I'll give 100% when I work for a co-op that is equally owned by all the workers.

My dream is to start a co-op bicycle shop/worshop once I finish my mechanic traineeship. But the other trainees don't seem to share my vision, they only care about making lots of money…
- I'll come help out at your bike shop.
- What are they thinking, owners make the most money.
- I recently waxed the chain in my bike, can I join?
  
  Good enough, you're hired!

I always give 100 percent of what I get paid. Minimum wage equals minimum effort.
- I always give 100 percent of what I get paid. Minimum wage equals minimum effort.
  That seems acceptable, but I'm not sure what that does for your chances of promotion. Typically people move up by doing more than they are obligated to do.
  
  Promotion? You mean the guy who gets paid worse than hourly because they're expected to do unlimited overtime on their salary? Haha no thanks.
  
  Welcome to the Peter Principle:
  The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle?wprov=sfti1

To be honest, with my current job, I would have a 4 days work week, it would change absolutely nothing. I wouldn't even have to work more on the other days.
- Wish this was acceptable to work as, I sit in the same position. I think I am averagely productive at only 23% of the days...

that's a lot of work on Wednesday
- Yeah it's Thursdays for me when I realize that I haven't done shit this week and need to crank out a bunch of stuff haha
- It's that one day with no meetings.
- Its only 40s of work.

I mean, the counter-argument is that nothing is stopping you from creating such a co-op today. You not doing it is seen as a point in favor of capitalism/ruling class.
Show them wrong?
- Funding is stopping me. Lack of investment money to get started. Access to capital.
  I don't have the luxury to stop being an employee, even momentarily because I need the income
  
  Can you imagine to post your idea and look for participants on lemmy?
  
  How many banks have rejected your business proposal?
- Can't afford to take the chance. Most startups fail and people generally only see the succes cases. If you're not dependent on work you can afford to take chances like this.

We need to normalize not just starting worker owned and run co-ops, but taking over businesses and converting them to these co-ops.
Federate the co-ops, establish a shared workforce (one co-op goes under/not enough business at x? Come work at y) and have them become actual workers councils
The Marxist critiques of this are not lost on me, co-ops are not immune to exploitation and fool proof by virtue of existing under capitalism but I think we need them for two reasons:
Sitting around and waiting for a revolution from a small group of people with one idea of how to run things is a bad idea
We need to practice what actual day to day life will look like. I think the experiences and connections made will far outweigh all of the bookclubs, protests and other purely political avenues of organizing
It doesn't need to be all central planning and state owned, it doesn't all have to be zaney pure communal experimentation right from the start ..people could just literally experience going to work at a normal job but feel the agency of having a say in their workplace, not live in fear of an overbearing boss, decide their wages, always have a place in case their job implodes or they become redundant (bounce to co-op y).
- Sitting around and waiting for a revolution from a small group of people with one idea of how to run things is a bad idea
  This is just a strawman of vanguardism . The bolshevik revolution was only possible with the overwhelming support of the peasants and proletariat class. A revolution is literally not possible without huge numbers of soldiers turning on the government.
  
  I don't disagree with this, but even in your statement they had overwhelming support of proletariat. There will be no vanguard if we don't have an organized, unionized, proletariat. So I still think as it stands we're just waiting around for a small group of people to do the revolution and just accept their conception. Which would be a bad idea, which is why I think workers need to realize aspects of this world that is worth fighting for right now
- What is the name for a strategy to cut out shareholders?
  I imagine it's something like, we syrike and demand 60% of controlling shares or else company dies.
  Price tanks, workers buy their own discounted shares.
  5 years later do it again, seize 60% of the remainder.
  Continue until shareholders are fully marginalized and financing is done through regular finite terms loans. Preferably from loans direct from the central bank at the policy rate.

It is literally impossible to be 100% productive at work - even machines start to break down if they're constantly being run at full capacity.
- Design them to work up to 1500w and limit "100%" to 750w. Now you can always run at 100% just fine.
  
  Gotcha, so when the boss tells me to "give 110%" I can go ahead and translate that to 55%.
  And then not do that either.

I work at like... 40% over the whole week? Thats what they pay for, so thats what they get.

I get most of my work done on friday afternoons. It is also the only time of the week when I actually enjoy work. Finally I can relax, knowing the phone won't ring. (And I start feuds with anyone who calls me on my workphone on friday afternoons!).

That hump day is real shit though.

I work 4 10s with Wednesdays off. Deal.

101% is abit much...
- count again