The Workers' Paradise

October 26, 2006

More on Mifflin St. . .

Filed under: Movement — John McNamara @ 7:02 pm

The citizenry have started to weigh in, or at least those who post to bulletin boards. The Daily Page has one thread in its Town Vibe section and one in the local politics section.

Cynicism aside, was it time for Mifflin St to go the “great free range compost pile in the sky”?

Probably the worst part of becoming part of the local legend is the public post-mortem upon one’s demise. The Capital Times, which purports to be Dane Country’s “progressive” newspaper (whatever that means) felt the need to profile a random shopper of the cooperative for its story. The shopper is a vagabond who suffered a brain injury and travels the nation living in various parks. Nice image–just a bunch of hippies and crazy homeless people. . . .

I should put in a disclaimer here that I know some of the folks managing right now and certainly don’t want any of my comments from the sideline to in any way suggest that things could have been different. I have a great amount of respect for the folks that I know there. They started out in a tough spot and as I mentioned in some other topics, the presence of luck is an important factor to success.

Part of me wants to join the people and comment on how Mifflin could have made it, but I don’t know how valuable that sort of hand-wringing really is. It may well be that the time had come to move on. To many, Willy St. Co-op lost its soul as a cooperative when it allowed meat to be sold there. It lost it again when it moved across the street and tripled its membership. The International Cooperative Alliance defines cooperatives an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. For whatever it is worth, if the membership of Mifflin St decide to hang it up, no one can say that they ever strayed from their original purpose. That is worth something.

The real lesson to be taken away from this, to me at least, is the importance of planning, reporting, and communicating. Looking to the future to see the obstacles, looking at the past to see progress and areas to improve, and having an open dialogue that is based on true equality to ensure that all the information is presented are the keys to succeeding. Being on the outside, I can only guess on how well Mifflin accomplished these three processes, but I do know that all organizations have a tendency to group think. The smaller and more intimate the group, the more likely that one individual, however well meaning, can end up becoming the decision maker. People get comfortable with each other and assume that the question asked is the question answered. Although I can become quite vexed at the curmudgeons, I am always glad to have them speak up just to keep me on my toes.

Hopefully, some good may come out of the Mifflin experience–at this point it certainly seems that a grocery store at that location is unlikely; hopefully, the members of the cooperative who shop at Willy St, will try to make Mifflin their co-op of choice for the last month or so to ease the landing.

An interesting question in the light of Good Vibrations, Burley Bikes, and Mifflin comes to mind: When does a co-op get lost? All three recently failed with different outcomes: esop, single owner, closing. All three events didn’t just happen but were part of a long process begining years prior with unseen endings. How do current co-opers create a crystal ball for their co-op?

*I use the term failure here in a non-judgemental way. It is just to recognize that all three will cease being cooperatives.

October 24, 2006

Mifflin St. Co-op to Close?

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 7:00 pm

One of the student paper’s on the UW-Madison campus, The Daily Cardinal, ran a story about the potential closing of Madison’ s oldest grocery cooperative, Mifflin St. Co-op. The Capital Times also ran a story in which the end seems more certain.

I know that there will be as many opinions of why Mifflin failed as there are co-op members in Madison!  Suffice to say, they haven’t closed yet and may still find a way to overcome the huge obstacles that appear before them.

Others can give a more detailed history than I, but here is a general synopsis:

Founded at the hieght of the anti-war movement in 1968, Mifflin Street set up shop at the corner of Bassett Street and Mifflin Street–the heart of the student housing sector of the city. In addition to selling natural and organic foods long before it became trendy, the co-op also became a main meeting place of the area activists. In 1969, they sponsored a street dance that was attacked by the police. After that, the coop became most known for its annual Mifflin St. Block Party (with special brownies made for the occassion). In the early 1970′s, N. Bassett Street came within one vote of being renamed “Ho Chi Minh Trail” by the City Council and the corner is still known as Ho Chi Corners by some of the city’s cab drivers.

Mifflin’s success helped other co-ops get off the ground inlcuding: Williamson Street, WORT-FM, Union Cab a small group of housing coops for students, etc. It wasn’t so much that Mifflin started these other coops as they paved the way and made others believe that co-ops could work.

Of course, times do change. The City of Madison changed the rules on block party insurance which caused the Co-op to quit sponsoring them. The grocery industry changed dramatically in the late 1980′s moving towards bigger square footage spaces. Stores with Mifflin’s footprint either became convenience stores, coffee shops or other retailers.  At the same time, the students changed. The students who most identified with Mifflin grew up and moved out. The ones coming in were wealthier, trendier and more mainstream. In many ways, the Mifflin Street Co-op became the allegorical “Puff, the Magic Dragon“.

The 1990′s added another twist as major retailers started branding organics and natural foods. With the immense growth of Williamson Street Grocery cooperative on the east side and the arrival of Whole Foods Grocery on the west side, Mifflin was caught between two larger retailers offering the same and more. Added to this, many “members” of Mifflin Street chose to shop at Williamson. They kept their membership for nostaligic reasons, but didn’t financially support the cooperative.

For the last ten years, it seems to me (an outsider), that Mifflin has always been in a financial crisis. They aren’t closed yet, but they do need to take some serious steps. Maybe they should change their focus from groceries to something more fitting for their shop and what the market will support today.

Mifflin will likely join Burely as a cautionary tale of ignoring the changes in the market. While not capitalist, co-operatives are, after all, market driven economies. They need to pay attention to the changes and adapt to them. Ultimately, people choose do business with vendors and stores that supply what they want. Ideology only gets so many people in the door and only for so long. As witnessed by the many Mifflin members who show their card at Willy St., ideology is a poor form of customer loyalty program.

October 22, 2006

Should Co-ops Create Multi-nationals?

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 6:57 pm

Recently, the membership of Burley Bicycles Cooperative sold their jobs to a private investor ending 28 years of worker democracy for a paltry sum of about $20,000 per member. Burley became immensely popular with Baby Boomers for the creation of their blue and yellow bike trailers perfect for carrying toddlers and/or groceries. In addition to the trailers, Burley also made recumbents, tandems, and high-end road bikes.  They produced everything in the United States which made them one of the last (if not the last) US manufacterer to keep production at home. As Trek and others sought low-wage factories over seas (most notably Asia), Burley stayed the course. During the last three years, they lost money including a whopping $1.5 million last year s reported by the Cooperative Business Journal.

Was it soley the lower production costs of the other companies that did Burley in? Obviously, they were spending money on production that could have been spent on marketing and advertising to increase their share and keep them competitive with other manufacterers. I imagine that the thought of establishing overseas production was anathema to the worker-owners of Burley. Is the lesson to be learned that worker coops can’t compete in a global workplace?

What if Burley had chosen an overseas option? Can worker cooperatives create Multi-National Enterprises without exploiting their fellow workers in the process?

What if the workers of Burley had developed, organized and trained a worker cooperative production facility in Malaysia? They would have been able to partner with them and reduced their production costs which could then be put into marketing and design. The Eugene facility would have been headquarters as well as the “burley design coop” and handled planning and marketing. The asian factory would have been the production co-op. Workers could have been paid a living wage for their area, but split the surplus in a more equitable manner.
It might have meant some big changes for the cooperative, but the net result would have been an expansion of the cooperative movement not a shrinkage. By setting up a cooperative which would still pay a living wage for the region, Burley would still be at a comparative disadvantage over Trek; howev er, they could off-set that by marketing a “fair trade” bicycle and using the cooperative advantage to move product.

Of course, I wasn’t there and hindsight is, well, you know. I am sure that many reasons existed for their demise other that the global bicycle market. When does a coop get lost?

After the conference in NY, I realized that a lot of cooperatives are struggling with growth issues right now. They need to start thinking strategically not operationally. Putting aside slogans and preconceived ideas about business is the first step. Co-opers need to review the history of their movement. The success of Rochdale and the Cooperative Wholesale Society came about in part because they saw the value of shipping in cheap goods from the US and Canada to compete with the retail societies. They grasped the idea of vertical integration and made it theirs.

We need to see the fair trade movement as our movement and its success can be modeled in other industries. I don’t know if my scenario would have kept Burley cooperative or if it would even have worked, but I do know that there are few market sectors where growth can be stifled or the status quo maintainted. The non-coop business world saw the importance of vertical organization created by Rochdale. They have started to see the value of values. We need to start looking at their practices and determining how we can make them work under the cooperative system within our ethics and principles.

We aren’t going to do this alone. We need to start talking to one another. We need to ignore the industry label on our company and focus on the cooperative label. We have a huge amount of unused talent.

October 17, 2006

Sometimes It Doesn’t Always Work

Filed under: Management — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 6:49 pm

During 2006, The US Worker Cooperative movement suffered a couple of losses! Interestingly, both were subjects of a 2003 documentary on US Worker Co-ops called “Beyond the Bottom Line: American Worker Cooperatives” by Headlamp Pictures. It is always disappointing to see co-ops fail, however, such failures are rarities. Paul Hazen of the National Cooperative Business Association noted in his introductory comments to the USFWC that the average capitalist business last about 5 years while the average cooperative business lasts 60 years. Each co-op has its own unique structure and culture. In the worker co-operative world, each co-op tends to operate in a different industry as well. Co-ops, despite their difference in control, must still exist within the industry and cannot get too far away from it. Instead of seeing these two changes as failures, each must be seen in its own situation. Melissa Hoover, staff member of the USFWC detailed the demise of Good Vibrations in the Fall, 2006 issue of NO BOSS . She reports that Good Vibrations released an official statement stating “to stay profitable in an increasingly crowded niche market, the company need to reach more customers.” One need in a competitive field (and for any business) is access to capital. Unfortunately, even pro-cooperative financial institutions were hesitant to risk capital on a sex toys, books and DVDs. As Good Vibrations moves forward to the world of ESOP, they vow to keep many of the values of the cooperative world which they had long ago dubbed “Good Vibration Values.” It appears that a major change in the culture of Good Vibrations was a change in management. It seems clear that the membership came to see little if any connection between cooperative values and those espoused by their company. Management became staffed with people who did not have the same history or knowledge of the cooperative movement. In a co-op with a strong hierarchy, the cooperative process became the scapegoat for slow progress. To be fair, the move to switch corporate structure was met with no opposition. In the end, the workers saw the coop as the problem and voted to end. Burley had a different situation. They ended 28 years of worker ownership. They have lost money the last three years with a 1.5 million dollar loss in 2005. While most famous for the blue and yellow bike trailers, Burley also had a line of recumbent, tandems and road bikes. Despite the mass popularity of the trailers, the bikes were for the higher end of the scale. In the documentary, they argue for keep production in house instead of following every other bike manufacterer by going overseas. They cited the need to keep their jobs in house and the quality that only their personal attention can create. True enough, but the forces of globalization were against them. I can only speculate for the cause of their demise. They never promoted themselves as a cooperative (at least as far as I can tell). They didn’t produce a mass appeal (affordable) road bike or seek the popular mountain bike or hybrid markets. They might have, but my guess is that they did not market their bikes through cooperative bike stores. I have know idea how good their racing bikes were, but I know that I never heard about them during the Tour de France or among the local bikies. It seems to me that to market a racing bike, one needs a racing team to win with them (i.e. Trek). Maybe the cheap labor and materials of the Asian Tigers would have brought them down anyway, but they clearly sought the wrong market. In the end, the economy of their industry caught up with them. 39 of the 97 members lost their jobs. The new owner promises to keep production in Eugene, Oregon, but it will likely mean wage and benefit cuts. On the plus side, after the books are balanced, the former members will divide the roughly $2 million left in retained dividends and property sales. My co-op went through a similar struggle in 2000. Union was a payroll away from failing for several months. A member of Union Cab’s Board, at this low point in the co-op’s history, commented that we can always overcome our external struggles, but it is our ability to handle our internal struggles that is the true risk. When members become disillusioned and quit caring about the cooperative, or when they fail to make the decisions necessary to survive in their industry, they create more peril for their cooperative than either the lack of capital or competition could ever do.

Powered by WordPress