The Mondragon Corporation of Spain’s Basque region, an integrated network of more than 90 employee-owned companies plus many worker cooperatives, is the best-known example of worker cooperatives in the world. On December 15, the worker-owners of two of its largest member cooperatives voted to separate from the network, as reported in several articles, such as this one in El Pais.

The worker-owners of cooperatives Orona (an elevator manufacturer) and the diversified ULMA Group held special general assembly meetings of their worker-owners in December, and 70% and 81% respectively voted to exit the Mondragon Corporation. Combined, the two departing cooperatives represent 15% of the network's sales and, with 11,000 employees, 13% of its workforce. By leaving the conglomerate, the two companies will, among other changes, no longer pay 13% or more of their profits into the conglomerate’s solidarity fund, designed to protect cooperatives as they face economic downturns.

Although the two companies are leaving the Mondragon Corporation, they will remain worker cooperatives. The chair of Ulma's board of directors, Lander Diaz de Gereñu, wrote that “We are part of the success model that the Basque cooperative model represents. And we will always defend and support its values.”

The process leading up to the parting of ways has been a cause for noticeable tension and speculation for several months. According to members of the Mondragon cooperatives, senior leaders of these two departing coops argued in favor of greater autonomy in their decision-making and use of financial resources, though Mondragon's central management bodies have asked aloud what these companies would have done differently or would do differently if they did not belong to the network. Others point to worker-owners' allegiances and commitments, which are focused to a much greater degree on their own companies than on the network as a whole. Some observers also speculate that economic incentives played at least some role, that members of Orona and the ULMA Group wanted to transfer fewer resources to the network. Those opposed to the separation argued for strength in numbers, and that all the firms in the network gained from belonging. A number of members wondered in social media whether rivalries and unresolved conflicts among senior managers on the different sides had also contributed to the breakup.

A more complete and definitive analysis will have to wait until more data can be collected and from a larger number of sources. After the vote, both sides wished the other well and reaffirmed their commitment to cooperative ownership and its principles, policies, and practices.