The point of this article is that maybe there’s a different way to run a restaurant. A way where it isn’t whether you’ve got a dud in charge, but where there’s no one in charge — or, rather, no one person. Where, instead of “taking ownership” of their jobs in the jargony, buzzword sense of it, employees literally take ownership.
  • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyzEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I used to frequent a collectively owned bakery in Berkeley. It was lovely, but they put fricken walnuts in almost everything.

    I asked my friend who worked there what was up with that… She said “We operate through consensus and a couple people really like walnuts. Discussions of changing the recipes actually get contentious.”

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    This is cool, but it still operates as in the sphere of capitalism in the end. It still has to accrue capital, invest, and act in many ways the same as a capitalist company. Only difference is the workers share the capital.

    Again, it’s cool, but it doesn’t bring real socialism.

  • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.netEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    Restaurants run on hierarchy, or so I’ve always been told. There’s got to be someone in charge, someone giving orders, in order for the whole thing to run right… The last person I worked for, one of the most experienced and talented restaurant people I’ve ever met, always said it’s best to run a restaurant as a “benign dictatorship.”

    I mean, liberals (and authorities like owners/executives/managers/politicians) will tell you this about literally everything, not just restaurants. So there’s no particular reason to believe them, and many millennia of history filled with reasons to not believe them. shrug