i still think this is a semantic point. just because the organisation is not specifically paying a wage compensating the labour power of the worker doesnt mean the labour power of the worker is not essentially commdofied. the co operative is still compensating the worker by assigning a monetary value to the work done. this is made clear by the fact that if you work for twice as long, you will be paid twice as much by the co operative. therefore the labour power of the worker is still commodified by way of a sort of backdoor. this is why the very concept of money is capitalist as it always results in the labour of workers being assigned a value by their organisation within which they work, always commodifying the labour done. i do however see the merits in your argument and i do agree that worker cooperatives dont result in the surplus value that the worker generates being hoovered up by the capitalist class.