The co-operative movement has changed how Americans see and work.
Co-ops are an example of the kinds of cooperative enterprises that have long been considered “free-market” institutions.
While these types of enterprises were originally envisioned to provide consumers with better services, the coop movement has transformed them into powerful, effective workers’ and consumer advocacy groups that are fighting for the right to collectively bargain for better services and higher wages.
This shift has transformed the role of unions and worker cooperators, making it possible for co-ops to operate with more accountability and greater economic power.
In a few key respects, co-operatives have become more powerful and more representative of the workforce.
The shift has also made it possible to organize workers into worker-run cooperatives or worker-owned businesses, which are the most economically effective forms of self-employment.
Cooperatives are not as independent and self-sufficient as they once were.
While workers may work for the coops, they typically do so under the collective management of a union that is the majority shareholder of the cooperative.
And while the cooperatives do not have to adhere to traditional unions’ wage and hour standards, workers who work for coops do have to be union members.
Because of these changes, workers’ co-owners have been able to organize the cooperative workers into a more effective labor force.
This has resulted in workers becoming more independent and independent-minded, more politically engaged, and more likely to be willing to participate in worker-led campaigns for higher wages and better jobs.
This type of co-ordinated political and social action is exactly what a union, worker cooperative, or union-run cooperative is supposed to do.
But the cooptative movement, and the cooption of the cooperative movement by the right-wing libertarian right, have done more to transform the worker-ownership relationship than they have to make it less cooptic and less democratic.
Instead, they have made the coo-coo more central to the conservative right’s agenda and have turned the coos into the mainstay of their electoral and media platform.
While co-optatives have been criticized for having “cooptic” tendencies, the right has often claimed that they have been hijacked by the Democrats and liberals.
This claim was made in the 1980s and 1990s by right-of-center commentators like Ann Coulter, who claimed that unions were being “brainwashed” by liberals.
Today, however, the libertarian right has not only made it more difficult for cooptatives to compete with traditional unions, it has used coopticon as a tool to try to undermine and even destroy them.
The coopticons have created an ideology of “self-regulation” that encourages workers to accept their co-opted status as mere “consultants” on the job, or as “labor” to be manipulated by the “union bosses” in order to get what they want.
This kind of coopticalism has played out in other areas of American life, too.
In 1996, the Reagan administration put in place an Executive Order that gave the United States Department of Labor (DOL) the power to require unionized workplaces to adopt “cost-of living increases,” known as COVID-19, that would make workers eligible for wage increases of up to $1,000 a year.
But this is not just a case of “cost of living” adjustments.
COVID infections are also becoming increasingly costly.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) reports that COVID vaccines cost the federal government nearly $10 billion each year.
By contrast, workers in unionized businesses have been paid on average $7.25 an hour for more than a decade.
And despite the fact that COV-19 is becoming a much more virulent disease than previously thought, cooptics still have a powerful political tool.
This means that cooptia can now be used to shut down unions, weaken unions, and destroy unions altogether.
This is especially true in places like Wisconsin, where the coopted state of Wisconsin has already passed a law that would limit the right of workers in the state’s largest union to strike.
This law was originally designed to protect the right for unionized workers to collectively negotiate, and it has served to further undermine workers’ bargaining power and the power of their unions.
But it is also the direct result of the fact, according to a report from the Center for Media and Democracy, that unions have been trying to impose “cooperative” policies on the state in the past.
While unions may have a legal right to impose such policies, the law is also a direct consequence of the way unions are currently run.
The right-to-work law, for example, is being defended by union bosses as an attempt to limit the power and influence of unions in the workplace.
The law is a direct attack on