The Workers' Paradise

February 8, 2010

#22 Education, Training and Information

Filed under: Education, Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 1:27 pm

“It is said that co-operation is an economic movement that utilizes educational activities, but it can also be said that co-operation is an educational movement that utilizes economic activities.“–Don José María Arizmendiarreta

A fun exercise, well maybe interesting more than “fun”, at co-operative gathering centers around the principles. Ask the co-operators present, “Which is the most important principle.” If there are more than seven people in the room, you will likely get about eight different answers.

People often focus on the user principles and democracy as being the principles that separate co-operatives from other businesses. Of course, in my opinion, the best answer is that they are all equally important and feed into each other. Case in point: how strong can democracy be if the electorate isn’t educated or informed?

Education, training and information play a vital role in co-operatives. It requires transparency. It requires honesty and openness. These three qualities feed the democratic nature of the co-operative as well as informs the abilities of the members to maintain economic control. They help the co-operative movement grow. The Statement on Identity describes this principle as follows: “Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public – particularly young people and opinion leaders – about the nature and benefits of co-operation.”

In the background paper, Ian MacPherson focused on the role of educating the youth:

The Fifth Principle refers to the long-standing and vitally important commitment to education. In many ways it is similar to the 1966 version except that it specifically mentions the need for co-operatives to inform young people and opinion leaders about ‘the nature and benefits of co-operation’. The reason for making this addition was a perception that the Movement was limiting its future by ignoring youth and failing to explain well enough the values and purposes of the Movement to such people as politicians, public servants, educators, and commentators; the result has been a decline in the public understanding of the organised movement.”

I have to tell you that attending conferences, one can really see what Dr. MacPherson was talking about. In 2008, I was a panelist for the Co-operative Issues Forum and then a week later I went to New Orleans for the US Federation’s Democracy at Work Conference. The first event was a cross-sector (which in Wisconsin means Ag Co-ops and everybody else), the second was mainly for the worker co-operatives. With the exception of a handful of people (mostly from my co-op), I was one of the youngest people in the room for the Wisconsin conference.  Looking out over the audience, it was a sea of gray and graying heads! In NOLA, I was one of the oldest.

Fortunately for me, my age in the worker co-op movement is matched by 21 years of experience. That isn’t always the case. Often older workers coming into a worker co-op are recovering wage slaves and have to unlearn all of the bad habits from the other economy. We need to have strong methods to re-orientate new (older) workers as well as to orientate workers new to the workforce. Hiring from the outside in a worker co-op means hiring someone without the culture of co-operation in the workplace. It means bringing in bad habits and misdirected fears from other work places. These issues have to be dealt with, but can be even more dramatic if the person is being hired into a position of power and authority. This is just one unique way in which ETI plays out in worker co-operatives.

As the good people of Mondragon point out: “Co-operation emerges therefore as a defense of its own identity, determined that the social model which arises from its principles shall not be erased by the insensitive penetration of other forms of social behaviour in which profit is the central motive.” All worker in a worker co-operative need to learn their industry, the history of the co-operative movement, and the means to answer their questions.

Another issue for worker co-ops comes from our need to hire internally and manage our own company. A consumer or ag co-op can hire from outside the co-operative world and still get an effective manager for their industry (see The Wedge in Minneapolis). This is much harder to do in a worker co-operative and might even be impossible. If we are going to manage ourselves, we need to educate ourselves on how to do it properly. At this point, there is only one viable means of receiving a formal education in co-operative management through St. Mary’s University. Too often, hiring a consultant means training the consultant in the nature of worker co-operatives. Worker co-ops need to develop education and training programs that unique for the industry and co-operative structure. Fortunately, the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives, through the Democracy at Work Institute will be creating a peer advisory system. This low-cost system will allow worker co-operative to gain from the experience of other worker co-operators. It is an exciting project and will begin this year. Check out the US Federation’s web site for more information.

I haven’t spoken a lot about information, but transparency should be the watchword in a worker co-operative. The members must have full access to the co-operative to make good decisions. Without it, rumor mills run wild and suspicions mount. In other sectors, there might be a “need to know” level of secrecy. I still disagree with that concept. I think that any member of any co-operative should have access to any information about the co-operative that they feel is important for their ability to understand how the co-op operates. Just Coffee in Madison takes this concept to the highest level that I have seen. I have written about this before, but Just Coffee has eschewed “fair trade” for “transparent trade”. They post their contracts with the farmers on their web site and dare their competitors to meet their price. Maybe all worker co-ops should do that.

While the principles of co-operatives work together, the role of Education, Information and Training provides a means for members to understand and to grow. Members may come into the co-op with little more than a “you’re not the boss of me” attitude. Through education and access to information, they can move along the maturity curve to understand the unique society that they have joined and how that society interacts with similar societies in their city, state, region, nation and even across the world. A strong commitment to this principle keeps the co-operative spirit strong and vital. A well trained, informed and educated workforce may be the best marketing decision for any co-operative. For worker co-operatives, these qualities build solidarity and a commitment to the success of the co-operative and its members.

There may not be a “most important” principle, but Education, Training and Information certainly provides an undercurrent vital to expressing the others.

Next: Co-operation Among Co-operatives

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

February 1, 2010

#21-Autonomy and Independence

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 10:36 am

This is a good week for a discussion about the 4th Principle of Co-operatives. On my other blog, Breathing Lessons, I discuss the role of co-operatives in the race for Governor in Wisconsin. We, in the co-op movement, get pigeon-holed pretty quickly. Even amongst ourselves, worker co-operators get slammed as “commie hippies”. Even Michael Moore expressed shock on numerous occasions that the workers of Isthmus Engineering looked “like Republicans”.  I imagine that  lot of us in the worker co-operative world see farmer co-operators as red-necked, right-wing social conservatives. Of course, there isn’t any sort of litmus test for any sector. I’ve seen anti-choice and even “W” bumper stickers at the food co-op and even in the parking lot of Union Cab and the long haired George Siemon, “C-E-I-E-I-O”* of Organic Valley certainly changes the image of Ag Coops.

Of course co-operatives aren’t so monolithic, however, they do comprise themselves of self-selected members who have common social, economic, and cultural needs and connections.  They are also organizations that should have a degree of independence and autonomy from other groups. The 4th Principle of the Co-operative Identity says this:

“Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.”

Depending on the memberships interpretation of this principle, it might mean that the co-operative focuses internally and severely limits its effect outside of the membership. For worker co-operatives, which already have a tendency to focus too much on internal issues to the negation of customer service and market forces, this can be a dangerous sentiment. Our boards, however much they may want to feel the power, can’t really tell other organizations what to do. They generally cannot dictate terms to the banks or (for those in government regulated industries) to the government. In terms of the Federations, well, if one co-op dominated the Federation, then the other member co-operatives would be violating the principle just by joining, right?

Ian MacPherson wrote on this principle: “In a way, it is a restatement of the Rochdale commitment to political neutrality with an added emphasis on autonomy, whenever co-operatives associate themselves with other organisations. It is a reminder of how necessary it is for co-operatives to guard at all costs their capacity for independent action. It is only when co-operatives are genuinely autonomous that they can follow the wishes and meet the needs of their members energetically.’

The desire for autonomy and independence runs deep within us as humans. It drove the expansion of Europeans into the Western Hemisphere and beyond. It is, perhaps, the driving force of conflict between peoples as one group seeks the resources of another. Sometimes, once autonomy and independence are obtained, the oppressed too often become the oppressors. The following clip is  a nice discussion about the role of autonomy and indenpendence in a community (and I recognize for my UK friends that this only tells one side of the story):

Being Master of our Destiny is the heart of the co-operative movement. From the first Pioneers of Rochdale, the drive to throw off our economic and political masters became the motivating force to establish an economic system respectful of individual autonomy as well as the democratic decision making process required for group action. Co-operatives, by nature of their identity, exist as peer organizations. Regardless of our standing outside the co-operative, within it we are equals. Barack Obama is the President of the United States and a member of Seminary Book Co-operative in Chicago. His membership in the co-op makes him an equal member of the co-operative entitled to the same dignity as any other member regardless of his other job.

The point is, that we want to control our destiny but to succeed we also have to find a way for our organizations to work together. Autonomy and independence are important parts of the co-operative movement, but so is the root word, “co-operate” or “work together”. Our co-operatives gain strength from respecting our individuality while also requiring members to participate. The movement gains strength from respecting the autonomy of the organizations, while developing ways for them to work together and create synergy.

As Dr. MacPherson notes, our actions as co-operatives need to express the will of our members and protect the co-operative from co-optation by other sources. For worker co-operatives, this can be significant as they could easily end up as the employees of an organization rather than the owners, or so associated with political or social movement that they begin to falter as a business. It is important for us to consider these issues as we interact with other co-operatives and non-co-operatives. It is a lot easier to keep one’s co-operative autonomous and independent than to get that independence back.

*If you don’t get it, simply refer to the song.

Next Week: #5 Education, Training and Information

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

January 25, 2010

#20 Payment Solidarity

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , , , , , — John McNamara @ 1:50 pm

The Mondragon Co-operatives maintain the concept of wage solidarity. From the beginning, the ratio of the highest paid position (manager) and the lowest paid (new worker) was locked at 3:1. In the 80’s this changed and today there are some positions that earn a 6:1 ratio and one (the CEO of the International MCC) who receives 9:1. Even with the tripling of the upper end of the ratio, it is still a far cry from the 150 or even 300:1 ratios that modern stock corporations tend to employ.

What interests me about this principle (and I think that it should be in the Identity Statement as well), is that Mondragon expresses the co-operative value of solidarity. It puts solidarity into the operations of the co-operative.

The language of Mondragon follows:

“The Mondragon Co-operative Experience proclaims sufficient and solidarity remuneration to be a basic principle in its management, expressed in the following terms:

a) Sufficient, in accordance with the possibilities of the Co-operative

b) Solidarity, in the following specific spheres:

  1. a. Internal. Materialised, amongst other aspect, in the existence of a differential, based on solidarity, in payment for work.
  2. b. External. Materialised in the criteria that average internal payment levels are equivalent to those of salaried workers in the area, unless the wage policy in this area is obviously insufficient.”

Note that the principle calls upon the worker co-operative to either ensure that its workers receive the prevailing wage or, if that wage is too low, become the wage leader in their industry and area. The prevailing wage must be at least a living wage*  for the community.

The principle of pay solidarity helps flatten the hierarchy in worker co-operatives. The pay differentials are kept small as a means of valuing all work performed to help the co-operative succeed as well as valuing all workers in the co-operative from the very new to the very senior. This principle helps to deflate the ego within the co-operative. Is someone with 30 years in the co-operative worth more as a worker? In some senses, the  experience and knowledge of the industry that comes with 30 years of work can be vital to the success of the organization, but is it worth them being paid 30 times the pay of a new hire?

Does someone who manages the marketing of the co-operative do more to create wealth (by getting customers) than front-line workers? Should that ability earn more than others?

These are very real questions for worker co-operatives and they are questions which can cause a lot of divisiveness. The way that the worker co-operative addresses these issues can dramatically effect the co-operative to enable it to succeed or cause it to fail.

Does a flat compensation system (everyone gets the same pay regardless of their job duties) encourage good management or cause the people who have management skills to seek employment elsewhere? Does a staggered system of seniority and pay levels create an aristocracy within the co-operative?

It is important for worker co-operatives to find the right balance based on their industry and their internal culture. It probably needs to be revisited from time-to-time. One aspect, in thinking about payment solidarity, should be leadership development. If the compensation levels are set too low, then the co-op will likely become a training center for its competitors or other businesses. If it is set too high, the co-operative may create a rift between the high bracket managers and the low bracket workers. Creating an “us vs. them” mentality can only lead to failure of the co-operative.

To truly maintain solidarity in payment, co-operatives must employ measures to develop leadership among their own ranks. When we need to hire managers from outside, who know the industry, we risk a lot. The culture of a worker co-operative can be destroyed by outside management who bring the attitudes of the traditional corporations with them. I’ve seen this up-close and personal and also from a far. Good Vibrations recently demutualized (becoming a standard ESOP) after hiring outside management (and changing the pay ratio to do so). Now, I am sure that the decisions to demutualize were very complicated (and it was a unanimous vote of the membership); however, it was clear that the culture of the organization changed after they increased their pay ratio in order to hire a manager from the mail order industry.

Of course, once we develop management, we also will need to compete with the outside world to keep them. Thus, our development programs must be based on two concepts: the management needs of the industry and the management needs of the co-operative. Whether our management has a traditional hierarchy or done through committee and semi-autonomous collectives, these two concepts need to be part of the discussion. With this in mind, it can be easier to develop a payment solidarity plan that recognizes a member’s experience, knowledge and commitment while also ensuring that the  “floor” for workers (whether by position or seniority) remains suited to a living wage for the community. This is the opposite of the corporations who figure out the senior management pay and stockholder dividends first and then use what is left over for the workers.

From Don José María Arizmendiaretta, “Solidarity is not just a theoretical proclamation, but something that should be put into practice and made manifest, willingly accepting the limitations of team work and of association, since this is the way to enable people to help each other.” (as reported by José María Ormaechea in his book The Mondragon Cooperative Experience)

This marks the end of the Mondragon diversion. I have called these four principles the “worker co-operative user principles”. These four principles should, in my opinion, be part of the Co-operative Identity. Co-operatives, regardless of the sector, require people to do work to benefit the users. Because of this, co-operatives should see the worker as a primary stakeholder and create means for the worker to truly benefit from their experience in the co-operative. I will even go so far as to argue that all co-operatives should either have a membership class for the workers or actively promote the unionization of their workers. Co-operatives must avoid exploitation. If we believe in Fair Trade for farmers producing coffee, chocolate, sugar and the like, then we must also believe in fair trade for the laborers who get those products on the shelf.

*what is a “living wage”? Madison, WI sets their definition as 120% of the poverty threshold for a family of four (currently $11.21/hour). Dane County arbitrarily declared it to be $8.70/hour. I think that worker co-operatives should work on this definition. I think that it should be a wage that allows a family to experience security with regards to nutrition, housing, health, education, clothing and socialization. This number will vary based on the community. I don’t think that it needs to mean a single-income home, but it should mean that someone can take care of themselves and their dependents at a basic level. Probably a topic for another post. . . .

Next: the 4th Principle—Autonomy and Independence

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

January 18, 2010

#19 Participatory Management

The next principle from Mondragon is that of Participatory Management. This seems like a no-brainer for worker co-operatives. What is the point of going through all the work of setting up a worker co-op if the workers don’t actually have a say in how the place is run? They would be better off in a unionized Employee Stock Ownership Program.

I’ll get more into this in a second. First, I want to share the language of the principle from Mondragon (translated, as they all are, of course):

“The Mondragon Cooperative Experience believes that the democratic character of the Cooperative is not limited to membership aspects, but that it also implies the progressive development of self-management and consequently of the participation of members in the sphere of business management which, in turn, requires:

a)     The development of suitable mechanisms and channels for participation.

b)    Freedom of information concerning the development of the basic management variables of the Cooperative.

c)     The practice of methods of consultation and negotiation with worker-members and their social representatives in economic, organisational and labour decisions which concern or affect them.

d)    The systematic application of social and professional training plans for members.

e)     The establishment of internal promotion as the basic means of covering posts with greater professional responsibility.”

(source: The Mondragon Cooperative Experience, by José María Ormaechea, 2000)

Second, I want to parse the word management. We manage our co-operative whether or not we have a person holding a title with the word “manager”. Some co-ops manage collectively, some manage through a hierarchy, but we all manage the same things: assets, liabilities, equity, work performance, customer satisfaction etc. In this, as in most posts, I use the term management and manager in the broad sense.

Participatory management does not mean democracy and democracy does not mean participatory management. I say this because they are often linked together in a synonymous manner. A worker co-operative can have a strict top-down hierarchy that allows little or no member input and still elect its board of directors. Likewise, the concept of participatory workplaces can exist in capitalist organizations.

This principle exposes some dangers to worker co-operatives in that it is this area that the co-operative movement may be co-opted. World Blu has created a list of the “most democratic workplaces” for a couple of years now. While I have nothing against their mission, they misuse the word democracy when they mean participatory management. Only a handful of the companies on their list are co-ops or esops. In other words, they are honoring workplaces as “democratic” when the workers have no control over the governance of the organization. While I think that participatory management is a noble thing for a stock corporation to entertain, it isn’t democracy, it isn’t a right. It can be taken away as soon as the stockholders decide the experiment isn’t making them enough money. While I support World Blu’s efforts to humanize capitalism, I don’t think it will ever succeed on a grand scale but am glad that the workers in those business have a decent place to work.

A worker co-operative should abide by the values and principles of democracy. Participatory management should be another user principle for co-operatives even if it isn’t in the Identity Statement. It is the means by which the workers of the co-operative “use” their co-operative. Just as consumers use the products and services of a consumer co-operatives, workers use their ability to participate in decisions affecting their work life (roughly ¼-1/3 of our lives) as their right of membership.

Mondragon has created an excellent definition of participatory management. It isn’t simply deciding what type chairs to get for the office, it involves a complete involvement of the workforce in the operations and planning of the organization.

Note though, that the principle discusses the creation of “suitable” methods. Decisions have to be made and they have to be made in a way that enhances the organization in terms of serving their customers and succeeding in the market place. A restaurant can’t hold a membership meeting to discuss which person serves which table every time a customer walks in for dinner. A cab company can’t hold a debate about call assignment for each and every order. However, the co-operative can create methods of having these discussions about systems that ensure fairness and those methods should involve a wide range of voices from the membership.

Information has to be available to everyone or how can it truly run as a democracy. This isn’t on a “need-to-know” basis, but on the basis of ownership.

Another key point is that the co-operative needs to create bodies that will assist the worker-members in finding their voice. This might be a peer support program, a traditional stewards’ council, or even a labor union (although that is decidedly not what Mondragon is talking about). The bigger point being that management in a worker co-operative (whether run with a hierarchy or not) needs to establish means for worker’s to have a real voice in the discussion. Depending on the size of the organization (and the work week schedule) this will have different levels of formality. Rainbow Grocery is famous for its collectivist approach while Union CabMondragon models the labor movement through a stewards’ council and committee structure. uses a “social committee” in which elected representatives help provide input to the board and management as well as acting as a watch dog.

The last two points of the principle create an imperative of making participation systemic. As with the Sovereignty of Labour, this principle promotes the belief of internal promotion. The top end positions of a worker co-operative should generally not be hired from the outside of the worker co-operative movement. It is better for worker co-operative to create strong in-house training (and utilize professional development programs such as the Masters of Management: Co-operatives and Credit Unions) to develop the future leaders of the co-operative. One of the problems, in the United States, is that our co-operatives tend to be small and this limits opportunity for workers to advance and develop. It also limits the level of education and training that can be provided. However, we need to think beyond our stand-alone co-operatives. Just as Mondragon is a system of 180 or so co-operatives, we should start thinking of US Worker Cooperatives existing as an economic base.

Ormaechea chose this particular quote from Don José: “Co-operation brings people together in a collective task, but it gives each one responsibility. It is the development of the individual, not against the rest, but with the rest.”

By creating a base of strong management of our co-operatives we build the capacity for the movement to grow. We create the means for our co-operatives to cross-pollinate, to occasionally go outside of our stand-alone co-ops and we also create the means for the rank-and-file members to expand themselves, to develop themselves as people.

Next Week: Payment Solidarity

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

January 11, 2010

#18 The Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital

Filed under: Human Relations, Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 10:20 am

“We do not aspire to economic development as an end, but as a means.”

–Don José María Arizmendiarrieta, spiritual founder of Mondragon

This Mondragon principle, in practice, operates more closely to the Identity Statement principle of Member Economic Participation. I included it in this side road of the over all series because I believe that Mondragon presents a nuance all too often lost in the co-operative movement and, in the silo-ed environment of the US worker co-operative movement, we often tend to forget the role of capital in our organizations is significantly different from that of our industry and capitalist competitors.

The role of capital in a worker co-operative should be two-fold:

1) ensure the on-going operations of the co-operative

2) allow the co-operative to maintain the highest level of safety and quality of work-life.

Thus, this principle presents the balancing act of worker co-operatives. As the opening quote suggests, if we are just in it for the money, what are we really trying to accomplish? However, DJMA has also said, “Cooperativism without the structural capacity to attract and assimilate capital at the level of the requirements of industrial productivity is but a temporary solution, an invalid formula.”

The definition of this principle is as follows:

” The Mondragon Cooperative Experience considers capital to an instrument, subordinate to Labour, necessary for business development and worthy, therefore, of:

a) Remuneration, which is:

  • Just, in relation to the efforts implied in accumulating capital,
  • Adequate, to enable necessary resources to be provided,
  • Limited in its amount, by means of corresponding controls,
  • Not directly linked to the profits made.

b) Availability subordinate to the continuity and development of the cooperative, without preventing the correct application of the principle of open admission.”

As a tool, the role of capital should not exclude members from participation in their co-operative. This is a key point for worker co-operatives. The level of capital investment by the member should be appropriate to the needs of the industry and the ability of the worker to contribute. Otherwise, the role of capital dwarfs the rights of the workers, the human beings.

Another important diversion for worker co-operatives is the separation of capital from profits. Too often I hear directors (who have come to us from the “for profit” world) talk about the need for “return on investment” or “return on equity” as the means for deciding the correct course of the co-operative. However, that places capital in a position of greater importance than it needs to be or should be. While a surplus (profit) is needed to re-capitalize the organization and to expand, that should be the limit of its effect. We should not seek to maximize ROI because that mindset leads to the disaster capitalism that has plagued our macro-economy for thirty years.

Capital, in a cooperative, exists to serve the needs of the members collectively. In a worker co-operative, Capital should mean ensuring good paying jobs, safe working conditions and the opportunity for human development. Co-operatives exists as a means for socio-economic transformation of the community, not for the further enrichment of the few who control capital. This may be one of the key differences of cooperation from its market based cousin capitalism. Capital, in a cooperative, should be used to elevate the human being, to eliminate (or minimize) exploitation, and create a sustainable community.

This may seem like an obvious concept, but it is not. Too often co-operative managers hear the siren song of the capitalists. When we start hearing managers talking about industry “best practices” we should immediately ask who those practices are best for. Are those practices “best” for the workers or the stockholders? Are they best for the consumers or the stockholders? Are they “best” for managers or the members? Are they “best” for the community or the stockholders? We need to see that our co-operatives must develop their own best practices for the industry. By creating best practices that do not get tied to maximizing ROI or ROE, we can create strong, vibrant workplaces that will, in turn, create sustainable, vibrant communities.

These are, I believe, the questions that Don Jose wants us to ask. We cannot simply pretend that we are at the grown-ups table when we manage our businesses. We cannot model the “industry” without focusing on the unique role of capital in our co-operatives. As the opening quote states, the role of capital is simply a means to a better future. It should never be considered an end unto itself.

Next Week: Participatory Management

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

January 6, 2010

Going International and Other Updates

Filed under: Site News — John McNamara @ 9:42 am

The Workers’ Paradise has a new contributing author on board. John A. Atherton from the United Kingdom has offered to cross post his blogs from UK Worker Co-operatives on this site to help reach co-operators in the US. We often think of the UK as being the Consumer sector, but they also have a growing worker co-operative movement.

This brings our author group to six (Bernard and Edgar from SF), Matt, Myself and Fred from Madison, and now John from the UK.

Do you have the inspiration, desire, to put your ideas out there? Join the conversation here. Whether it is a simple comment on an existing post or developing your own series, I hope that you will consider sharing with the rest of us. Fred recently started a neat discussion on the idea of neo-syndicalism that may have been lost over the holidays, but it is worthy of a fresh look. If you want to sign up, you can join as a subscriber by yourself. Then send me an email (johnamac<at>me.com) and let me know a bit about you and that you want to write. I maintain a light edit hand (mainly just to format and make sure that tags are in place).

I expect to do some more updating this year. As I noted in the comments on my most recent post, I think that a bibliography of relevant titles might be worthwhile. The US Federation has maintained a reading list at GoodReads, but repetition never hurts.

In any event, welcome John! We look forward to reading about the UK experience!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

January 4, 2010

#17 Sovereignty of Labor (Mondragon Priniciples)

The Mondragon principle “Sovereignty of Labor” created departure from the cooperative movement. While the Rochdale Pioneers had good intentions, they abandoned worker cooperation in the 1870’s. The Fabian Socialist moved even further from the ideals of Robert Owen declaring consumerism as the lowest common denominator for human relationships eschewing workers as merely another stakeholder group. Even the French cooperativist Charles Gide turned away from worker associations. Sadly, this act left the labor movement adrift from the cooperative world even as organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World and the Congress of Industrial Organizations developed worldviews akin to the ideal of cooperation.

In the US, as in most of the Capitalist dominated world, the idea of labor being sovereign is almost non-existent. Business schools spend a lot of money teaching future managers how to manage workers—increase their productivity and the companies profits Except in the more enlightened firms, managers treat workers as errant children. Likewise, the dominant culture makes work something to be avoided and champions obstruction as “fighting the man”. People who do work hard tend to be treated as suck-ups and “upwardly mobile”. We mock the Ragged Dick stories in which “by luck and by pluck and good boy may succeed”. We have been conditioned to hate work and to distrust anyone who suggests that we work hard. The wobblies ran a cartoon called Blockhead who ridiculed the “company man”.

A part of me says, “damn straight!” why should workers gleefully assist the people exploiting them? The life of a worker under capitalism is not any better than it was under feudalism. In some ways, it is worse. The bond between serf and lord was based on land, food and safety. Capitalism replaced those bonds of survival by monetizing them and making currency the commonality of humanity. The chattel slave became the wage slave in the first round of outsourcing that allowed the owner to reduce or eliminate the cost of housing and feeding the workers in their employ.

The Jesuits had a different tradition, thankfully. St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuit Order, took his vows of celibacy just a few kilometers from Mondragon in the foothills overlooking Onati. The Basque followers of St. Ignatius believed that work could lead to transformation and salvation. In the Spanish Empire they attempted to covert the native Americans of the Tipu-Guarni* through worker collectives known at Jesuit Reductions and immortalized in the movie, The Mission. It was a modern day member of their order, Don José María Arizmendiarreta (DJMA) who would bring that ethic to the small town of Mondragon and teach five young mean the value of cooperation.

The Principles of Mondragon Cooperative Corporation state:

“The Mondragon Cooperative Experience considers that Labour is the principal factor for transforming nature, society and human beings themselves, and therefore:

a) Renounces the systemic contracting of salaried workers

b) Gives labour total primacy in the organization of cooperatives

c) Considers Labour to be worthy, in essence, in the distribution of the wealth created.

d) Manifests its will to extend the options for work to all members of the society.”

There should be a different culture in worker cooperatives, where the workers truly own and control the company. However, waving a magic wand cannot do it. To this end, it is important for worker cooperatives to adopt the notion of the sovereignty of labor. We need to instill a cooperative work ethic in our organizations. Not a work ethic based on enriching others (or even consumers for that matter), but of social transformation or us and our peers based on honesty, openness, and solidarity and caring for others.

Don Jose spoke often on this topic. “Man transforms and makes nature fertile through his labour,” he wrote”, and labour is the greatest asset that the community possesses: to live with dignity, one must embrace work.” Of DJMA, did not mean a mindless embrace of the protestant work ethic to benefit the sputtering Franco economic engine. He meant that workers should own their labor. They should be, as another Jesuit priest from the previous generation argued, “Masters of their Destiny”.

That is the point of this principle. We, as workers, should honor work. We should give to our cooperatives 100% of our effort. When we do this, we begin to transform ourselves and our community creating something of greater value. We must honor all work and recognize that all of those who work as members of our cooperative (or as people who may become members). Sometimes, this work ethic can turn itself on its head and we regard the presence of “management” or “leaders” as we would in the outside world. This is an incorrect understanding of this principle. Sr. Ormaechea denounces the “duplicity of individualism” which might make those of us in the US wince a bit.  However, the sovereignty of labor is in relation to capital not individuals. In the capitalist world, we have learned that managers and leaders tend to be the agents of capital, not labor (sadly this is even true of some labor leaders). The role of the cooperative should be to empower all workers. Management or leaders (as we shall see) come from the workers and belong to them—they are not alien to the work force, but part of it.

We do not invoke this principle by emulating Talyorist strategies or adopting a proprietor’s attitude towards co-workers. Treating our fellow members as our employees is not the correct method of expressing the sovereignty of labor. Instead, we embrace this principle by developing each other as co-leaders in our enterprise. We operationalize this principle by making decisions that enrich the lives of the workers (in terms of safety, education, and health) over the base need for profit. We honor this principle by treating each other as equals and as humans deserving of our respect and love. By doing these things, we change the nature of work from an act of necessity to one of social transformation. We overcome the cultural animosity acquired from being a wage slave to create a new culture of mutual self-help and self-responsibility.

*The currency of Paraguay is the Guarni, which represents the historic measure of wealth in the region (how many Guarni were owned by the Spanish slaveholders)

Next Week: The Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

December 28, 2009

The Worker Coop User Principles and The Mondragon Experience

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 8:05 am

The US Department of Agriculture identifies the first three principles of the identity statement as the “user principles.’ In US parlance, this means that the users of a cooperative’s services benefit from the cooperative’s activities, the users of a cooperative own the cooperative and the users of cooperative control the activities of the cooperative.

However, in a worker co-operative, the users of the cooperative services generally do not own or control the cooperative. Should worker cooperatives have their own set of principles unique to the experience of worker ownership? The Mondragon Cooperative has developed a set of ten principles that it uses to guide its collective actions. The 10 Principles of Mondragon overlap to some extent with the Identity Statement:

Mondragon Coop Identity

1. Open Admission                                    Voluntary and Open Membership

2. Democratic Organization                    Member Democratic Control

3. Sovereignty of Labor

4. The Instrumental and Autonomy and Independence

Subordinate Nature of Capital

5. Participatory Management                   Member Economic Participation

6. Payment Solidarity

7. Intercooperation                                     Cooperation Among Cooperatives

8. Social Transformation                           Concern for Community

9. Universality

10. Education                                                Education, Training and Information

In considering this series, I initially saw the three principles of Sovereignty of Labor, Subordination of Capital and Payment Solidarity as the three that separated from the Identity Statement. However, it is clear that the Subordination of Capital directly relates to Autonomy and Independence. Yet, this principle also has a special nuance for worker cooperatives. Likewise, the role of Universality is a direct expression of the value of solidarity. It is not simply Concern for Community or Cooperation Among Cooperatives. It speaks directly to the need for worker cooperatives to support all movements that seek dignity for workers. This makes a substantial break from the principles and other cooperative sectors that may not support labor movements and may even be antagonistic to labor unions.

Over the next four weeks, I will detour from the Identity Statement of the ICA to consider the importance of the four Mondragon principles in order: Sovereignty of Labor, The Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Payment Solidarity and Universality. For background information, I will be quoting heavily from The Mondragon Cooperative Experience by Jose Maria Ormaechea (January, 1993). Sr. Ormaechea is the “O” of ULGOR Cooperative, the first cooperative of the Mondragon Experience and the name was dervived from the initials of the five original members (it is known as FAGOR today). He was one of the first students of Don Jose Maria Arizmendiertta. He served as Managing Director of the Caja Laboral Popular (today, the Caja Popular) from 1960-1988. He also served at Director of Otalora, the management training facility and publisher of this book.

A Few Words About Mondragon

The principles of Mondragon are significant—in addition to acknowledging the history of the cooperative movement, they also expand upon the ideals of cooperation by addressing the role of labor. This was a very important issue for Arizmendiaretta. He believed in the sanctity of work and education. Through these two arenas, the human spirit could be elevated and all of society would benefit.

Mondragon was the pearl to come out of the fascist experiments of the 20th Century. Don Jose was in prison awaiting execution when the Pope decided that Franco had to quit killing priests. He was sent to the backwater industrial village of Mondragon instead of Bilbao to shut him up and ensure that his radical views would not gain traction. Mondragon succeeded in part because of some unique issues:

Communists in the South and the Anarchists of Barcelona had regrouped. Franco’s economic policies had failed even by his standards. It was easy for Franco’s people to see the Mondragon experiment as one of entrepreneurialism, not revolution.

Nevertheless, for the first two decades of Mondragon, the government was fascist and people had to be careful. They were harassed and had the deck stacked against them. The bank and social security systems were created because they were not allowed access to finances and health care otherwise. Add to that the role of the ETA and the Basque desire for independence (or at least to be left alone) and one sees a unique culture that produced Mondragon and has a lot to do with their decision making process.

The workers of Mondragon have “built the road as they traveled.” They haven’t always made the decisions that I would have made (sitting in my condo in Madison, WI instead of Basque Country), but those decisions were theirs to make.I have learned, however, that even when a decision is made, that may only be the beginning of the discussion. As with all of our co-operatives, sometimes decisions get made in order to survive to a day that a real fix can be made that will be more consistent with the principles.

I like that Mondragon refers to itself as an “experience.” I think that all of our worker co-operatives should adopt that attitude. We are an experience of our culture, society, place in history, and the good and bad tendencies of our collective memberships. The experience of cooperation offers us metamorphosis that will highlight our better natures. It is a process and a journey. We will occasionally stray from the correct path as a means of survival (or ignorance), but if our diversion will allow us the opportunity to correct ourselves in the future, we should be happy for another day.

That is my basic take on Mondragon. We have a lot to learn from them. They can learn some things from us too. However, we must always be cognizant of the principles that bind us. We must understand that we are only human and will make mistakes. We should embrace forgiveness and understanding of the human condition. There are as many ways to “co-operate” as there are personalities. We should be willing to honor our differences as much as our similarities, but always along the lines of the principles and values of the cooperative identity.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

December 23, 2009

Dear Readers:

Filed under: Site News — John McNamara @ 4:50 pm

I am sorry for missing my Monday Morning Post this week. I ran out of time. Fortunately, Fred Schepartz stepped into the void and provide three intriguing posts. I will start up again next Monday with the Identity series and follow that up with a review of 2009 and a plan for 2010.

I do want to take a moment to thank you for reading and spreading the word. At last count, I have readers in over 40 countries. I have enjoyed meeting some of you on Facebook and in person at the conferences!

John

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon

December 19, 2009

The Night I Was A Movie Star—Almost

Filed under: Society — Tags: , , — Fred Schepartz @ 6:30 pm

Okay, I admit it. By the beginning of last summer, I was starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding my role in Michael Moore’s new film. The image of me, sitting behind the wheel of my taxicab, would be on the film’s marquee. Something I said on camera would be the movie’s tagline. And suddenly, not only would I be a movie star, but my novel, Vampire Cabbie, would shoot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list.

More about all of this later.

But yes, it is absolutely true. I almost co-starred in Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story. Moore wanted to feature worker cooperatives as an antidote to Capitalism. Apparently, Moore had read about Union Cab in Jim Hightower’s recent book, Swim Against The Current, which included a chapter about the worker-owned-and-operated cooperative cab company where I have worked for the past twenty-one years.

There was a lot of talk back and forth between my people and Moore’s people, but finally it was decided that an independent film production crew would come to Madison in early April and would shoot footage and conduct interviews at Union Cab and Isthmus Engineering.

About two weeks before the shoot, I was running a fare when my cell phone rang. I fished the phone out of my hip pocket. My cell phone seldom rings, so when it does, I answer it promptly, assuming that either someone died or that a tsunami has just engulfed most of California.

The call was from John McNamara. John’s my best friend. He’s also our Marketing Manager. Part of his job is handling customer complaints. When I heard his voice on the other end, I immediately thought, “What did I do?”

But no, that was not why John called. Instead, he called to ask me if I would be interesting in driving the film crew around town.

“Would I actually be on camera?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” John replied.

I almost drove the cab off the road. (Well, not really, but that sounds good.)

I was shocked and so, so excited. I immediately shared the news with my passenger, a hip, thirty-something woman who was getting her black-and-white former police car worked on. She thought it was way cool. So did I.

But poor John. He had been the one who had been contacted by Basel Hamdan, the film crew’s producer. He and Basel had been discussing the possibility of Union Cab being included in the movie for a few months. Finally, he got the green light from Basel, but the two days when they would be in town, John would be out of town, visiting his mother in Toledo. John was none too pleased.

But I was excited beyond belief. I told everybody I knew. I’d stop strangers on the street and tell them as well. I was going to be in a Michael Moore movie! I’d be one of the good guys in a Michael Moore movie!

And I could talk about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, on camera. If the final cut included footage of me, talking about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, I would sell lots and lots of books.

The only problem was the anticipation. That may have been the longest week and a half of my life, but I was excited. Frankly, I was not particularly nervous about being filmed, let alone being filmed by Moore’s film crew. The fact that Moore is well known for his in-your-face style of interviewing did not worry me in the least. After all, I was one of the good guys.

Mainly, I wanted to be in the movie, so I wanted to do a good job. It occurred to me that teaching myself to speak in sound bites would maximize my chances of making the final cut. No, I did not sit down and write scripts for myself, but I did put a great deal of thought into what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it.

Of course, I wanted to talk about my novel, Vampire Cabbie, but I wanted to discuss it in the greater context of how Union Cab, being the special workplace that it is, helped make it possible for me to write the book and is a haven for artists of all kinds. I wanted to talk about the importance of Union Cab providing jobs at a living wage in a humane work environment. And I wanted to talk about how Union Cab is a shining example of what I like to call Neo-Syndicalism.

I thought a great deal about what I actually wanted to say, and I actually practiced my “lines,” struggling to be as concise as possible.

I was ready, but then they threw me a curveball. The day before the shoot, Basel sent me an e-mail:

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the info – very helpful. We’re looking forward to tomorrow night’s shoot.

There are a few things we are looking to accomplish—first, we’d like buildings, restaurants or sights that are unique to Madison. Any landmarks or anything …

Also, and there are some things that we’d like to accomplish cinematically—certain visuals and looks that we’d like to capture that we have been thinking about. We can get into more detail about this tomorrow as this is for our Director of Photography to coordinate, but if you know of any places that have smoke—sewers or building that have smoke coming out of them, it would be helpful to what we are trying to do.

We’ll be in touch tomorrow …

All the best,
Basel

As Basel later explained, they were looking for a Taxi Driver visual motif. Okay, I was willing to do what I could, but understand: Travis Bickle is a bit of a sore subject with any self-respecting taxi driver. Surely, Michael Moore wasn’t going to all this trouble just to make fun of us?

Still, I wanted to be helpful. I got up early that morning and perused the Internet, looking for smoke or steam. I know that the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus has a vast network of steam tunnels, but where might the steam be released? I could not find any answers, but I did find a website largely dedicated to Tunnel Bob, a local character well known for traveling the campus steam tunnels.

Anybody who has lived in Madison for a long time knows who Tunnel Bob is. His appearance is quite distinctive. He is extremely tall and lanky, with long arms, legs and a rather long neck. He is also chronically mentally ill.

Maybe Tunnel Bob could tell me where to find smoke or steam. But how could I find Tunnel Bob?

I did make a few phone calls to places like the UW Physical Plant, but no luck. Well, I tried.

Still, I was excited. I went into work early and selected the newest cab I could find then took it to the carwash. I couldn’t pick up the film crew in a dirty cab.

Ah, but the waiting, the waiting. Basel had told me they’d need me to pick them up around seven PM, but when the appointed time arrived, I did not hear from them. Minutes hung like hours, but still no word, which presented a problem in terms of doing my job and making money. The phone call could come any second! I had to be nearby and not engaged in a long call when they were ready for me.

Finally, Basel called. They were still at Isthmus Engineering. They were running a bit late.

Finally, at around ten Basel called to tell me they were just about ready for me and that I should meet them at their hotel, the venerable Inn on the Park, in about a half hour.

Perfect. I was dropping off on the near Westside, just ten minutes from the Capitol Square. That gave me plenty of time to finish my call and more importantly, go to the bathroom. I was not sure when I would get another chance to relieve myself.

The Open Pantry near the west end of the campus was a mere half-mile from where I dropped off my last passenger. When I emerged from the bathroom, I had a big surprise. Not just a surprise, but Kismet!

Sitting on a stool in the small dining area in the Open Pantry was none other than Tunnel Bob! I could not believe my good fortune.

But there was just one problem. Asking someone who is chronically mentally ill a straight question and getting a straight answer is not as easy as one would think. The question: where might I find smoke or steam? I had to ask him three times before I he told me there just wasn’t any smoke or steam to be had. As I feared, it being April and fairly warm, it just was not likely. January or February, that’s a different story.

Oh, well. I tried. I made every effort.

I arrived at the Inn on the Park shortly after the film crew. Right away, they struck me as very nice. Despite the fact that it already had been a long day for them, they were excited and ready to go, including the intrepid cinematographer who had flown in on a red-eye the night before from Europe. He pretty much was running on little more than adrenalin, having not really slept the night before.

The crew quickly went to work setting up the shoot, while Basel and I chatted. I sadly told him there was no smoke or steam to be had, though I did tell him our head mechanic could make smoke if he wanted. Basel shook his head. “That’s okay,” he said.

He asked me about prominent landmarks and views. I told him about Bascom Hill, State Street, the Capitol Square and a curious optical illusion on the southside of town where, when you pull onto this one street (O’Sheridan off Lakeside), the Capitol looms large at the end on the horizon, but as you move closer, it shrinks.

“Cool,” Basel said.

We talked about the Taxi Driver motif. I remembered a story John McNamara had told me several years ago. We used to have a driver named Steve Fleischman. He was very intelligent, but a bit unbalanced. His nickname was Fleshdog.

As John told me, it was election night 1986, the horrible night when Tommy Thompson, a conservative, small-town Republican, whose nickname from his years in the state assembly was Dr. No, defeated amiable Democrat incumbent Tony Earl.

Apparently, Steve had this cab-load of College Republicans. It was their big night, so they were all drunk and excited about Thompson’s unexpected win.

“Aren’t you excited about our new governor?” one of them asked Steve.

In classic Fleshdog fashion, Steve replied, “You know, I don’t know much about politics. All I know is we need a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets.”

The passengers started freaking out. Steve quickly reassured them, “It’s just a movie. I was just quoting from a movie.”

Basel liked the story.

“It’s election night, you know,” I said. I repeated Fleshdog’s line.

Basel patted me on the shoulder. “Save it for the filming,” he said.

The crew quickly got to work prepping for the shoot. The sound person slipped a wireless microphone under my black leather biker jacket though the exact placement was a bit delicate. It took a little while to figure out how to set up the mike so it would not pick up took much rustling.

They mounted a camera on the outside of the cab. They put gels on some of the windows to cut down on glare. They did test shots with the hand-held camera inside the cab.

I was quite impressed with the attention to detail. Frankly, I never thought of Michael Moore movies as visually strong. His films don’t look bad, but I’ve never thought they look exceptional. I quickly learned that there’s a great deal of hard work that goes into making the movies look as good and sound as good as they do. It’s not like one can just go out and buy a digital camcorder and shoot a movie like it’s nothing at all. The crew worked hard to make it look easy.

And like I said, the cinematographer was particularly intrepid. At one point, we were driving down State Street, he opened the window and shot footage with his entire torso out the window, Basel hanging on to his belt for dear life, a terrified expression on his face. I thought this only happened in the movies.

Later when we were just about done, I realized I had not shown them the optical illusion of the shrinking Capitol. I told the cinematographer. He was ready to jump back in the cab and grab the shot, but Basel pulled in the reins, claiming the guy needed to finally get some sleep. I’m not sure, but I think Basel had simply had enough.

We were ready. The crew packed into my cab, four of them. The rest followed in a minivan. Normally, four people in my cab is a bit crowded, but with Basel, the sound person, the cinematographer and one other person, it was utterly cramped. Of course, the cinematographer bounced back and forth between my cab and their minivan.

They wanted landmarks. They wanted stunning visuals. Right away, with the minivan following close behind, I nosed the cab up the side of Bascom Hill, the glacial blister that is the epicenter of the UW campus. Atop Bascom Hill sits Bascom Hall, named after John Bascom, the founder of the University. I parked the cab almost right next to the statue of Abraham Lincoln, feeling particularly entitled. As a cab driver, I can drive and park in places where civilians cannot, but with Michael Moore’s film crew in tow, hell, the sky was the limit!

The crew was quite impressed with the view from atop Bascom Hill. There’s a great view of the Capitol, along with a festively lit State Street.

We drove down State Street to the Capitol Square. We drove around the Square and back down State Street. We pretty much drove the circuit for hours, up and around and around and down, turn around and do it all over again.

The cinematographer attempted to recreate one of the more famous shots from Taxi Driver. “Glance toward the rear view mirror,” he said. “Shift your eyes back and forth.”

I tried, but it was hard. Finally, I think we got it.

As we drove, Basel and I talked. I knew I could direct what I said to a large extent. I was wired, so anything I said, they would have and could use, if they chose to do so. Basel interviewed me as well.

“Is the co-op cab company in your novel like Union Cab?” he asked.

Well, there’s a softball I could launch over the fence. I answered yes and discussed Union Cab’s structure.

He asked if Union Cab offers health insurance. John had warned us that they were likely to ask about that, given Moore’s interest in health-care reform. No problem, Union Cab does have a health plan. It’s a good health plan, but it’s too expensive—but that’s not Union Cab’s fault; that’s the fault of our broken health care system.

That was really the only thing approaching a gotcha question. Overall, I felt like they all treated me with a great deal of respect. They didn’t act like it was weird that a cab driver wrote a book about a blood-sucking cab driver.

Interestingly, I found out later that the interviews done the next day were not quite so respectful. Karl Schulte, our general manager, felt downright harassed. When discussing the fact that Karl’s wage is only about four times as high as the lowest-paid employee, Basel asked, “What are you, some kind of hippie?”

Rebecca Kemble, who drove them around the next day, also said she felt a bit badgered, but again, I did not feel disrespected in the least.

At other times, Basel said nothing other than helping to direct the shooting. At one point, we stopped at the campus end of State Street. The crew vacated the cab and climbed into the minivan. They wanted to shoot the side of the cab. Basel remained in the cab and told me to drive very slowly but at a steady speed. The minivan drove alongside of me.

We painstakingly drove the length of State Street and turned onto the Capitol Square. Just then, a squad car approached. I promptly pulled over. The minivan pulled over behind me. The square car pulled over in front of me.

Oddly, the officer did not turn on the lights. Basel and I waited for what seemed like forever. The officer did not approach our vehicle.

Feeling like the crew was my responsibility, I broke one of the chief rules when dealing with police during a traffic stop, but I figured that because I was driving a taxi, it would be okay.

Making sure my hands were visible, I got out of my cab and carefully approached the squad car. “I’m with Michael Moore’s film crew,” I said. “We’re shooting a movie.”

“Return to your vehicle!” the officer snapped.

Asshole.

I sheepishly got back in the cab and described the exchange to Basel.

“You didn’t say we were Michael Moore’s film crew, did you?” Basel asked me, a bit annoyed.

“Hey, you didn’t tell me not to.” Then I made some snide remark about the cop not having any African Americans to pull over, referencing the shameful fact that Dane County has the worst per capita discrepancy of incarceration of African Americans of any county in the country. The bitter joke around here is that DWB is way worse than DWI.

A moment later, four more squads showed up. An officer approached the cab.

“I’ll do the talking this time,” Basel said.

“What’s going on here?” the officer asked politely, if not pleasantly.

“We’re an independent film crew, working on a movie,” Basel replied.

“Oh, cool,” the officer, said with a smile. “We were just wondering what was going on and why that minivan was driving the wrong way down the street.”

And then just like that, the squad cars left us to return to business.

“Wow, that guy was really nice,” Basel said. “They’re usually not that nice in New York.”

I growled softly.

We quickly got back to work. We were on one of the streets that spokes off the Capitol when I decided it was time. The Capitol glowed brightly directly in front of us.

“It’s election night,” I said. “The good guys won. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice will keep her job. I guess the corporatists won’t be able to buy themselves another seat on the state supreme court, at least not this time.

“But you know, I don’t know much about politics. All I know is what we need is a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets.”

Out of the corner of my eye, I could see Basel smiling. Cut and print, as they say.

Basel finally called it a night around three in the morning. Damn! It was well past bartime.

As we unpacked, everyone complimented me on my efforts. One member of the crew even asked me if I had acting experience.

Yet all I could think of was the things I didn’t do, what I didn’t say. For some stupid reason, I had forgotten to bring a copy of my novel, Vampire Cabbie, so there was no shot of me in the cab, holding the book for the camera.

I forgot to talk about Neo-Syndicalism. I never got around to talking about all the artists who work at Union Cab and what it is about the workplace that makes that possible. And when Basel asked me about what makes Union Cab a humane workplace, I badly fumbled. This is a question I should have knocked out of the ballpark. It’s an aspect of Union Cab I truly believe in and truly love. And I actually practiced how I would answer that specific question.

Instead, I babbled incoherently about how a bunch of us are Star Trek and Star Wars fans.

“If a driver sees another driver whose headlights are off, even during the day, we tell the dispatcher. This isn’t to get anybody in trouble, but just so the dispatcher can give a friendly reminder for safety reasons.

“This one dispatcher is a huge Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, and Battlestar Galactica fan. One time, I spotted a driver driving without the headlights on. Instead of telling the dispatcher the driver’s headlights were off, I said, cab so-and-so has switched off his targeting computer.

“The dispatcher then says, ‘cab so-and-so, you’ve switched off your targeting computer. Is everything all right?’”

God, I’m such a dork.

Still, I did feel pretty good about the whole thing, but that changed a couple months later when Basel e-mailed the following message:

Hey Fred,

I hope you are doing well.

We are in the middle of editing the film and there is one section where we would like to re-record some audio of you. It relates to the evening that we drove around in the cab with you, and there is a part that we need to make sure that we have crisply and cleanly—it is the Taxi Driver line.

Pearl Lieberman from our crew will happen to be in Madison this weekend, so we thought that it would be a good opportunity to record this bit of audio—it will not take much of your time at all—it is just reciting that line a few times in order for us to make sure we have it.

Let me know what your schedule looks like for Saturday and you and Pearl can arrange a time and place to meet.

Also, I’m having trouble getting through to you by cell phone, so please send me the correct number. Also, I’d like to discuss the line with you, as well.

All the best,
Basel

As Basel would later explain, they loved the “wash the scum off the streets” line, but wanted me to add, the words “Wall Street.”

That weekend, I met Pearl and her boyfriend. It turns out that her boyfriend was none other than Bob Wasserman, a guy I’ve known since the early 1980s. In fact, we worked together in the Rathskeller at Memorial Union, and I represented him in the infamous bagel grievance.

As we sat in my sweltering car with the windows closed, to try to keep out the road sounds, Pearl struggled with the small camera Basel had thrust at her literally as she was getting in her cab on the way to the airport. Fortunately, Bob is one of the best sound people in Madison. The camera’s batteries were dead, and there was a problem with the cord, but Bob was able to jury-rig something.

We recorded several takes as I tried to get the flow right, along with the right inflection of the added words. I knew my motivation. I tried to say the words “Wall Streets” as if they tasted like the nastiest things ever.

And then it was done.

And then my delusions of grandeur began. I would be on the film’s marquee! My words would be the film’s tagline! Michael Moore would show up the Madison opening. There’d be a big party at the Orpheum Theater. We’d all be on stage. I’d be right up there with Michael Moore. I’d step up to the microphone and say a few words about the film’s importance and Union Cab’s importance.

“Say it, say it,” the crowd would yell.

“I don’t know much about politics,” I would say with a wry smile. “All I know is all we need is a good hard rain to wash the scum off the streets—Wall Street.”

And the crowd would go wild.

Alas, it was not to be, but maybe we might be in the bonus footage on the DVD.

And now it’s time for me to go to work at Union Cab, sticking it to the man for thirty years.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MSN Reporter
  • Socialogs
  • StumbleUpon
Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress