/) \-- 40+ people, 11 or
12 years old (I forget!).

A few articles I wrote on working at Igalia last year:

[http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/05/no-
master](http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/05/no-master)

[http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/13/but-that-would-be-
an...](http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/13/but-that-would-be-anarchy)

[http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/25/time-for-
money](http://wingolog.org/archives/2013/06/25/time-for-money)

~~~
bratsche
hah! I was just coming here to comment and mention Igalia, but you beat me to
it. :)

Igalia is a great company, really wonderful people and they do fantastic work.
I really love the model they've created for the company.

------
nickbauman
I tried to form a worker cooperative for IT workers a few years ago. I thought
the idea of providing health insurance, 401k, business insurance and even a
bench would be something my fellow engineers would be interested in since it
was better than going it alone. As long as they knew that what they paid into
the coop was going straight to the support of each other. Economies of scale
and all.

But to do it you have to put up some cash to create that umbrella. The IT
workers (my co-workers in many case) I spoke with were not willing to do that,
preferring to take the higher risk of being a lone freelancer to participating
in any kind of cooperative system.

I think people in the tech sector have a belief that they will always land on
their feet and as hard as times can be, they want to maximize their earnings
over everything else. And they mistrust organizations in general from both a
pragmatic perspective and from being somewhat misfits themselves.

How the heck have these IT coops gotten started, then?

~~~
jboynyc
> How the heck have these IT coops gotten started, then?

I can't tell you on the basis of empirical knowledge of concrete cases, but in
theory (e.g., Elinor Ostrom's work on the commons) you need some lower-level
guarantor of trust (such as a shared culture) for higher-level institutions
that can solve these kinds of collective action dilemmas to develop.

~~~
justizin
right. all being techies is not enough of a shared culture to accomplish
anything outside of typical employment.

~~~
jboynyc
Or maybe it's the wrong kind of shared culture, the kind that locks people
into collective action dilemmas rather than helping to solve them...

------
jawns
Not a direct response to OP's question, but I wanted to give some general
background info on worker cooperatives and coops in general.

A cooperative is type of a business entity that does not have outside
shareholders. Rather, its members are its owners.

So, in the case of a worker cooperative, the people who work for the business
are its member-owners. (In the case of a consumer cooperative, its patrons are
its member-owners.)

What are some benefits of cooperative businesses?

For one thing, because the business is not beholden to outside shareholders,
who typically only have an interest in the _financial_ health of the company,
it can make decisions that a for-profit company might not be at liberty to
make.

For instance, a for-profit bank, under shareholder pressure, might introduce
sneaky hidden fees to increase its bottom line -- but at the expense of
irritating its patrons. That just wouldn't happen with a credit union (a form
of cooperative), because the investors and patrons are one in the same, and
their interests are aligned.

Another big benefit, and this is especially true with tech companies, is that
the member-owners are invested in the company's success in a way that mere
employees are not -- and they have the decision-making power to actually
influence how the company operates, because coops are democratically
controlled. A lot of tech companies grant stock options and offer profit-
sharing programs, but stock options can be a crap shoot (there are a _lot_ of
ways for them to end up being worthless, even when the company is profiting
handsomely), and profit-sharing doesn't necessarily mean power-sharing.

There are two major downsides to operating a business as a coop, though. One
is that you have to raise all of your capital from your members, rather than
relying on outside investment. That can be really tough, especially when
you're just starting out.

The other downside is regulatory. I'm not sure how it works in other
countries, but in the U.S., there are a lot of restrictions and hoops you have
to jump through. For instance, consumer cooperatives must restrict membership
based on some type of common bond -- a geographic area or an alumni
association, for instance. But some types of businesses just don't flourish
unless you open them up to everyone. This is less of a problem, though, for
worker cooperatives.

I'm a big fan of the cooperative movement, and the broader distributist
movement
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism)),
and I wish more people knew about the benefits coops offer.

~~~
stronglikedan
Thanks for the informative post. I'm new to the idea, and I have a question.
You say that the decision making process is democratic. Couldn't that be
dangerous?

The majority is not always right, or even informed enough to make a correct
decision. An executive hierarchy puts this process in the hands of key
decision makers, who are supposed to make the correct decisions to protect the
company's interests based on their experience.

What happens when the decision made by the democratic majority is potentially
harmful to the company? Is there a hierarchy in place to mitigate bad
decisions?

Thanks for the informative post. I'm new to the idea, and I have a question.
You say that the decision making process is democratic. Couldn't that be
dangerous?

The majority is not always right, or even informed enough to make a correct
decision. An executive hierarchy puts this process in the hands of key
decision makers, who are supposed to make the correct decisions to protect the
company's interests based on their experience.

What happens when the decision made by the democratic majority is potentially
harmful to the company? Is there a hierarchy in place to mitigate bad
decisions?

EDIT: jawns has clarified that the democratic process can be used to appoint
an executive heirarchy. I was under the impression that every business
decision was put to a vote by the entire cooperative. I understand now that
key decision makers can be elected in order to mitigate decisions that may be
harmful to the business.

~~~
jawns
Well, remember that just because a company is democratically controlled does
not mean that its member-owners cannot elect an executive hierarchy of its
own. But when the votes are cast for that election, it will be the member-
owners' interests that are being reflected, and not outside investors'
interests.

To give an example that's more to do with worker cooperatives, suppose the
member-owners are discussing whether to work 35- or 45-hour work weeks. The
35-hour work week might be good for work-life balance, but bad for the
business itself, while the 45-hour work week might be the reverse.
Nevertheless, the majority of members might vote in favor of the 35-hour work
week, and _whether or not that is bad for the business_ , it will be good for
the majority of the workers.

Granted, the democratic process isn't perfect -- you need only look at U.S.
politics if you need proof of that -- but when you compare it to its
alternatives, it's not at the bottom of the pack.

~~~
flinty
How much is the shareholders voting on decisions in a democratic way different
than the employees voting on decisions?

------
audionerd
Check out "A Technology Freelancer's Guide to Starting a Worker Cooperative"
[http://techworker.coop/](http://techworker.coop/)

A few technology worker coops are listed there with brief stories/interviews.

~~~
jboynyc
Thanks for that! They also link to this recent piece from _FastCo_ on "the
argument for worker-owned tech collectives":
[http://www.fastcolabs.com/3021964](http://www.fastcolabs.com/3021964)

------
dissentertainer
At ArtsPool we are in the process of building a cooperative of NYC arts
nonprofits centered around a collectively-owned administrative agency. Part of
this will involve building out a co-employment legal structure to create a
fluid labor network that will effectively allow agency member-owners to
"insource" employee time from their peers on an ad hoc basis. Eventually we
want to white label our solutions and make them open source so that any
nonprofit sector in any city can use them, but for now we are focusing on a
the arts sector in NYC. It's all very preliminary and we are really wrestling
with a fear of new ideas that is endemic in nonprofit culture, but we are
taking a lot of inspiration from what is going on in the tech sector (where
problems are things to be solved and not monsters under the bed). There's more
on our co-employment approach on our nascent blog and in the Collective
Insourcing concept paper that the project is based on (linked to in the post
below). [http://artspool.co/stronger-together/](http://artspool.co/stronger-
together/)

I'm Max and I'm new to HN. My contact info is in the team section of our
website if you want to chat further or get a copy of our fleshed-out business
plan. I also need to hire a developer soon so... :-)

------
producist
I've been exploring this space since 2010 and always wondered what it would
look like if a tech co-op got as big as Facebook, Amazon, Google, or Apple.

I created an evolutionary economic model called Producism, which includes
building an ecosystem of cooperatives and b-corps, alternative currencies, and
other concepts. I wrote a book about it that's free to read online,
[http://producism.org/manifesto](http://producism.org/manifesto) (updated
version coming late May).

Our startup, Producia (screenshots of upcoming new version
[https://angel.co/producia](https://angel.co/producia)), is implementing this
new kind of economy on college campuses and local communities as a real-world
social entrepreneurship game, that challenges players to kickstart and grow
meaningful ideas into impactful businesses. We are a hybrid cooperataive
(worker & member-owned) and instead of following a pure democratic model, we
use the "Better Means Model"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdcAxGGRafc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdcAxGGRafc)).

As far as raising funds for our cooperative, we are taking a creative
approach. First, my founder and I are turning ourselves into startups,
literally, and doing a similar deal like the music businesses "360 Deal",
where investors get a piece of everything we do. We are also going to create a
sister company (benefit corporation) that will offer a white label version of
our platform to enterprises. We are pursuing an equity deal for that. So in
all, it'll be a mixture of a royalty and equity.

If anyone has any questions or wants to learn more, feel free to email me at
drewl at illvp dot com.

Cheers!

~~~
jrochkind1
> I've been exploring this space since 2010 and always wondered what it would
> look like if a tech co-op got as big as Facebook, Amazon, Google, or Apple.

For a science fiction exploration of this, see Bruce Sterling's 1988 novel
_Islands in the Net_, which features a global democratically owned and
controlled tech corporation.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_in_the_Net](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_in_the_Net)

~~~
producist
thanks! will definitely check it out!

------
FinnLewis
I am part of Agile Collective
([http://agilecollective.com/](http://agilecollective.com/)), a UK base web
development company governed as a workers co-op. We are 7 permanent members,
up from 6 when founded in 2011. We are a company limited by shares, and we do
have a structure in which we have two type of shares: member shares, one for
each member, and equity shares which can be used to raise capital. Only the
member shares have any voting power in governance, so contrary to what jawns
said, you can have outside shareholders. We are still for profit, and do share
profits with members, but the main point is that the members have the decision
making power, not equity share holders. (We don't actually have any external
equity share holders, but it is an interesting area for consideration if
trying to raise money to expand.)

------
yochaigal
Hello all. I have founded two worker cooperatives, both in the tech sector. I
am also a moderator of the subreddit
[http://reddit.com/r/cooperatives](http://reddit.com/r/cooperatives). Check
out the sidebar for a whole bunch of links!

If you have any questions about starting a worker coop, especially in CA or
MA, I can help.

------
steveklabnik
I can't believe nobody has mentioned Mondragon yet:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation)

> At the end of 2012, it employed 80,321 people in 289 companies and
> organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and
> knowledge.

~~~
icebraining
It's not really a _tech workers_ coop.

~~~
steveklabnik
Ahh, I guess that's fair.

------
speednoise
Plausible Labs

[https://www.plausible.coop/](https://www.plausible.coop/)

~~~
josephlord
They are behind PLCrashReporter which is the core of most most of the
crashreporting systems for iOS (and OS X).

------
philipn
IO Coop ([https://iocoop.org/](https://iocoop.org/)) is a member-owned tech
infrastructure (colo, vps, some other services) cooperative.

------
loomio
I'm a bit late to the party but I wanted to mention that in addition to being
a tool created to support the kind of collaborative decision-making that
happens in cooperative models (which they are using it for at CoLab, as
solarlion kindly mentioned already) Loomio [0] is itself structured as a
cooperative with 12 worker-members and growing.

Loomio is part of the larger Enspiral ecosystem (as te_chris already
mentioned), which is a network of startups doing business differently, with a
social good focus and also upending internal organisation. We're innovating
new ways to do core business processes in collaborative, distributed ways.
Loomio is an example of that for decision-making, and we're also doing the
same in budgeting, strategy setting, governance, and more.

We're quite passionate about the cooperative model and collaborative process
design and are happy to talk more in-depth with anyone who is interested.

[0] [http://www.loomio.org](http://www.loomio.org) [1]
[http://www.enspiral.com](http://www.enspiral.com)

------
roflc0ptic
I'm on a Tech-Coop mailing list:

[http://npogroups.org/lists/info/tech-
coop](http://npogroups.org/lists/info/tech-coop)

They're a friendly, cooperative bunch. Join and introduce yourself, or read
the archives. It seems like most of them have thought really hard about what
they're doing, and it's pretty solid.

~~~
jboynyc
This list seems to have spawned the site techworkers.coop mentioned by
audionerd. Good to see there's a space where people have been having this
important conversation.

------
IndieDevClub
When the new equity crowdfunding rules go into effect, I was thinking a more
interesting model could involve equity. Every person in a "startup
cooperative" could own a piece of everyone else's startup. It might help
minimize the risk with doing a startup if you own a small piece of a number of
other companies.

~~~
producist
+1!!! We're following that model with our virtual incubator program for our
tech co-op, Producia.

------
ndarilek
We're just starting out, but [http://3mousetech.com](http://3mousetech.com).

------
josv
I’m a member at a worker-owned mobile dev coop in Ottawa.
(htttp://www.brierwoodapps.com)

I spent some time in grad school studying economics, and I've felt a bit like
a mole on a couple of occasions, but I do think it’s a really interesting
structure.

There’s definitely been some self-selection of members based on equality- and
social-mindedness. Some of that expresses itself internally: There’s a lot of
information sharing and support for professional development.

I think one of the great practical advantages is that it’s a structure without
employee numbers. Every new employee is hired with the hope that they’ll stay
on and become a full member-owner. The fact that every member is on the same
footing as the founders can be pretty advantageous in a tight labour market
when trying to bring on board talented developers who might otherwise prefer
to work independently.

------
roma1n
In France: ALMA [http://www.alma.fr/](http://www.alma.fr/)

------
bcks
A few more:

[http://electricembers.coop](http://electricembers.coop)

[https://riseup.net](https://riseup.net)

[http://designaction.org](http://designaction.org)

[http://radicaldesigns.org](http://radicaldesigns.org)

[http://palantetech.coop](http://palantetech.coop)

I also wrote an article about collectives for designers back in 2005:
[http://backspace.com/notes/2005/09/collectives-for-
designers...](http://backspace.com/notes/2005/09/collectives-for-
designers.php)

------
clonnholm
In Sweden: [http://www.muchdifferent.com](http://www.muchdifferent.com)

It is actually a non-profit organisation without any shareholders but it is
controlled by its employees.

(I work there)

~~~
seivan
This is impressive:
[http://developer.muchdifferent.com/unitypark/](http://developer.muchdifferent.com/unitypark/)

~~~
clonnholm
Thanks! Glad you like it. We are currently busy doing the same for the Unreal
Engine 4.

------
aspidistra
Here's one from the UK:

[http://www.software.coop/](http://www.software.coop/)

------
allworknoplay
Traditionally, a lot of large engineering companies have strong ESOPs
(employee stock ownership plans). Not "co-ops", as you put it, which I think
tends to imply a really flat hierarchy, although I'm not exactly sure.

If it's not obvious, it benefits everyone by increasing the incentive to
perform, sharing profits (obviously), and reducing the incentives to be
mercenary, which as we know just increases costs for all businesses involved
(and is quite logical for employees who don't have strong stakes in their
business).

I think it's a good question you ask, and I think more companies who care
about the long term should consider it. Problem is, most founders are
especially interested in just selling, and an ESOP makes a company moderately
more complex to buy. So I don't think the model fits most VC-heavy startup
concepts, but I do think it deserves a much larger place in cash-flow-positive
long-term businesses.

------
g8oz
How do you kick out underperformers in a co-op?

------
mattgab
I co-founded an IT and Computer Repair coop about a year ago. We're called
Boston TechCollective:
[http://boston.techcollective.com](http://boston.techcollective.com)

Also take a look at our sister coop in SF:
[http://techcollective.com](http://techcollective.com)

------
fasouto
Igalia from Spain [http://www.igalia.com/](http://www.igalia.com/)

------
Ologn
Most of the tech examples I know of in the US are small, boutique, often
ephemeral consulting companies started among a few friends. Often the formal
structure is a standard partnership or corporation with shares evenly divided.
If the partners get along, are smart about things and the market is good, they
often do quite well while they last. Many of the companies are kind of
transitory - doing web page design and the like in the late 1990s, and then
when the market dries up, the partners close the business and go their
separate ways. Or sometimes one partner is hired by the company he is
consulting for, another moves across the country following his girlfriend, and
the remaining partners agree to wind down the business.

------
thistle
I'm a worker-owner of Sassafras Tech Collective (sassafras.coop). We focus on
research, design, and development of web and mobile applications for social
justice. We are based in Ann Arbor, MI. We have been around for a year and are
growing.

------
te_chris
I'm involved in Enspiral which is something like what you describe. Not
directly a coop but not a traditional business by any means.
[http://www.enspiral.com/](http://www.enspiral.com/)

------
foobacca
I work at Aptivate - [http://www.aptivate.org/](http://www.aptivate.org/) and
while technically we're still a not-for-profit company with two directors
nominally in charge, for a number of years we've been effectively running as a
worker's co-operative with decisions made by consensus. You can read a fuller
description of our internal processes at [http://aptivate.org/en/about/how-we-
do-things/](http://aptivate.org/en/about/how-we-do-things/) under "Management
and Governance".

------
zt
I don't want to draw out a tenuous claim: but in some ways most tech companies
(and particularly early-stage startups) are more like cooperatives than has
historically been the case in corporations. As Sam Altman's recent article on
employee equity points to, being liberal with ownership is considered a virtue
in technology companies. Long-gone are the days where you can build a
technology company and keep all the ownership closely held (I'm sure there are
other examples, but Bloomberg LP would be a prototypical example).

~~~
jboynyc
Ownership is one part of the model, and I think you have a point that it's
more diffused in many startups. However, I'm not sure democratic control of
the business is part of the startup model. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think they tend to create a traditional management structure with CEOs, etc.

~~~
001sky
Co-Op is a very loose term and comes in many flavors.

It would be a bit naive to think that they are inherently better managed or
more "democratic" (egalitarian?) than a regularly run business. Like any
democracy, not only do they come in different flavors (ie, representative
democracy vs "pure" democracy etc), but they come with their own quirks of
implementation. In many democracies the individual voters have little actual
power and organized and concetrated special interest groups game the system.
And there are plenty of co-ops run by CEOs.

And most co-ops do not offer order-of-magnitude improvements in working
conditions or pay. You are looking at a 10% type improvement, not a 10x one.
The downside of a co-op is that it might have a 10% improvemnet in (potential)
conditions, but a poor implenetation but will be -10% as productive due to
inefficiencies and execution problems.Which basically runs the risk of zero
net improvement for the typical person there.

All of which means that you really need to analyze any proposed or actual
implementation. Broad-brush generalizations are often misleading in this
context. Just something to keep in mind.

------
solarlion
I am a co-founder of the tech cooperative:
[http://colab.coop](http://colab.coop)

We run a worker-owned tech cooperative supporting startup social enterprises
through agile development of minimum viable products that we hope will change
the world for the better (hopefully that doesn’t sound cliched as our hearts
are sincere in that desire).

I am glad to see some enthusiasm on HN for the cooperative cause which we
believe strongly in as model vehicle for moving beyond the 'exploitation
economy' which most of us operate in and which pits us against each other as
adversaries rather than joining us together as partners in seeking solutions
to problems we all share.

We have found the biggest plus of being a cooperative to be the sense of
equality amongst our crew stemming from a democratic-based decision making
process and a path to membership (as a co-owner) available to all (assuming
performance and cultural standards are met).

Frankly we are slightly in awe of the talent that has joined our family by
virtue of this ethos of equality and a 'do good' mission.

Moving forward we are of the opinion that the many of the best and brightest
in our industry who seek social and environmental change will choose to work
in cooperatives rather than traditional corporations even if it means
sacrificing some personal financial benefit to do so (although hopefully this
will not be needed as more resources go to supporting cooperatives).

The ‘meaning quotient’ of life generally trumps all for those we work with and
those who support cooperatives.

In terms of keynotes, running a cooperative successfully requires: \-
emotional intelligence \- operational processes that support intra-team
communication and collaborative work \- a willingness to put your trust in
your co-workers \- a strong sense of cultural identity \- a mission that can
be shared with members and partners

Given this is HN, I _will_ say that there is some tension b/t the 'lead by
your gut' \- fast and furious - approach of most entrepreneurs and the
emphasis in cooperatives on getting consensus from the team on big decisions.
As a former ‘traditional’ entrepreneur with some VC / startup experience, I
feel like we have found a nice balance b/t empowering our management team to
lead with their ‘gut’ business instincts while also engaging in proactive
communication with the team around key business decisions. That said I have
also at times stepped on some toes and gently bruised some egos with my former
ways. So it is a learning process for sure...

As part of our communications work, we have begun experimenting with using
[http://loomio.org](http://loomio.org) as part of our discussion and decision-
making process.

Lots more that could be shared but, I hope some of this is helpful. If anyone
has further interest in cooperatives, our work processes or our work feel free
to PM me.

EDIT: Just noticed that we were referenced in the opening post. (Thanks
jboynyc) Sorry for flying a bit too fast and furious, speaking of... Also
updated the loomio URL above.

~~~
LunaSea
Thanks for the enlightening post ! I had just a question.

You talk about the "brightest in the industry [...] will choose to work in
cooperatives".

Wouldn't most people prefer the high-risk / high-reward choice that the
startups model offers ? Or am I too cynical ?

~~~
solarlion
Well, the brightest has an asterisk where the asterisk corresponds to those
who are orienting their lives towards service and the common good - those
seeking solutions to our shared problems - rather than simply personal
benefit.

If the goal of life is simply 'self-service' \- making tons of money and
living fat (ie. ‘he with the most toys wins’ mentality) - then cooperatives
are not the path an individual will choose.

If the goal is to help others while working together with peers who share a
common purpose, then a cooperative makes a lot of sense as a model.

In my case I realized that much of our society is oriented fundamentally
towards greed with consumer capitalism actually manipulating us to be more
greedy.

I was simply looking for a company structure that helped us to learn to be
more generous through our work together. While I can’t say honestly that our
work is yet shaking the foundations of capitalism, I _can_ say that we are
learning to be more selfless, more generous, by working within a cooperative
structure that encourages us to help meet each others’ needs along with those
of the clients we serve.

------
abjorn
There is Web Hosting Coop that some friends and former coworkers of mine run:
[http://www.webhosting.coop/](http://www.webhosting.coop/)

------
sharp11
Gaiahost is a worker-owned, environmentally-minded coop that provides managed
hosting services: [http://gaiahost.coop](http://gaiahost.coop)

------
rasur
I seem to recall Panter ([http://panter.ch](http://panter.ch)) being a co-op
(perhaps mostly a co-op). They're a great bunch of guys.

------
llamataboot
Riseup[1] and Mayfirst[2] both function as collectives, though I'm not 100%
sure they are worker-owned coops. Many more smaller ones in the
activist/liberation tech space

[1] [https://help.riseup.net/about-us#meet-the-
collective](https://help.riseup.net/about-us#meet-the-collective) [2]
[https://mayfirst.org/](https://mayfirst.org/)

------
bitsweet
[http://assemblymade.com](http://assemblymade.com) could be considered a
global software coop

~~~
Joeboy
I don't see any indication of that on that website that they're constituted as
anything other than a straightforward for-profit company.

~~~
bitsweet
To me, the powerful idea of a co-op is that it brings together many people
with skills that compliment each other, all contributing to something where
sum is greater then the parts. The result, if they are successful, is they do
generate profit and each contributor takes home their full share. This is what
Assembly is trying to enable...but Assembly is really a platform for creating
co-ops around software products.

------
rmchugh
In Denmark: [http://www.it-kollektivet.dk/](http://www.it-kollektivet.dk/)

------
plinkplonk
[http://www.nilenso.com/](http://www.nilenso.com/) in Bangalore, India

------
guiye
from argentina: [http://www.tecso.coop/](http://www.tecso.coop/)

~~~
jboynyc
Argentina is a great case. The coop movement there was the subject of a
documentary called _The Take_ (2004):
[http://www.thetake.org/index.cfm?page_name=synopsis](http://www.thetake.org/index.cfm?page_name=synopsis)

~~~
trilobite
Another one from Argentina [http://gcoop.coop/](http://gcoop.coop/)

------
floehopper
Go Free Range - [http://gofreerange.com](http://gofreerange.com)

------
jefurii
DreamHost is an employee-owned corporation. [http://www.dreamhost.com/about-
us/the-dreamhost-team/](http://www.dreamhost.com/about-us/the-dreamhost-team/)

------
Joeboy
As luck would have it, immediately after seeing this I got spammed by a web
design co-operative:
[http://www.niftythinking.co.uk/](http://www.niftythinking.co.uk/)

------
MrBuddyCasino
I have thought about this a lot lately, but couldn't find anything in Munich,
Germany where I'm based.

If anyone's interested, it would be nice to have a chat.

~~~
jboynyc
I just took a look in the Genossenschaftsregister (GnR) for Munich and came
across a few coops in the IT sector (e.g.,
[http://www.7-it.de/genossenschaft/mitglied-
werden.html](http://www.7-it.de/genossenschaft/mitglied-werden.html)).

Not sure if they fit your profile, but it might be worth taking a look:
[https://www.handelsregister.de/rp_web/mask.do](https://www.handelsregister.de/rp_web/mask.do)

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Thanks, didn't know there was such a public database. Seems hard to search
though, there are no tags or categories or something.

~~~
jboynyc
Searching for "IT" turned up some results.

------
goblin89
I remember very nicely done website of
[http://analog.coop](http://analog.coop), but they seem to be no more. :(

~~~
jboynyc
Checked their archive site. Looks like they are now part of fictivekin.com.
Not sure if they are still a coop.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20130731083708/http://analog.coop...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130731083708/http://analog.coop/)

------
dllthomas
I participated in starting one, which never really took off but churned
through some contracts and I think they're still at it.

------
it_learnses
any in canada?

~~~
jboynyc
The map at techworker.coop shows one in Montreal and one in Ottawa.

[http://www.koumbit.org/](http://www.koumbit.org/)
[http://brierwoodapps.com/](http://brierwoodapps.com/)

~~~
solarlion
Brierwood is one of our partners and inspirations in setting up a coop. They
specialize in mobile app development. They are both a pleasure to work with
and do outstanding work.

