I've always thought it seems better to orient general cooperatives ops around consumer-cooperatives because people want things, not work. Having said that, workers are consumers and, if everything was consumer-cooperatives, consumers would obviously be interested in the conditions of workers because they would be workers themselves. The easy way to solve this dichotomy, from a monetary perspective, would be to use an aggregate-cooperative-organization and distribute the profits from each individual consumer-cooperatives throughout the aggregate-cooperative as a whole. This makes sense because, if everything was consumer-cooperatives, giving profits back to consumers could inflate prices because prices are determined by how much consumers are willing to pay/bid for scarce resources. Additionally, trying to use profits for reinvestment would give higher prices positive side-effects and create contradictory incentives. By contrast, if profits were distributed throughout the aggregate-cooperative, then those patronage refunds could be paid to workers and adjusted for how well they actually performed, among other things.

This way, consumers could prioritize low costs while workers could earn more. As for actual organization and control, well, in business "learning by doing" is pretty common and I don't really think an optimal method of organization will be found until enough people join cooperatives and experiment with what works and what doesn't. Here, consumer-cooperatives would probably have the advantage because they could be started like kickstarter campaigns. IMO, right now, making cooperatives easier to start and asking people to create the stuff they want should be a little more important than how they will be organized.