I find it interesting this talk about what to call the EOT, if it should be "EOT", "PT" and/or "ET". (I imagine we can all agree there's no branding value in an "IDGT") and then just below we're calling for "alignment with cooperative and employee ownership movements". In a way, I think this can be quite simple, and it's a pragmatic-if-less-precise move to call these "EOTs". And, what's not being pointed out is that the worker co-op movement has been pulling closer to the big tent of EO for years, even though if we were being very precise, then participants in a worker co-op aren't employees at all, they're worker-owners (due to the fact that the employer-employee relationship has been dissolved). Yet I don't see much push back from the WC world about its inclusion within big tent EO, even if 1 of only 2 words isn't precisely accurate (employee ownership). It's a pragmatic move, and I encourage all EOT advocates to accept the discomfort and roll with it. Besides, as Corey Rosen pointed out in the EOT transition book NCEO put out, there are ways using things like synthetic equity to literally tie in share ownership, even if they are phantom shares. That could be a consolation!
I find it interesting this talk about what to call the EOT, if it should be "EOT", "PT" and/or "ET". (I imagine we can all agree there's no branding value in an "IDGT") and then just below we're calling for "alignment with cooperative and employee ownership movements". In a way, I think this can be quite simple, and it's a pragmatic-if-less-precise move to call these "EOTs". And, what's not being pointed out is that the worker co-op movement has been pulling closer to the big tent of EO for years, even though if we were being very precise, then participants in a worker co-op aren't employees at all, they're worker-owners (due to the fact that the employer-employee relationship has been dissolved). Yet I don't see much push back from the WC world about its inclusion within big tent EO, even if 1 of only 2 words isn't precisely accurate (employee ownership). It's a pragmatic move, and I encourage all EOT advocates to accept the discomfort and roll with it. Besides, as Corey Rosen pointed out in the EOT transition book NCEO put out, there are ways using things like synthetic equity to literally tie in share ownership, even if they are phantom shares. That could be a consolation!