[HN Gopher] 'The French people want to save us': help pours in f...
___________________________________________________________________
'The French people want to save us': help pours in for glassmaker
Duralex
Author : n1b0m
Score : 152 points
Date : 2025-11-22 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| lostlogin wrote:
| New products and new markets clearly help finances. Burning that
| much gas has got to be their major expense. Are there other way
| to heat the furnaces?
| hhh wrote:
| Sometimes, but not often. These furnaces burn for like 20 years
| at a time, so gas is pretty common.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Glass furnaces operate somewhere around 1500 C. Electrical
| heating would work, but that's also quite expensive, usually
| even more so.
|
| What they'd want to do is try to recover and reuse heat. In
| principle, there's no reason "new" heat has to be added each
| time they heat a batch of glass, if heat can be transferred
| from cooling glass back to the input materials.
| rlonstein wrote:
| > What they'd want to do is try to recover and reuse heat. In
| principle, there's no reason "new" heat has to be added each
| time they heat a batch of glass, if heat can be transferred
| from cooling glass back to the input materials.
|
| Have you worked in any industrial or craft setting involving
| molten glass or metal? Walked around a workshop? There's no
| way the heat is going back into the process.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I know there are industrial processes where heat is
| efficiently recycled, but I agree there are serious
| practical problems, particularly if the molten glass must
| be cooled quickly. Still, even somewhat lower grade heat
| can be upgraded back to high grade heat with high
| temperature heat pumps.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| When they recently decided solar furnaces were not cost
| effective for electricity production (compared to solar
| panels), I did wonder if they couldn't be adapted to the
| production of energy intensive products like glass, bricks, or
| concrete.
| chihuahua wrote:
| While there is no shortage of irrelevant details, the article is
| very light on relevant details. What prevents the factory from
| staying in business? Not enough orders? The French people
| supposedly love this glassware and orders pour in whenever the
| company is mentioned. They have the factory up and running, they
| have employees. The workers own the means of production, what
| could be better than that?
|
| Why do they need to expand into new product ranges, if the
| existing products are in such high demand? I'm not sure if the
| proposed pint glasses for British pubs are a sure winner. Why not
| stick with what already works?
|
| None of this is explained in the article.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| I guess they have the same problem that Superfest glass from
| the GDR had, the glasses just don't break often enough.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Exactly. All my glassware are Duralex including coffe cups,
| and I haven't broken a single glass in 25+ years. Yet, they
| regularly fall on the ceramic kitchen floor from a hip level.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| I use only borosilicate glass vessels for cooking, for
| storing food, for eating and for drinking (some from France,
| some from Czechia).
|
| I have replaced some of them in order to have more optimized
| sizes and shapes for the ways I use them (even if the
| replaced vessels were still perfectly good), and I have some
| extra vessels kept in reserve for the very unlikely case when
| I will break a vessel (which has not happened yet).
|
| I do not expect that I would need to buy any more such
| vessels during my lifetime, unless I will become bored of
| those that I have and I would want a change.
|
| So making money from selling high-quality glassware that can
| last forever is much more difficult than getting free money
| from a software subscription.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Products which don't respect all the environment, the workers
| and the consumers are cheaper; much cheaper.
|
| You can't win when other players are playing a different game.
|
| This is another report from another French glass manufacturer.
| They couldn't meet their social responsibilty. Workers close
| the plant, and then the Mayor was pushing an unrelated company
| inthe viccinity, Nestle, to take over the failing glass plant
|
| https://www.glass-international.com/news/o-i-halts-french-gl...
| lostlogin wrote:
| That's all true, but to be clear, the Mayor supported the
| workers and wanted Nestle to take over the failing plant.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| As a French, my guess is simply that the brand is not price
| competitive and up until now, they didn't have the right
| marketing to justify the higher prices.
|
| Duralex is a beloved brand, and the French wouldn't like to see
| it go, but not enough to have much of an influence in the
| shopping aisle. The nostalgia aspect is real (ask the French
| about the numbers at the bottom of the glass ;) ), but it may
| be a negative when looking for more "adult" glassware. Maybe
| you don't want your guests or yourself feel like your are in a
| school canteen. School canteens also don't have a reputation
| for being luxurious to say the least, which may be a problem if
| you want to charge a premium. It may be that's the idea behind
| the pint glasses by the way. Show that Duralex can make
| glassware for grownups too.
| pavlov wrote:
| Create a separate high-end brand, Duralux.
| INTPenis wrote:
| It is more expensive than for example IKEA glasses, but I
| swear by Duralex.
|
| Ever since an IKEA glass spontaneously exploded on my desk.
|
| I suddenly remembered we used Duralex at school in Sweden in
| the 90s, so I ordered brand new Duralex glasses and no
| explosions yet.
|
| I imagine if they were being used in schools, with 13-17 year
| olds, being washed every day for years until they were
| covered in scratches, they must be pretty tough.
| card_zero wrote:
| _Buy Duralex -- the glassware that won 't explode soon._
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Buy Duralex -- the glassware that _soon_ won 't explode.
| ornornor wrote:
| Duralex uses (used?) a special glass that made the glass
| bounce off the floor several times before breaking, and
| most times it didn't break.
|
| That's also why canteens loved it.
| mrweasel wrote:
| A Danish supermarket had a loyalty program where you'd
| collect point and could get Duralex drinking glasses for the
| points. We got probably 25 of them, I don't think I'd
| consider buying anything else going forward, the quality is
| absolutely worth the minimal extra cost. You can get six for
| around EUR25EUR that is basically free.
|
| I don't agree that they aren't price competitive, at least on
| normal drinking glasses.
| griffzhowl wrote:
| Yes, we had them in school in the UK too. Just had a
| flashback to the number at the bottom of the glass
| enaaem wrote:
| Here you can buy 250 ml glasses for 1.39 Euro a piece. Even
| cheaper for sets. I'm not sure how cheap we need glasses to
| be?
| gniv wrote:
| Yes, exactly. I think the problem is the opposite. They
| failed to market them correctly so that they can demand
| higher prices.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The issue is that it is difficult to find a marketing
| justification for high prices in everyday glassware...
| nothing more like a glass than another glass and people are
| obviously not prepared to pay a premium.
| tormeh wrote:
| > Why not stick with what already works?
|
| Well, apparently it doesn't work. Personally I think almost all
| their glassware is either ugly or generic.
| pjerem wrote:
| The article mentions it, but don't insist on it. Duralex is now
| quite a special company: they were a renowned and beloved brand
| that was heading toward bankruptcy, until last year when the
| company was bought by its own workers and turned into a
| cooperative.
|
| Since then, they have stayed afloat, probably thanks mainly to
| people wanting to support a worker-owned business by buying their
| glasses, but still, it works.
|
| It's a pretty positive story so far, and I hope they'll continue
| to thrive under this new structure.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| There's a reason why worker owned companies (which were quite
| prevalent and a key factor in the 20th century's socialist
| movements) did not survive in our capitalist world. If we want
| to see these kinds of companies thrive, we need to change the
| entire market philosophy. Otherwise they will always be out-
| competed by companies that favour revenue/profit over worker
| benefits. In fact they will not even take off in the first
| place, because that needs capital and investors who own capital
| will want shares in return, which goes against the core
| principle of worker-ownership.
| cess11 wrote:
| Such companies are more common than you think.
| griffzhowl wrote:
| They did survive. There are thousands in Spain and Italy
| especially.
|
| One of the most well-known is the Mondragon Corporation from
| the Basque country, one of Spain's largest comanies:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
| Cyph0n wrote:
| I am particularly interested in coops as a model for a tech
| startup. How would one go about structuring a new
| corporation to best ensure it remains a coop?
| saxenaabhi wrote:
| Plenty of worker owned software consultancies in germany,
| and specially in Hamburg for some reason.
|
| From the site of one that I that I used to work for(they
| are very friendly so you can hit them up if you want some
| advice on setting up one)
|
| > How exactly are you structured?
|
| > In our search for a structure that consistently
| implements the principles of responsible ownership, we
| came across the veto-share model. First, the principles
| are enshrined in the company's articles of association.
| Then, company shares are transferred to a controlling
| shareholder. This controlling shareholder is granted veto
| rights, which must be used to prevent any future
| deviation from the principles. We are delighted to have
| the Purpose Foundation on board as our controlling
| shareholder!
|
| > We want to offer every (new) team member the long-term
| prospect of assuming entrepreneurial responsibility as a
| co-owner. The criteria for this are already defined in
| the articles of association. To simplify joining and
| leaving, we have established dyve Trust eGbR, a
| partnership that holds 99% of the voting rights in dyve.
|
| https://dyve.agency/warum-wir-es-tun
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Thanks!
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Mondragon is a federation of worker cooperatives.
|
| You sound like you might be interested in distributism
| [0][1][2][3][4]. The author, John Medaille, also spoke at
| Google [5].
|
| [0]
| https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-
| of-...
|
| [1]
| https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-
| of-...
|
| [2]
| https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-
| of-...
|
| [3]
| https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-
| of-...
|
| [4]
| https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-
| of-...
|
| [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1PtStipIsc
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Thank you for the links!
| griffzhowl wrote:
| Look for successful models I guess
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tech-
| startup+cooperatives&ia=web
| nextos wrote:
| Igalia (https://www.igalia.com), also Spanish, is a
| fairly prominent tech company that is also a co-op.
|
| Galois, Inc. (https://www.galois.com) is employee-owned,
| and they do lots of great formal methods work.
|
| But not sure whether this model is appropriate for a
| startup. I guess splitting stock more evenly is a good
| starting point.
| KetoManx64 wrote:
| The main they don't survive is not due to capitalism.
| (Capitalism is just trade without use of force at the end of
| the day) but due to the lobbying power of corporations.
| Corporations constantly lobby the government for more
| regulation and rules, which they just budget for, but smaller
| companies don't have the funds to meet so they cannot stay in
| business. Look at the first couple of years of COVID for
| example, Walmart, Target and the big box stores lobbied the
| government to stay open because they were "essential" while
| all the small businesses got wiped out due to their lack of
| lobbying power.
|
| The solution is to stop giving corporations the ability to
| lobby governments, and stop using the government to
| control/fund markets. Not to blame it on capitalism.
| powerclue wrote:
| That's not what capitalism is... or it's a very elementary
| understanding of it. Trade without force existed prior to
| and contemporary to capitalism. (See markets and
| mercantilism for more history there.) Capitalism is
| specifically the sort of mercantilism under which
| maximizing one's capital (typically the money commodity)
| becomes the aim.
|
| Historically, money commodity was used to mediate exchange
| between two other commodities - I sell my wheat, get money,
| use money to buy pork. I'm buying commodities because I
| intend to use them or share them. Commodity -> money ->
| commodity. Capitalism inverts this -- the goal is to
| maximize money. I start with money, I convert it to a
| commodity that I can sell for a greater value, to get
| larger money. Money -> commodity -> money. You see Amazon
| operate this way: "if we can put one dollar in and get
| $1.01 out, do it".
|
| Highly recommend this book on the transition in England and
| France from agrarian and feudal mercantilism into
| capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Capitalism
| skylurk wrote:
| Not sure about the currency vs commodity argument, but I
| agree with this argument linked article:
|
| > Thus it argues that the origin of capitalism lies
| fundamentally in social property relations rather than in
| trade and commerce.
|
| Capitalism is fundamentally a framework for ownership and
| property.
| KetoManx64 wrote:
| Thank you for that correction, I did oversimplify it.
|
| > Capitalism inverts this -- the goal is to maximize
| money. I start with money, I convert it to a commodity
| that I can sell for a greater value, to get larger money.
| Money -> commodity -> money. You see Amazon operate this
| way: "if we can put one dollar in and get $1.01 out, do
| it".
|
| Yes, that is correct and there is nothing wrong with this
| as long as there is no coercion happening (eg. Government
| involvement, lobbying and over regulation).
|
| Every person on earth should have the right to put in $1
| into something and try to get $1.01 from it. You and I
| and every other individual get to then decide if we want
| to give that business owner that $1.01 or go to a
| competitor. In a truly free market, that business owner
| only earns that $1.01 profit by providing a good or
| service that voluntary customers value at more than the
| price they pay. The profit is the reward for creating
| value for others
|
| We currently live in a crony-capitalist world which has a
| lot of issues, but it's still much better than the 200m+
| that have died under Marxism and Communism in the last
| 100 years.
| Aunche wrote:
| > the small businesses got wiped out due to their lack of
| lobbying power
|
| Small businesses have a lot if lobbying power (NFIB, US
| Chamber of Commerce to a certain extent) especially during
| the pandemic. The PPP loan forgiveness program was
| ridiculously generous. Despite it being marketed as a way
| to save jobs, only a third of the money ended up going
| towards jobs that were at risk.
| KetoManx64 wrote:
| Those are good points, but it again shows how government
| getting involved does more harm than good. The government
| forced the lockdowns instead of letting people make their
| decisions about their health, then they tries to aid the
| businesses they caused to suffer, and most of the money
| didn't end up where it was supposed to. So many examples
| of this over and over when you look at government
| involvement. > The fantastic 7 tech companies, get
| billions of dollars from the government grants, tax
| breaks, business > We have 4 ISP's that monopolize the
| market, due to the government giving them billions of
| dollars to expand infrastructure, which they
| misappropriated and then uses for lobbying against small
| ISP's > The SNAP program subsidizes big companies like
| Walmart, target, etc due to them being able to eat the
| costs of all the massive regulatiom around it. > etc.
| etc. etc.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is a very strange take, like high school politics.
| Ultimately the only way to "change the entire market
| philosophy" for the result you suggest is called the USSR.
| That's how it ends and then it decays and collapses.
|
| As long as people have individual freedom, both in what they
| can buy and in what they can create companies which don't
| have products that people want and don't make a profit to
| survive and thrive will go under.
|
| It is strange amd concerning to read all this socialist
| ideology in 2025. I get it's not uncommon in young people as
| a "phase" but I think it's also because younger generations
| don't know what it means because they never saw it.
| powerclue wrote:
| You realize there's an entire spectrum of socialist
| ideology between liberalism and authoritarian planned
| economies, yeah? It's not a Boolean, and it's not a
| slippery slope. We could have broadly liberal markets owned
| and run by the workers, and without the authoritarianism.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is a slippery slope... The comment I replied to is
| an example of that: specifically on this aspect, it
| doesn't really matter whether a company is owned and run
| by the workers (we can have thay today and we do), but if
| it operates in a free market then it has to compete.
| Wishing that there wasn't competition is the slippery
| slope that ends badly, always.
|
| Obviously mandating workers-ownership is authoritarian in
| itself.
|
| Socialism can indeed only ends one way and that is the
| removal of individual freedoms.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > but if it operates in a free market then it has to
| compete
|
| There is no such thing as an actual "free market", nor
| should there be. Markets need rules to operate otherwise
| you get fraud and "unhealthy" competition like sabotage
| and assassinations.
|
| > Socialism can indeed only ends one way and that is the
| removal of individual freedoms.
|
| That's like saying that capitalism only ends one way and
| that is slavery.
|
| In reality, there is no inherently slippery slope in
| either direction. There is a spectrum of ways to aporoach
| market regulation and individual freedom with various
| tradeoffs.
|
| Blind partisan rhetoric like yours doesn't help uncover
| what those tradeoffs are so we can make good decisions.
| Instead it spreads ignorance and division.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Wishing that there wasn 't competition is the slippery
| slope_
|
| Nobody is doing that. The article specifically mentions
| pursuing opportunities in the export market.
|
| _Obviously mandating workers-ownership is authoritarian
| in itself._
|
| The workers bought out the previous owners, presumably
| due to frustration with the firm having had 4 near-
| collapses in the last 20 years under the capitalistic
| management approach.Your objections seem conditioned
| rather than considered; did you actually think any of
| this through, or are just just reacting to concepts that
| make you uncomfortable while overlooking the facts?
| nicoburns wrote:
| It's not about eliminating competition. It's about trying
| to create an economic environment where companies are
| incentivized to compete by actually producing value
| rather than:
|
| - Regulatory capture
|
| - Buying out their competitors
|
| - Being cheaper at the cost of horrible externalities
|
| And the many other failure modes of "free markets".
| anigbrowl wrote:
| The whole article documents a product that people _do_ want
| and like so much that they 're willing to donate 4x what
| the owner-operators of the company asked for.
|
| It's odd to see you expressing disdain for 'high school
| politics' and 'because younger generations don't know'
| while also displaying such ignorance or disregard of the
| subject matter, like watching factual waves roll in and
| dash themselves on the rocks of obdurate opinion.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The article is about a failing company on the verge of
| bankruptcy and which already went bankrupt 4 times this
| century, with turnover down 20% over the last 10 years...
|
| My reply was to a specific comment. I do express disdain
| for those who preach socialism in 2025 because, as an
| European who was alive during the 20th century and has
| some mileage I do know the subject matter... And everyone
| should, too because of the ample historical and economic
| record available for all to study. Hence, "youth" is the
| only generous 'excuse' as the debate was conclusively
| settled by the 1980s. Judging by the puerile reactions I
| will go with that... Please refrain from the typical ad
| hominem attacks and insults.
| oblio wrote:
| Are you honestly comparing their proposal to the USSR and
| the "proletarian dictatorship imposed at gun point" to
| democratically changing laws to force all companies to
| become worker owned cooperatives?
|
| At the end of the day, if we had a million worker owned
| cooperatives, they would still need to compete. Since
| workers from Coop1 need to sell better products than
| workers from Coop2, otherwise they will still lose their
| jobs.
|
| Also, the current setup is a race to the bottom: lowest
| quality that doesn't self destruct immediately (aka planned
| obsolescence), dumping ALL externalities onto the general
| public: ideally with the same timed fuse approach so that
| it's not noticed immediately (dumping toxic waste in
| rivers, polluting the earth and the air, oil spills, etc -
| the list is endless), all in the name of a slightly lower
| initial price to attract customers. It's not sustainable.
| simlevesque wrote:
| It's also because almost every french home has one of their
| glasses and they are good quality.
|
| So it's a mix of history, tradition, enjoying good products,
| the pride you get from your country producing good products.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| And not only homes. I moved to France several months ago, and
| I keep seeing the Duralex mark in cafes, at my workplace,
| basically everywhere.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Sounds like their biggest problem is that the product is so
| good the domestic market may be saturated. I was pleased to
| read in the article that they're working to increase
| exports. I'm a big believer in products that are engineered
| to last rather than be regularly replaced.
| smcin wrote:
| > _Sounds like their biggest problem is that the product
| is so good the domestic market may be saturated._
|
| Sad how rare that is these days. Which other companies
| does that apply to?
| thrance wrote:
| Yeah, they're known for being practically unbreakable.
| Couldn't tell you how many times I dropped my Duralex
| glasses with them not breaking.
| gedy wrote:
| I'd say it's more likely cheap imports that are the
| issue.
| erwan577 wrote:
| The brand suffered from energy price hikes, felt particularly
| sharply after 2022, and its marketing could clearly be improved.
| Only now, after more than two or three decades, are new designs
| finally appearing on the roadmap.
|
| These glasses were once ubiquitous in public middle-school
| cafeterias, so the emotional attachment runs deep across
| generations.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Duralex is good quality anyway, very strong against breaking but
| they do scratch pretty badly
| debtta wrote:
| The reason you see a lot of scratches on Duralex glasses in
| cafes and canteens is because they are so old, having lasted an
| order of magnitude longer than other glassware.
| variadix wrote:
| They make great glassware, very scratch and chip resistant.
| mrweasel wrote:
| That's probably their problem, cheap and long lasting isn't
| good for business.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Their products are extremely expensive.
| enaaem wrote:
| How much are they in your area?
| decimalenough wrote:
| Uhh, no? A pack of 6 Picardie glasses retails for EUR20, so
| they're a little over EUR3 each.
|
| https://www.amazon.fr/-/en/Duralex-Picardie-Set-Clear-
| Glasse...
| coryrc wrote:
| Apparently 3.14$US on amazon.com:
| https://www.amazon.com/Duralex-picardie-clear-tumbler-
| ounce/...
| gniv wrote:
| As others have said, no they are not, here in France.
|
| I'm not sure you can see this page, but it's a set of four
| 16cl Picardie glasses for 3.79 euro:
| https://www.carrefour.fr/p/gobelet-picardie-
| duralex-35501905...
| jeffbee wrote:
| The article doesn't even mention that this company already went
| bankrupt once this century, in 2008. Like some of the other
| posters, I furnished my cupboards with Duralex decades ago and
| never needed any more. In the same way, I filled my flatware
| drawers with Oneida decades before Oneida disappeared, and my
| plates are all from some long-forgotten Swedish stoneware maker,
| and I bought all my furniture from a dead Italian brand at a
| showroom that no longer exists in San Francisco. I have a
| personal pet theory on this, which is that the astronomical cost
| of housing has squeezed out all other aspects of home furnishing
| from people's budgets, in a race to the bottom where the last
| brand standing is Ikea.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| The housing theory of everything, indeed.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Also, smaller family sizes means people are inheriting such
| things rather than buying them. If anything, there's antique
| overload.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Selling products based on nostalgia does not work. Europe needs
| to do far more keep it's industry afloat and to make locally
| produced products competitive.
|
| Duralex is currently selling products at 10x the costs of what a
| similar product, made in China, costs on Amazon. This is not
| sustainable. These enormous differences in prices mean that only
| very people can afford their products. It is a brand which sells
| an everyday item at prices, which are legitimately hard to afford
| for most of the population.
|
| Obviously a company like this can not succeed long term. It is
| totally uncompetitive, except for some brand recognition and
| positive brand perception. These obviously help, but will do
| nothing for the long term success.
| jnurmine wrote:
| Which products are you talking about...? Duralex is not really
| expensive at all.
|
| For example, Duralex drinking glass Le Picardie (as in the
| article), transparent, 36 cl, 18.90 EUR for 6-pack.
|
| That is 3.15 EUR _per glass_.
|
| At that price the price/quality is extremely good. Chinese
| products won't even come close to this.
| Broussebar wrote:
| As the article said Duralex was the brand use by a large number
| of school cantinas in France. Inside of each glass there's a
| small number used by the brand to identify the mold used for the
| creation of the glass. For kids that was a way to decide who is
| going to fetch the water for the table (smaller number or higher
| number of the table). That's why the CE is holding his glass like
| that in the guardian article. Beside the nostalgia i think a lot
| of people support them because it's a SCOP (the majority of the
| capital of the company is owned by the employees) [1] and it's
| nice to see that another kind of company is possible.
|
| [1]
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_coop%C3%A9ra...
| Loic wrote:
| Durable is really _the_ French household name "par
| excellence".
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| I too would like to believe that "another kind of company is
| possible", but this isn't a ringing endorsement...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Eighteen months ago, Marciano oversaw a staff buyout of the
| company, which had been placed in receivership for the fourth
| time in 20 years. Today, 180 of the 243 employees are
| "associates" in the company._
|
| It has only been employee-owned for a short time. Some
| overhang from the management style of the previous 20 years
| is only to be expected.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| > _it's a SCOP (the majority of the capital of the company is
| owned by the employees)_
|
| On the other hand, I suspect that this also makes it more
| difficult for them to change and adapt.
| dimal wrote:
| Why? Most large corporations I've dealt with are highly
| bureaucratic and resistant to change. Good ideas get lost in
| silos or bogged down in bureaucracy. Whether it works or not
| seems entirely dependent on whether the company has a moat
| around their revenue stream, which allows them to be
| inefficient everywhere else.
|
| For an employee owned co-op, a more anarchistic organization
| structure that allows for more employee control of everyday
| decisions could actually allow the company to adapt and
| change _more_ easily. The ones making decisions have skin in
| the game, both as workers and owners.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| If the employees have the power then decisions that are
| good for company but bad for the employees won't be made.
|
| Let's say that the company can't compete so the CEO
| proposes to automate production and lay off 50%+ of the
| employees, do you think employees will vote in favour?
|
| In general coops are not good at tough decisions and
| innovation.
|
| Duralex already went bankrupt several times and they are
| heading for it again. What's in the article is nice but
| it's charity not business so unfortunately I am not
| optimistic.
| dimal wrote:
| Were they a coop when they went bankrupt? According to
| the article, they only became a coop recently, so having
| a CEO capable of firing everyone didn't work out for
| them.
|
| They took investors, who agreed to the rate of return on
| their investment. That doesn't sound like charity.
|
| Now, your example of a CEO that wants to fire everyone
| assumes that that's the right decision. How well has that
| kind of thinking worked for other firms like Boeing? That
| type of authority structure introduces its own set of
| distortions, which usually skew towards shareholders, and
| often not towards long term sustainability.
|
| As a worker, I would be against that decision for selfish
| reasons as well as for rational reasons. It sounds like a
| bad idea. If they want to sell commodity glassware, then
| that's a race to the bottom. But they're selling
| _quality_ , which requires humans with skill.
|
| > In general coops are not good at tough decisions and
| innovation.
|
| This needs to be backed up. Mondragon in Spain has
| thrived for decades. In America, mutual aid societies
| used to provide health care, unemployment insurance and
| other benefits before being squeezed out by other groups
| who were better at things like regulatory capture.
|
| There is a long history of cooperative ownership that
| goes beyond the stereotypical hippie grocery store. I
| think it's too quick to dismiss Duralex.
| aaplok wrote:
| > Were they a coop when they went bankrupt?
|
| They were not. In fact they went through series of mass-
| redundancy episodes that were supposed to save them from
| bankruptcy, soon followed by yet another bankruptcy.
|
| The COOP might fail. Indeed the call for contributions
| discussed in the article was motivated by that risk. But
| it won't fail _because_ it was a COOP, because every CEO
| who tried also failed to save it. The COOP structure is
| this company 's last chance, literally.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| :s/employees/shareholders, and it still sounds true.
| Zababa wrote:
| >For kids that was a way to decide who is going to fetch the
| water for the table (smaller number or higher number of the
| table).
|
| I only knew the version where your age is the number on the
| glass. For fetching water, it was the slowest person to say
| "pot d'eau" (water jug) and sometimes put a hand to your head
| (it depended on the group).
| Broussebar wrote:
| I might have generalized then. It's maybe something that we
| had only in the south (aka the broc a eau area). We also used
| it to check our age of course.
| WawaFin wrote:
| To complete, the number was also deciding what age we were for
| that day
| drob518 wrote:
| If they experience a flood of orders every time they are
| mentioned in the media and people flock to throw them money when
| they are in trouble, it seems like they should raise prices
| commensurate with their costs increasing and should probably
| invest in a little advertising. The brand seems strong and
| undamaged but they continue to struggle? That seems like a pretty
| easy fix.
| dano wrote:
| During a trip to Venice I had the good fortune of touring
| http://www.giuman.it/ and it was highly educational. Bringing the
| furnaces up to temperature takes time and turning them off each
| day isn't a good option. Gas comes primarily from Russia and
| price spikes have really hurt the business.
| mbivert wrote:
| A few years ago, a journalist went to Duralex, after they
| restructured (to be own by the employees), and show off the
| glasses's solidity, live. Every single one of them broke:
|
| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x957g7q
| ornornor wrote:
| Woops
| faragon wrote:
| Duralex were used and loved in Spain, too. Most houses still have
| some of them, although nowadays there's lot more competition. I
| would pay twice for their glassware, quality-wise is good stuff.
| cgearhart wrote:
| I have bought a lot of glassware over a couple decades. My usual
| trick is to look at restaurant supply shops, since they usually
| have a wide variety to select trade offs in style, price,
| quality, etc. Somehow I'd never come across Duralex until a few
| months ago when I was shopping to reorganize my own cupboards.
| The Duralex stuff I got has been the best glassware I've ever
| had, hands down. I'll probably order more to put in storage just
| in case their ongoing struggles disrupt availability in the
| future.
|
| I get it--they're expensive and so on--but they really are a
| superior product.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I've never bought a glass in my life. We just use old Vegemite
| jars here in Australia.
| gniv wrote:
| > I get it--they're expensive and so on--but they really are a
| superior product.
|
| Where are you? Here in France they are not expensive. I bought
| them at Carrefour when I moved here because I liked the
| Picardie shape and I thought they were just one of many
| companies that makes them. They were surprisingly cheap (a bit
| more than 1 euro per glass iirc).
| l5870uoo9y wrote:
| Bought one in Berlin and I would say they are 2-3 times the
| price of the cheapest competitor, but still worth it. I
| believe the US used to have their own more rectangular
| version of the glass.
| bojan wrote:
| I still use Duralex glassware I bought 15 years ago. The
| plastic lids are not in the best shape anymore, but they are
| still closing just fine.
|
| Maybe I'm not that great a customer for the company.
| tormeh wrote:
| I remember looking at their website and thinking the product
| design was horrible. The "Picardie" design is iconic, but not
| really in a good way. In my mind it says "functional" and "old".
| That's probably unfair, but it is what it is. Everything else
| they have is generic in the extreme. The IKEA catalog has far
| more interesting glassware.
| superultra wrote:
| To each their own. What you call old I call classic. I have
| bought a few of these pieces and they look great.
| dmix wrote:
| Definitely looks like something you'd see in a 1970s movie or
| your grandma's old cupboard.
| tormeh wrote:
| Yeah. They're grandma glasses at this point.
| exo-cortex wrote:
| Funny that you mention IKEA. I have 4 very old IKEA glasses
| that were made by Duralex. I just love the fact that they're
| about as old as I am (40 next year) and we're able to survive
| that long. I consider them to be the peak of IKEA glassware.
| Today IKEA glasses are known to be breaking easy - sometimes
| simply by getting hot in the dishwasher. The design might look
| fresher, but they won't last.
|
| The rest of my glasses (most) are Duralex as well. They're just
| very ... durable. I was kind of getting annoyed that the brand
| became so popular that I see them everywhere now (every other
| cafe serves water in them). I'm not French btw, my love for the
| glasses simply comes from seeing them outlast time and many
| pretty dramatic falls (a few times on hard ceramic tiles from a
| meter up and bouncing up almost as high again - leaving a few
| nearby mouths agape in the process). But reading that they're a
| worker owned cooperative makes me want to buy many more from
| them. That's what I want: Stuff that's build to last a long
| time by people who can live from their work. Who cares if they
| look dated? For something that's used daily being old is a
| testament to their quality. I use my IKEA-Duralex glasses
| almost daily. They look much cooler than any new shit with
| their battle-scars ight scratches :-D). IKEA is literally the
| opposite.
| enaaem wrote:
| They essentially become norm-core style. You will see them at
| your grandparents and hipster cafes.
| dmix wrote:
| > the soaring cost of gas and electricity were the firm's largest
| and most worrying expense
|
| Difficult to have factories when basic utilities are expensive.
| China has a big advantage there as well, not just in labour
| costs. They invested heavily in energy infrastructure over the
| past few decades.
| jascination wrote:
| I know Duralex because they're the de facto coffee cup for a
| latte in the world's best cafes. I dunno how or why it happened,
| but since about 2008 if you go to a cafe in Melbourne and your
| latte comes in anything BUT one of those Duralex glasses, you
| should run for the hills.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| I don't understand the comments here crowing about how this
| employee-owned company is a success story against capitalism or
| something. It was going to go out of business, employees bought
| it, they also couldn't make it profitable and had to resort to
| effectively a gofundme to not collapse. And somehow this is a win
| against profit driven companies? Do you not see how utterly non-
| viable this is at scale?
| mfuzzey wrote:
| Well the initial financial problems were under a traditional
| profit driven scheme. Almost certainy they wouldn't have got
| the donations they are getting today if they had remained in
| that model so the employee-owned scheme is at least somewhat
| better. It is also likely that, in addiiton to donations, they
| are getting extra sales by being employee-owened, at least in
| France.
|
| Ultimately though it's probably the whole market theey are in
| (relatively cheap household goods) that is difficult for a
| company based in a rich country, whatever their ownership
| model.
| skywal_l wrote:
| For those understanding french, a little funny video about
| Duralex history made by Karambolage a few years ago:
| https://youtu.be/H9T7JCCDeCE?t=5s
| arcade79 wrote:
| Grew up with Duralex Provence as the 'regular milk / water glass'
| here in Norway. Never broke one by accident. Excellent glasses.
| paradox460 wrote:
| Years ago I bought a bunch of duralex glasses, to replace my
| faded college IKEA plasticware. I still have every single one of
| them, and none are worse for wear. They've been dropped, survived
| several moves, and even toddlers, and are still going strong
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-22 23:01 UTC)