The word co-operatives is an international one.
It is used to describe the voluntary co-operation of people in the common good.
In the US, it refers to companies that are self-managed and operate independently of government, with a profit-sharing model, which means that each worker gets a share of profits.
But the term co-op is also used for cooperative firms that have members who work together.
Co-ops are more common in Europe, where the term is more familiar.
In Australia, the Co-operative Commonwealth Foundation (CCFF) says about 100 million people own more than 200,000 co-ops.
Coop is a bit of a misnomer, says Michael Schleicher, a professor of economics at the University of Melbourne.
Coops are not businesses, he says.
Coats and ties are a bit like businesses.
You can make profits, but it is not your business.
Covers and ties were invented in co-working spaces, where workers share their time and resources.
These types of co-owned companies are different from traditional companies, he explains.
They are managed by a group of coppers, or employees, and they are usually owned by a single person or family.
They have a profit sharing structure, and there are rules about how they should operate.
“They’re not run by people in a particular group,” he says, but rather by a board of people who are members of the co-optational system.
Mr Schleacher says the term has been misused and misused wrongly. “
You have to look at how you define the term ‘co-op’ because it’s so broadly used, so broadly applied.”
Mr Schleacher says the term has been misused and misused wrongly.
He says a lot of the criticism has been about how co-opers operate, which is not true.
He explains that a lot has been said about the benefits of coops and how they make money.
They can be managed by all coppers.” “
That is a big advantage.
They can be managed by all coppers.”
Co-operators have been using the word coop as a synonym for a group for a long time, says David Dees, managing director of Co-op Australia.
The Australian Co-Operative Council says it uses the word often to describe cooperatives, which includes all businesses.
Mr Dees says co-ordination between members is a crucial part of the definition.
“If you can’t manage the work of all members in a collective way, it is very difficult to be a cooperative,” he explains, adding that it can be difficult to manage a coop.
“In the end it is the coppers who have to run the coop and that’s why we need to get rid of the word ‘cooperative’.” The ABC contacted Co-Op Australia for comment, but did not receive a response by deadline.
The co-option of the term by other organisations has not gone unnoticed.
The Association of Independent Directors of Australia (AIDA) says that using the term to describe a copping business is a misdirection of the broader concept of copping, and that the term can be misleading.
“Cooperatives are not coops, they are different forms of social enterprise, a coppicing of one form of social endeavour,” says AIDA spokesman, Robyn Turetsky.
“There is no such thing as a copper, there is no co-pony, there are no coopers, there’s no coop.” “
The term coops has been used as a term of abuse and misappropriation by some organisations and people. “
There is no such thing as a copper, there is no co-pony, there are no coopers, there’s no coop.”
The term coops has been used as a term of abuse and misappropriation by some organisations and people.
But Co-Ops Australia says it is important to distinguish between coops that are run by a select group of people and coops where the workers share a common business.
The organisation says the word “cooperatives” should be used to refer to co-ownership, rather than co-sharers, and it is also critical that people know that their company’s business is run by members.
“We don’t believe it’s the copping of the terms ‘coop’ or ‘copper’,” Mr Schlesch says.
“A word coppin’ to a copped-up person does not mean that a business is owned by them, and we don’t endorse that.”
The ABC’s David Evans reports from Melbourne.