The Workers' Paradise

August 24, 2010

The Co-operative Index

Filed under: Education,Governance,Movement — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 8:18 pm

One of the last workshops of the National Worker Co-operative Conference introduced the Co-operative Index to a United States audience. Before going into the details of this tool, it needs to have a bit of the history explained.

In 2005, Johnston Birchall addressed the International Co-operative community. It was the occasion of the the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity. Prof. Birchall called for the community to “operationalize” the statement. In effect, to take the document off of the wall and out from under glass and make it part of the day-to-day decision-making process of our co-operatives. He used a phrase that had already started spreading around the movement: “market the co-operative advantage” or MOCA. However, he also used another phrase: “Managing the co-operative difference.” Birchall argued that we really can’t create a co-operative competitive advantage until we manage our co-operatives differently from our competitors.

In 2003, the St. Mary’s MMCCU program had begun towards this end, but the rest of the co-operative world had yet to really embrace the statement. It needed a push and Birchall gave it one. The folks at St. Mary’s also heard his call. While they were busy improving their Master program, they were also looking for opportunities to highlight the co-op difference and create the competitive advantage.

John Chamard, Sonja Novkovic and Tom Webb discovered a Polish professor of organizational psychology who had developed a method of measuring participatory workplaces with an eye towards helping them to improve themselves. His name is Ryzard Stocki and he created the Open Index as a tool for non-profits to measure themselves against their ideals. It was decided to see if such a tool could be developed for co-operatives and that the best sector to start with was the worker co-op sector. In 2008, the St. Mary’s team brought together a group of Co-op developers from Canada and worker co-op practitioners. I was one of the participants in a weekend long session of developing an “ideal” worker co-operative against which we could measure real world worker co-operatives. It was an exciting, and at times frustrating, process. In the end, we created a framework for a diagnostic tool that worker co-operatives could use that was different than tools such as the SA8000, World Blu Democratic workplace survey, or other such measurements. At the New Orleans meeting of the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives, the Federation membership agreed to support it.

We based our tool on the Identity Statement and the principles of Mondragon that go beyond the identity statement (sovereignty of labor, subordinate nature of capital, payment solidarity, and participatory management). The tool was fine-tuned and then put into the field to test its effectiveness. After the initial attempts were made, the reports were analyzed and the tool was fine tuned. It is now ready for a mass distribution. The workshop was its official exposure to a US audience.

What is the Tool?

The tool is a lengthy survey designed to measure the perceptions of immediate stakeholders in a worker co-operative (separating those who identify as “leaders” with those who identify as “rank-and-file”). It asks questions designed to rate the ability of the cooperative to meet its obligations under the identity statement: Values, Ethics, Principles as well as its organizational ability to meet its members’ needs. It creates an index for the co-operative to measure across time and, eventually, will create an index to measure against other worker co-operatives.

There are two methods of using the tool. It can be used for a very brief snap shot of the “state of the cooperative” or it can be part of a more intensive triangulation of issues facing the cooperative. In either case, it can, and should, help influence strategic planning, education, training, and leadership development. At the national and international level, it can help planner determine workshop needs and membership needs.

The first method is the simplest and cheapest. The co-operative works with someone from St. Mary’s to set up the survey (more information is available from either the US Federation or the Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation). The co-operative participates with a very real goal of 100% participation by its members. The assistant helps produce a report that distills the scores on a maturity index for the different segments: values, organizational, principles, etc.

The more involved method involves have the assistant work with a small committee of the co-operative. this could be the social audit committee or the strategic planning committee. Ideally, it is a committee of members representing the cooperative stakeholders (i.e. not all directors, or all rank-and-file). The survey gets completed as before, but the adviser also helps the committee build a document base to examine how the perceptions of the survey interact with actual policy and practice of the co-operative. This allows the committee to make solid recommendations on structure, operations, and governance as a means of improving the co-operative along the maturity curve.

Ideally, a co-operative might do the full process every three to five years and the short process annually. Obviously, the size and nature of the co-operative will make some differences in the process. However, even smaller co-operatives might find that they have a disconnect between groups within the co-operative.

This tool can help co-ops dig below the surface issues to get at root causes of problems and provide strong solutions. On the other hand, the tool can help co-operatives see where their strengths are and help them learn to share those strengths with other co-operatives.

The initial work on this tool has been so successful and the support for it so enthusiastic that the Canadian Co-operative Association received a substantial grant to design similar tools for the other sectors. The call the overall project “Measuring the Co-operative Difference Research Network”. Hit the link for more details.

With the development of the Democracy at Work Network of peer advisers coming on-line in January and the advent of the Co-op Index Tool, Federation member co-operatives and all worker co-operatives in Canada and the United States will have a powerful means of analyzing their processes, their policies and the functioning of their co-operative as a co-operative. This, in turn, will allow them to not just “manage the co-operative difference” but create a strong competitive advantage for themselves and other worker co-ops. This project is exactly, in my opinion, the sort of thing that the Federation was founded to accomplish. It allows us to bring our considerable brain power together in an act of mutual self-help and solidarity with the goal of creating strong sustainable workplaces and communities.

August 17, 2010

EdVisions Schools–Workplace and Educational Democracy

Filed under: Education,Management,Worker Rights — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 10:11 pm

One of the great treats at a national worker coop conference is to learn about the incredible stories that exist. It is easy, sitting in our cooperatives at home, to imagine a world where we are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then we come to a conference and get our mind blown–not just once, or twice, but several times.

One such event was learning of EdVisions. I had heard rumors of these folks. Located in the mystical Mississippi Valley of Southern Minnesota. They seemed like fairies from the days of Shakespeare’s England creating a magical place of learning and excitement. Needless to say, all we ever heard were the rumors of their existence. They are, after all, Charter Schools. Charter Schools, much like those fairies of Shakespeare are a dual edged sword as willing to spoil milk and ruin harvests as to help a poor Shepard. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the main stream media can’t figure out EdVisions as they don’t fit into the narrative of Charter Schools, School Reform, and Neo-liberalism.

As it was, I ended up sitting next to the Dee Grover Thomas, Principal of the flagship school: New Country Day School. She gave me a bit of a heads up for her speech. It was an incredible talk (I hope that this is an appropriate time to apologize for my grammar and spelling to Dee and my English teachers).

Ever the teacher, she asked the audience what they would like to study. Amazingly, the reply was “co-operatives!” she then asked if that would require history? yes. Writing? Yes. Math? yes. Art? yes. The point being that the core subjects can be worked into any field of study.

Rather than my telling you what they are about, here is their statement: “The belief is that teacher leadership is not about power, but about mobilizing the largely untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance by working collaboratively in a shared capacity. Cooperatives are about working collaboratively and sharing in planning, action, and in results. Cooperatives are democratically owned and managed. The founders of EdVisions Cooperative believe in teacher voice and teacher empowerment. They also believe in modeling democratic action as a means toward teaching adolescents how to live in a democracy.”

Here is the problem that the market was dealing with:

  • Estimated 50% of teachers resign with in the first 5 years
  • Teaching is a non-promotion job only promotion to administration
  • Schools are losing 1 of 3 students to drop outs each yeas
  • Schools are seldom democratic
  • Teachers are not seen as professionals and little ed entrepreneurship has happened. Schools look and act the same today as they did 50 years ago.
  • She noted that The TSB kids, despite what they are doing, still have to raise their hand to go to the bathroom—that is messed up!

Minnesota New Country School as established in 1994.

  • Got rid of bells and classes or employees
  • 120 students 6-12
  • 40% special ed/35% low income

Project based learning—the ask the student what they are interested in (what turns them on) and then they apply to core principles (history, language, math, science, art)

School should be arranged like life—we don’t spend exactly 45 minutes on the math part of our jobs and then move to the writing part for another 45 minutes, so why do we run schools this way.

They chose to limit the school size to 120 students to keep a sense of community

Student ownership of their education with teachers as guides on the side.

It is more about learning than about teaching. They have to design their project and have to sit down with three adults and defend their project. At  the end, they sit down with three adults to show what they have learned. Sometimes, they have to unlearn before they can begin to learn.

EdVisions Cooperative

What would happen if teachers became owners instead of employees? Would they look at teaching differently? Eliminate the “us” vs. “them” in the battle between teachers and administration and parents.

Started with one school (MNCS) and 13 owners.  Today: 12 members schools and 3 affiliated non-profits, 150 members and 8.6 million budget, (the non-profits help to fund the school through different mechanisms).

Expected Behavior

  • Collaboration—build and sustain strong professional relationships
  • Civility—respect, dignity, kindness (train on restorative justice)
  • Communication—clear ideas
  • Co-creation—everyone plays a role
  • Accountability—every members assumes responsibility for the organization’s performance
  • Commitment to improvement and development.

Desired Ends

  • Take charge of professional lives (normal school dictates to the teachers)
  • Accountability for the learning program
  • Embrace change—technology, cell phones, communication.
  • Gain independence
  • Be leaders
  • Be able to contribute to each others’ professional development
  • Become Owners.

I’ll give Dee a lot of credit. She got some tough questions about labor unions*, the lack of sports programming, and others. Also note the number of special ed and lower income children. This isn’t a school designed (as mine was) to replace the aristocracy of corporate Vice-Presidents, this is about fundamentally changing the way we educate in this country.

It reminds of a certain Spanish priest who believed that the workers’ kids could be just as productive with their mind as the bosses’ kids. Those kids grew up to create Mondragon. The work of EdVest clearly makes the 5th Principle of Cooperatives as active as it can be. The have taken the cooperative economic model with an educational element and truly made it an educational model with an economic element.

If the Charter Schools were all like EdVisions, I would be on the front-line pushing for more. This is a fantastic model.

*Her response to the Union question? She said that the teachers are free to join the union, but don’t want to. Further, what she would like to see is for the union to start opening and running their own schools just like EdVision did.

July 12, 2010

Worker Co-ops and Workers or All in the Family

Filed under: Education,Worker Rights — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 11:47 am

This might take several posts to really work through the issues, but the nature of worker coops conjures up visions of a workers’ paradise (and the source of the name for this blog); however, too often conflict rises and worker co-ops easily devolve into a deformed workers’ state (the alternative name for this blog when I am cranky).

Without a doubt, the biggest strength and greatest weakness of worker co-operatives revolves around the internal issues of discipline and treatment of workers. An acquaintance of mine in Madison told me about his two experiences with worker co-operatives. Both were bakeries (one small one and one large factory style).

The small one was controlled by the members who were mostly, in his words, Trustafarians. They weren’t interested in growing the business because they didn’t need to do so. For stiffs like my friend, who didn’t have a trust fund, this meant working for minimum wage. The love of making bread and doing one’s own thing didn’t pay the rent. To make matters worse, the paychecks would be distributed together in a basket. The core group often didn’t pick up their checks for months at a time! This only highlighted the economic disparity among the membership and made my friend feel belittled and embittered.

The larger bakery produced at a level where wages and benefits were competitive, but it was really controlled by management and had little input from the worker members. To highlight this, at the annual summer “employee” picnic, management provided commercial mass produced white bread and  buns and bread. My friend was shocked that management wasn’t even willing to spring for the worker’s own bread for the picnic and went for the cheapest crap that they could find.

My long career in worker co-ops (22 years) has seen a lot of internal disputes. I remember a trying time when it was external forces that threatened the co-operative and one fellow member noted that the success or failure of our co-op lies entirely within us. Regardless of the external economy or attacks on our company, we are, as Moses Coady would say, the Masters of Our Destiny.

I would like to pretend that size matters, but it doesn’t. As the tale of two bakeries suggest, the real struggle comes from activating co-operative values and interpreting them in the real world of worker co-operatives. There is a very interesting paper entitled Dispute Resolution in Worker Co-operatives: Formal Procedures and Procedural Justice by Elizabeth Hoffman. My co-op was the subject of this case study and I was president during the period of study. I have a few issues with the work (she never interviewed me or other officers for our perspective of what happened), however, I completely agree with her analysis and it ties in well with another important work, The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman. Co-operatives are societies and they require a certain level of bureaucracy and structure to work effectively. Unfortunately, a lot of people come to worker co-operatives because they want to get away from “the man” and stupid rules, and all the other BS of corporate America. As William Golding taught all of us, however, it just isn’t that easy. Humans are social animals and will establish a social order. It can be an order based on personality, mythology, power, or humanity (ethics, values and principles). For co-operatives, we choose humanity (or I hope that we do).  The point, however, is that an order will be created with or without our efforts.

How often do we hear bosses talk about their company as “being like a family”? I always find that annoying. How patronizing! However, they are simply trying to describe their structure which is based on personality and power. Sometimes I hear that language in co-operatives. We talk about the Yellow Family at Union Cab, but no one is talking about parents, we are talking about siblings, cousins, and weird uncles (I think after 22 years, I get the cranky weird uncle title). Of course, if we really think about this analogy, aren’t we also talking about sibling rivalry and all the BS that goes into dealing with families. There is a great line from the play, ‘night, Mother in which the protagonists speaks to her inability to choose her family.

The difference is that we chose to be part of our co-operatives. We voluntarily choose to join and participate. We don’t have the right to act like obnoxious siblings. We have an obligation to interact with our co-operative on the terms of the ethics, values and principles of the co-operative movement. This is not an easy step. Corporate America and the dominant paradigm created by them encourages us to act as siblings to their parenthood. Workers in our society are encouraged to fight each other (over race, immigration, gender, sexual preference, religion, creed and a host of other false differences) and let the parents (managers, politicians) control our lives.

Unfortunately, we sometimes bring this corruption into our co-operatives. Not all, but many, co-operatives mirror the paternalistic hierarchy of the corporate world. We create a “dad” or “mom” in the form of a General Manager and then act out the role of obedient and disobedient children (and attack each other in miming sibling rivalries). We need to be better than this and we can do it. Some feel that having more that 40 members means being forced into this world. Others might argue “human nature”. I think that we can do more and better by simply focusing on the Co-op Identity.

Rainbow Grocery is a great example of a large co-operative that has flattened its hierarchy. I am not on the inside, so I can’t speak to how their conflict mediation works, but they have shown a way that even a large co-op can eschew the Family Circus. Union Cab is currently revising its dispute resolution system holistically (for the first time in 30 years). The challenge for getting rid of “dad” or “mom” is that we can’t simply replace them with “big brother” or “big sister”. We have to really find a way for all of us in the society to exist as equals and take that responsibility seriously. This means spending a lot of money (co-operative assets) on education, training and information (the 5th Principle). It also means making requirements on our membership that may seem onerous (such as participating in the education, training and information).

I believe that part of the duty of a worker co-operative involves elevating its membership from the siblings of corporate America’s “families” and creating fully-developed human beings that can interact as equals and recognize their connection to the larger world of workers and economics. This will be how the worker co-operatives grow and move forward, not by imitating our former bosses but by creating a truly new paradigm based on our identity.

May 31, 2010

What’s Next?

Filed under: Education — John McNamara @ 8:00 am

After last week, I walked around feeling a bit like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz:

Well, even if his version of the pythagorean theorem isn’t quite the same as the one in our universe, it still kinda sums things up. I mean, what am I supposed to do now?

Well, I meant to finish writing this before it actually published for one thing!

The answer of course lies in the movement. Don José famously asked if the cooperative movement is an economic movement based on education or an educational movement based on economics.

I’m continuing to learn (as we all are) by doing and working together. The Masters helped focus some clear patterns of coop theory into management. Bringing those lessons back to my cooperative and helping other cooperatives takes more than a diploma. We are a movement based on sharing and that is exactly what I intend to keep doing.

Tomorrow, I leave for the Canadian Association for Study in Cooperatives (CASC) meeting in Montreal. I hope to post some on that either here (for the worker coop stuff) or at Breathing Lessons for the balance. I will post more than I did from the ICA meeting last September. At that meeting, a lot of the papers were being prepared for publication and, as a result, we were asked not to distribute many of them.

Like any graduate, I am looking forward to the future. The difference between today and 1988 is that I really do know what I want to be when I grow up.

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

December 3, 2009

Cooperation and Human Nature

Filed under: Education,Society — Tags: , — Bernard @ 12:26 am

The New York Times published an article on childhood behavioral studies, among related research, that reveals a more positive and nuanced view of our biological heritage than the Social Darwinist promoted. However the article leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the social significance of these studies. I have tried to expand on what I think are major implications of this research.

Cooperation and Human Nature

Here are two excerpts from a recent news feature.

“I cannot direct anybody to do anything that they do not want to do. All decision-making is by consensus.”

All around . . . groups organized themselves in democratic cooperatives, arranged in an anti-hierarchy. All deliberations are open — and exhaustive. Everyone gets their say no matter how long it takes. “It is bottom-up and not top-down.”

Members of cooperatives will recognize these comments. In fact they are so commonplace as to be burdened with a ton of baggage. For some a smile will approach the lips in appreciation of the value of these statements. Others might feel their teeth clenching in anticipation of the seemingly endless meetings that they associate with deliberations over meaningless details.

The quotes however do not emanate from a co-op board meeting. They are attributed, in a Wall Street Journal blog, to the scientists working on “the largest machine in the world.”1

That happens to be the Large Hadron Collider — a $6 billion particle accelerator near Geneva, with thousands scientists involved in its operation.

This wasn’t the only science collaboration mentioned in the article. Also highlighted was OpenWetWare, a wiki established in 2005 by two MIT students “to promote the sharing of information, know-how, and wisdom among researchers and groups who are working in biology & biological engineering.” It now has 7,000 users.

In a similar vein, paleontologists launched the Open Dinosaur Project “to involve scientists and the public alike in developing a comprehensive database of dinosaur limb bone measurements, to investigate questions of dinosaur function and evolution.” They further state as their goals: “1) do good science; 2) do this science in the most open way possible; and 3) allow anyone who is interested to participate.”

To be absolutely clear about their last point, they stress that they “do not care about your education, geographic location, age, or previous background with paleontology. The only requirement for joining us is that you share the goals of our project and are willing to help out in the efforts.”

The Internet, originally devised decades ago by researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), where the Collider is based, amplifies worldwide the historic collegiality cultivated by scientists.  Given the obvious success of scientific endeavors, one wonders why these cooperative practices haven’t migrated to other areas. In some limited ways they have been adopted by the arts, and to a lesser extent, education. But in the realm of business, collaboration occurs only under strict guidelines, if at all.

We don’t need to idolize the community of scientists. There are researchers who eagerly enlist in schemes to privatize science – to value the marketplace over the disinterested desire to further research for the public benefit. Nevertheless, the model of collaboration many scientists seek, in which peers define projects and seeking solutions, remains foreign to the world of business.

Capitalist collaboration on the level of mutual advantage, of course, as in price-fixing, certainly happens more frequently than its criminalization. And there is the transparently manipulative practice of  “team work” in many corporations, which I only mention to quickly dismiss. 2

Cooperatively working together embodies a reciprocity of dignity that finds no place in the corporate world we know today, where individual advancement rules.

As commodification intensifies, enveloping all aspects of life, the ethic that must sustain community diminishes. We diminish too. It comes as no surprise that kids enter middle school as full-fledged consumers. What should shock is that they have internalized their commodification. Buying into the notion of society as an arena for a never-ending quest for ego fulfillment leads directly to life viewed as a battle of egos. This socialization of our children, as essentially a fight over scarcity on an individual and social level, is a consequence of the popular perception of our “human nature.” We have here the reactionary, individualistic thinking that drives capitalism – the survival of the fittest: social Darwinism.

The rise of Darwinism (a toxic blend of Darwin with Malthus) served the 19th century capitalists well. “Captains of the economy” claimed as their right to rule a pseudo-science founded on a specious law of biology.

Capitalist “science” didn’t persuade the partisans of the newly organizing industrial workers. The masters of the workers, as the workers themselves experienced, were not to be held hostage to the  reason of science, when the science of power – ultimately clubs and bullets – was far more effective. The clarity of the left to recognize the abuse of science, as a servant of power, didn’t prevent them wholeheartedly endorsing Darwin as a liberator. For the left, Darwin forever consigned the Christian origins of humankind to myth.

Friedrich Engels eulogized Marx as the discoverer of the law of human development, comparing him to Darwin the founder of  “the law of development of organic nature.”3 Engels here was following Marx who viewed Darwin’s scientific contribution as pertaining only to human anatomy and physiology. Centuries before the birth of Marx, “enlightened” thinking held that human development was determined by environmental factors. Moreover Hegel, Marx’s mentor, envisioned society “evolving” to greater heights.

The only exception to the general celebration of Darwinist biological determinism came from Peter Kropotkin. His fieldwork across an impressive range of animal and human societies made him recognize and appreciate the role of cooperation in human endeavors.  Kropotkin’s anarchist criticism of Darwinism as new theology in defense of the status quo, of course, relegated him to obscurity outside scientific circles.

Amongst social scientists the nuanced interpretation of evolution presented by Kropotkin, and others, lately has led researchers to devise experiments that show “that both 25-month olds and school-age children in a very similar paradigm select the equitable option more often than the selfish option.”4

There are studies that show that very young children, working in teams develop trust by negotiating perceived selfishness. Other studies show that a shared project with a joint goal creates interdependence, mutually recognized – a “we” amongst the children. And even babies, unable to use language, show helpfulness in carefully structured experiments by pointing or by their eye movements. Language itself may have developed within the context of collaborative activities where achieving a common goal depends upon the coordination of individual roles.

This research has significant implications for a politics beyond ethical aspirations to one grounded in a view of human nature with an innate need for camaraderie. Those who seek a more just society need not counter a spurious conception of human nature as “red in tooth and claw” with the equally false proposition that the human condition is infinitely malleable. A belief which leads to dystopian dead-ends and which still informs, in a less maniacal way, political liberalism and its love for social engineering.  The perfectibility of humankind is not the issue.

The issue is encouraging collaborative activities beyond the intimate dealings of a small group – outside what Michael Tomasello calls the protected environment:

When we are engaged in a mutually beneficial collaborative activity, when I help you play your role either through physical help or by informing you of something useful, I am helping myself, as your success in your role is critical to our overall success. Mutualistic activities thus provide a protected environment for the initial steps in the evolution of altruistic motives.5

Over ten years ago, before most of this research was conducted, Peter Singer wrote an intriguing little book: A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation. In it he critiques social Darwinism and the left’s fear of engaging in the controversy over human nature. He takes his stand for a left that abandons the paradigm of human progress based on fine-tuning social conditions.

Singer calls for a broader interpretation of self-interest that current findings of child behavior validate.  He also promotes the idea that the left needs to encourage cooperative behavior and to channel competition into socially desirable ends, which corresponds to the notion of extending the protected environment mentioned above.

As a philosopher, not a scientist, and writing about research which at the time was tentative, Singer however falls back on the same ground as the traditional left that he critiques. He relies on the role of reason, to balance or offset nature. He approvingly quotes Richard Dawkins who grants that though we are built like gene machines, “we have the power to turn against our creators”6

No one wants to argue against the role of reason in the pursuit of knowledge. However the latest behavioral discoveries lead to a firmer footing in science than thought possible a few years ago. From these studies of children implications can be drawn that improve our understanding of the building blocks of social norms, that is mutually expected standards of behavior. Human beings are biologically adapted to grow and develop to maturity within a cultural context, through collaborative efforts.

This research informs an optimistic view of the human condition. It seriously undermines the perspective that Herbert Marcuse postulated in One-Dimensional Man, where he questioned the liberation of humankind given the universal internalization of domination through socialization. And it supports Rebecca Solnit’s view in A Paradise Built in Hell that catastrophes can disperse the weight of commodified behavior to free deeper, life-affirming motivations.

In Tomasello’s conclusions one aspect relates to the larger issues of scientific collaboration noted at the beginning of this essay. He writes:

Children are motivated to engage in these kinds of collaborative activities for their own sake, not just for their contribution to individual goals.7

What are we to make of this comment? Certainly it relates to those experiences we have as adults when we find ourselves, either by plan or circumstance, engaged in an activity with great social significance. The activity may be physically grueling, we may even be in the company of strangers and the goal may not be of our devising, but when that goal is attained, or even when to the best of our collective abilities it is lost, during and afterwards we feel elation and a heightened sense of awareness.

For most people these experiences of collective pursuit occur sparingly and with modest intensity under circumstances that are not wholly spontaneous, as when regulated by church or civic activities. Or they are confined to those parts of our lives that are lived haphazardly as leisure pursuits. Even in scientific communities the pressures of professional performance inhibit the fullest realization of collaboration as a collective intellectual adventure. This reality may account for the eager participation among scientists when simple wiki-style collaborations do appear.

The innate pursuit of collaboration that Tomasello records challenges Singer’s wholesale dismissal of utopianism. The simple association of utopianism with the view that humans are malleable creatures, a view that Singer attributes to the traditional left, is flawed.  Firstly, it ignores the sense of hope explicit with visionary strivings.  Secondly, Singer’s views are wide of the mark in light of these new behavioral studies. How else can we think of expanding the space for collaborative experiences if we are not open to the allures of utopianism? What in fact are the ultimate collaborative experiences if not those associated with play in its many forms as games, festivals and more? Nowhere else in our societies does the exuberance of human fulfillment readily appear. And, to venture a utopian question, why is it absent in those parts of our lives where we spend so much time seeking our survival?

Bernard Marszalek

December 2, 2009

www.jasecon.org

info@jasecon.org

1 More Scientists Treat Experiments as a Team Sport Robert Lee Hotz, November 20, 2009, Wall Street Journal

2 I should mention that an indirect subversion of the usual hierarchical business methods may result from the growing influence of “social entrepreneurship” but only if those who are intrigued with this approach to solving social ills recognize the systemic exploitation that created them in the first place.

3 Engels quoted in Peter Singer. 1999 A Darwinian Left (21)

4 Michael Tomasello. 2009 Why We Cooperate (23)

5 Tomasello (85)

6 Richard Dawkins 1976 The Selfish Gene (63)

7 Tomasello (105)

August 11, 2009

Green Worker Coops Academy News

Filed under: Education — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 3:43 pm

In my last post, I was remiss in failing to highlight  the efforts being made to bridge the education gap in the United States. In addition to the Peer Technical Assistance Network through the US Federation’s Democracy at Work Institute (DAWI), the really cool and wonderful people in the Bronx have been hard at work creating institutions of social transformation!

We need more organizations like Green Worker Cooperatives throughout the country.

The following is the most recent press release sent out  by Sonia Pichardo in celebration of their academy graduates:

South Bronx, July 20, 2009- Green Worker Cooperatives Co-op Academy Graduates Create Green Businesses

Green Worker Cooperatives is proud to announce our Co-op Academy graduates, Eddie Charles, Don Butterfield, Chris Michaels, William Cerf, Joel Frank, Janco Damas, Jerry Kahn, and Jerome Villanueva.

Green Worker Cooperatives is a local, green, and democratic worker co-op business incubator. Its goal is to create jobs and keep Bronx communities clean for the people who live in them. The Green Worker Co- op Academy is a program that ran for 16 weeks. This intensive business program has taught participants how to develop South Bronx based environmentally-friendly businesses. Students learned about issues dealing with the most beneficial ways to run a worker co-op. In addition, the participants were taught how to prepare a real world business plan. Graduate Jerome Villanueva said, “ As a worker-owner you are hands on, you help out and you get dirty, here the community will actually see the owner.”

The graduates of the most recent Co-op Academy class have already started expanding their ideas into reality. Aquatecture and La Obrera are two worker co-ops currently in the incubation stage. Chris Michaels and William Cerf have begun steps to launch their 24/7 green diner in the South Bronx. Don Butterfield, Jerry Kahn and Eddie Charles are the founders of Aquatecture, a worker-coop to introduce solar energy and renewable energy in the Bronx. Jerome Villanueva, Janco Damas, and Joel Frank are the new transitioning worker owners at ReBuilders Source.

Rebuilders Source is a re-use store that takes in donated used or new building materials and sells those materials for below retail price. Rebuilders Source latest transitioning member, Janco Damas states, “We need to encourage responsible disposal of all these materials.” This is the first worker-owned building material center in the world. It is a viable alternative for contractors and homeowners from putting perfectly good building materials into the landfill.

Registration for the Fall 2009 Coop Academy class can be done if you attend an open house at 461 Timpson Place in Bronx NY on August 22nd. Visit www.greeenworker.coop. to register to attend the open house or to view videos of our graduates.

GREEN WORKER COOPERATIVES is a South Bronx-based organization dedicated to incubating worker-owned and environmentally friendly cooperatives in the South Bronx. Our approach is a response to high unemployment and decades of environmental racism. We don’t have the luxury to wait for new alternatives. That’s why we’re creating them. We believe that in order to address our environmental and economic problems we need new ways to earn a living that don’t require polluting the earth or exploiting human labor.

August 10, 2009

Education Matters in Worker Coops

Filed under: Education,Human Relations — John McNamara @ 1:57 pm

A friend and colleague of mine recently posted a letter to several people about troubles in a particular worker coop. I won’t name the people involved for obvious reasons (and if you comment on this, I will insist that your comments don’t mention it either).  My friend posed an interesting question and one that should receive some debate by coop developers* and organizers.

Do worker coops require a critical mass of college-educated members to succeed? Are high school/GED blue-collar workers too ignorant to escape the culture surrounding their workplace to build a better workplace? Will they simply translate their bad habits to the coop and bring it down?

I don’t know if we have ever done a survey of the worker coops in the US to determine the level of education, but it might be worthwhile.

The foundation of the worker cooperative movement in Mondragon was education. Don José began his work by creating a school for the children of Mondragon’s workers when the factory owners refused to let them in their schools. From that basic concept arose ULGOR and then Mondragon as we know it today. Mondragon continued that tradition by creating a k-12 and University system that serves the next generation and continues to make education the foundation of the modern cooperative movement. Workers who are unemployed in the Mondragon system are encouraged to take classes at the University of Mondragon to improve themselves.

We don’t do that in the US. We aren’t that connected, we don’t have the money, we are too small. As a result, we take workers as they are and try to teach the cooperative principles and concepts. At the smaller cooperative/collectives, this is relatively easy as the shared vision is stronger. At larger coops with hundreds of members or at those with three or more shifts, it can be difficult. Add in a dispersed workforce (such as cab driving, home care, and cleaning) and developing a coop culture to replace the capitalist culture can be difficult.

It isn’t that workers are stupid and perhaps even the word ignorant is incorrect as well. The dominant culture teaches us to compete, not cooperate. We are taught from the moment we enter the world in kindergarten that some people are better than others (I won’t even get into sibling rivalry) and that competition is not only good but that selfishness is a good quality (see Adam Smith and Ayn Rand). In college, we aren’t taught to challenge that, but we are taught to think critically. It isn’t that people won’t learn to think critically out of college (or that those in college will learn), but as people become more educated they do get exposed to cooperation and to learning how cooperation allows people to succeed easier in a group than alone.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that there is an anti-intellectual vibe in worker coops. The “bean counters” and management in the capitalist organizations do engage in a antagonistic relationship with the labor force. It is easy to build solidarity among a work force by creating the “other” of the college educated middle manager who doesn’t really work like the blue collar crowd who earn every penny or their pay and more.

In all of this, what role should education play in a worker cooperative. Can a group of working class people with a high school education create a democratic society and escape the dominate culture or do they need educated people to help lead them?

This sounds very elitist, but it is a legitimate question. Mondragon argues that workers must be educated to be owners before they can take ownership. In their new plan to convert a for-profit grocery store into a worker coop store, they estimate that it will take five years of education to develop the critical mass of an ownership mentality among the workforce for the transition to succeed. I don’t think that any of us would expect a worker coop to succeed by simply selling the workers a membership share and letting it occur naturally.

So how should organizers address this issue? How do we overcome the elitism of the educated (real or perceived)? Saul Alinsky argued in Rules for Radicals that the organizer should always be in the background and help people come up with their own ideas (which are those of the organizer). What sort of system could we create to help incubate and develop people in worker coops that don’t have access to well educated?

In my Human Resource class, I suggested that part of the role of a cooperative, as an agent of social transformation, should be to develop workers. HR in a capitalist business tends to develop workers by “moving them up or moving them out”. The traditional HR approach seems to make workers as efficient and effective as possible as workers. Worker development in a worker coop, should be to develop the human being and help them reach their potential as a human being. To this end, I think that we should consider a maturity curve of the cooperative worker. People might enter into the coop at different points of the curve, but the coop should establish institutions to move people along the curve (I have this in a nice table, but can’t figure out how to present it here):

  • Stage
  • Concept
  • Comments
  • Initial
    o    “You’re not the boss of me”
    •    Worker can’t be told what to do because there are “no bosses”
  • First Understanding
    o    “Win-Loss”
    •   Coalition building around self-interests against other coalitions (pro-worker vs. pro-management)
  • Common Good
    o Consensus
    • The success of the cooperative helps all workers.
  • Cooperative
    o    Solidarity
    •   Sees success of cooperatives as a means to support own cooperative.
  • Community
    o    “The cooperative is a microcosm of the community as a whole”
    • Sees cooperative as part of larger community
  • Model
    o    “Be the Change You Want to See in the World”
    •   Sees the community as a global environment. The actions of the cooperative interact on a large scale. The cooperative creates a model for others.

Worker Cooperatives are more than simple economic engines. They are, and should be, agents of social transformation. We need to recognize that a growing movement has to extend beyond those that have already figured out coops or opted out of the dominant paradigm of capitalism and self-interest. We need to teach people about mutual self-interest and how to be cooperative.

I think that my friend who asked the question was feeling extremely frustrated. Working people can create coops and democratic societies without a college education. However, they must of a cooperative education and this has to be institutionalized in our coops, our organizers, and our networks.

*(rant)I actually hate the term “coop developers”. I find it classist. It suggest community organizing which I tend to see as a top-down method of feel-good liberals who want to help the poor plug into the machine, not question the machine itself. Saul Alinsky called himself an organizer and I much prefer that term especially for worker coops as it evokes the labor organizers and that is really what we are doing. That a strong community develops from a well organized workforce is one of the benefits, but the focus should be on labor organizing and challenging the status quo. (/rant)

November 1, 2007

Education and the Co-operative World

Filed under: Education — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 3:18 pm

This post is from November 1, 2007 shortly after my return from a 10 day trip to Mondragon Co-operative.

The bedrock upon which the foundation of Mondragon sits is Education. This was the beginning revolutionary act of José María Arizmendiarreta. He learned from Gernika that the group who controls technology will thrive and the only way to be on the cutting edge of technology comes by way of Education.

Today, the Mondragon Experience has the following educational institutions:

•Mondragon University (undergraduate and graduate)
•Escula Professional Mondragon (Engineering)
•ETEC (Business and Administration)
•Huhezi (Pedagogy and Humanities Teachers)
•Mondragon Lingua (Language Schools)
•Lea-aribai (Professional and Technical Training)
•Txorierri (Professional and Technical Schools)
•Arizmendi (pre-school through high school)

While each school is its own unique system, Mondragon University shows the model of their education. My class visited the University on Tuesday, October 16th and these are my notes:

We chose to forgo the bus service this morning and walk from the Hotel Mondragon to Mondragon University. It was the morning rush hour and the streets were alive with drivers and pedestrians and children on their way to school. I was once again amazed at the universal willingness of drivers to yield to pedestrians and the pedestrians’ universal refusal to jaywalk! It really seemed as if it is a cultural aspect that people even cooperate in getting from one place to another. For someone from Madison, WI (where drivers feel that they are doing a huge favor by simply slowing down to 5 mph over the speed limit for pedestrians) it is a very odd experience.

Once we arrived at Mondragon, we stopped for a few moments to take a class picture around the stature of José María Arizmendiaretta. The place of Mondragon is the spot where he started the first school and educated the young men who would start ULGOR (Fagor today) and the most impressive cooperative experience since Rochdale. It was emotional for me, as the only worker cooperator of the group, to take a few minutes to pay homage to such a forward thinking and inspirational leader of my movement.

We then met up with Fred Freundlich again. On this occasion, he discussed the focus and structure of Mondragon University. It is a multi-stakeholder cooperative consisting of three stakeholder groups: workers, students and collaborators. The workers include staff and faculty together and the collaborators include MCC, cooperatives, the Basque Government and others. Each sector gets 1/3 of the votes in the General Assembly. The number of workers determines the baseline for votes and the president is traditionally from the collaborator side in order to provide continuity. MU is a second degree cooperative and operates as a non-profit under Spanish Law. The General Assembly elects a General Council, which appoints the Dean and Directors.

The University was created in 1997 out of three other educational projects: the original polytechnic school (1947), a Humanities and Science college (1976), and a business school (1960). It should be noted that each of these schools spun-off its own cooperative (The polytechnic school created Ikerlan research; the Humanities and Science created Alecop; and the Business school created Saiolan). It is through these spin-offs and the commitment of the University that a strong link exists through study-work rotation, graduate projects, and research and development projects.

This University essentially focuses on business degrees but it does have distinguishing features:
1. It fosters education as a cooperative
2. It combines Study and Work
3. Fosters the values of Participation, Equality, Solidarity, and Cooperation.
4. Deeply rooted in the Basque Country.

The last point is especially interesting. Over half of the courses are only offered in the Basque Language. Less than half are offered in both Spanish and Basque. Even though the University welcomes students from all over, it is clear that this is a Basque educational institution and that to get a degree in a timely manner will require a knowledge of Basque.

The University follows the Mendeberri Model in order to respond to the needs and transformations in companies and organizations. In addition, they aim to train people whose personal, social and professional skills enable them to face new challenges.

How does Mondragon University do? Well, as one might expect, this University really feeds into the cooperative system. I am sure that there are college and university presidents that would kill or sell their soul for MU’s numbers: There is a 98% employment rate of graduates, 90% get a job in their field. 30% get a job within one month of graduation and 20% are hired before they graduate!

It is interesting that the educational system transforms itself and maintains a level of flexibility to change as the world changes around them. This is one of the key features of Mondragon and it even exists at the core of the educational structure.

October 14, 2007

Management Training in a Worker Cooperative

Filed under: Education,Management — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 2:41 pm

The day began early as we jumped on the bus to head off to Mondragon’s Otalora Management Training Institute for a full day of discussion about the methodology of training Mondragon’s managers, how Mondragon uses its system to help and enhance cooperatives, and a discussion with the International’s CEO regarding the future of Mondragon’s international operations. For this post, I will just focus on the management training concepts.

First, though, Otalora is housed in a midevel fortified home (a sort of small two story castle) from the middle ages. It is an incredibly beautiful building situated in rolling hills.

We met with Julio Cantón, head of the Management Training and Development Center (Otalora) for Mondragon. He has been involved with the cooperative movement for more than 50 years. Working mainly in the FAGOR group, in Human Resources, he has been in charge of management training since 2000. The following are my notes through a translated presentation.

He began his discussion by defining the two management teams in every worker cooperatives (and every cooperative for that matter): The Governing Council (Board of Directors) and the Professional Management Team. Both, he noted, need training but each has a different function.

The cooperative is an unfinished project. It was created in the late 1990’s as the Mondragon faced the realities of competition after Franco and Spain’s entry into the Common Market. MCC encompasses all of the different cooperatives and aligns them into sectors. This was done in a democratic way—the cooperative leaders had to “seduce” all the different cooperatives. In the end, all of the general assemblies of the cooperatives had to vote to join the MCC. It is this nature of the cooperatives, the constant dialect, that will keep this project, MCC, as an ongoing project and the leaders will have to constantly pursue, persuade and seduce the participants in the cooperatives.

Cooperative Manager need to be a different type of manager. Otalora undertook the attempt to determine a Mondragon vision of a cooperative manager. By this, they created a “Profile of a Cooperative Manager. The design process involved two levels. First, a working group was created of Otalora staff and cooperative directors. They proposed a profile. Second, the design was submitted for peer review to all of MCC’s directors (general managers). This provided important feedback and the profile was adjusted until consensus was reached.
I liked some of the ideas presented in the profile and that the MCC discussed this concept of what qualities make up a model manager. Especially, I enjoyed the discussion over encouraging dissenting opinions as a quality of leadership. Not simply allowing people to voice their minds, but actively placing critics onto key teams and committees. Winning over critics is a leadership quality and, I imagine, helps unify the cooperative when the final decision is reached.

On the other hand, this presentation didn’t really seem to present any real cooperative difference. It could have easily been a consultant lecturing from the dogma of any business school. How do Mondragon’s Basic Principles play into the role of a manager? How does the Identity Statement adjust the actions and attitudes of the manager?

Further, on the issue of technical knowledge, I was shocked that the MCC training program saw no need to create a cooperative response to management technique. How can they really believe that the method of managing corporations is separate from the ideology of the profit motive? Isn’t the whole concept of “human resources” itself a dehumanizing phrase that makes workers merely another “asset” to be manipulated and used up for the purpose of increasing shareholder value? Doesn’t the cooperative world have a better way of marketing its goods and services that doesn’t exploit people’s desires and fears?

Powered by WordPress