The Workers' Paradise

September 28, 2009

#5 Equality

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 12:34 pm

“Cooperatives,” states the background paper on the Cooperative Identity, ” are based on equality. The basic unit of the Co-operative is the member, who is either a human being or a grouping of human beings. This basis in human personality is one of the main features distinguishing a cooperative from firms controlled in the interests of capital. Members have rights or participation:

  • a right to be informed
  • a right to be heard
  • a right to be involved in a way that is as equal as possible

(sometimes a difficult challenge in large co-operatives or in federations of co-operatives). In fact, concern for achieving and maintaining equality is a continuing challenge for all co-operatives. In the final analysis, it is as much a way of trying to conduct business as it is a simple statement of rules.”

In a worker coop, the concept of equality gets wrapped up into the personalities of the people involved. Favoritism and cults or personality can destroy worker co-operatives precisely because it contradicts the concept of “equality”.  At the same, time equality can be used as a cudgel to beat down any attempt to recognize service or to build the business.

The value of equality in a worker co-operative should inform the leaders’ decisions on how to act. They need to  (whether as a individual or as a group) consider how their treatment of their co-workers and development of policy works to create a level field within the cooperative. It is also the individual members responsibility to strive towards a workplace dedicated to seeing the individual member free from the distractions of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and all of the other groupings of what we now refer to as “protected characteristics”. Worker co-operators must go beyond this, though, and also filter out friendships, animosities and loyalties.

As mentioned in the background paper, co-operatives are made up of humans not dollars. As a result, we have different challenges. We work together in our co-operative and form relationships. Sometimes, these relationships are fantastic (I know people that have met and married in my coop). Sometimes, they are not (I know people who have gotten restraining orders against other members). In either extreme case or the large middle where most of us exist, we need to balance our emotions about the individual relationship with the overall health of the co-operative and the value of equality.

Allowing friendships to influence decisions made (especially if one is a manager in a hierarchical structure) is detrimental to the cooperative, even if the decision is ultimately a good one. To this end, I think that the value of “equality” in a worker co-operative means that we must strive to flatten hierarchical structures whenever possible.

Because pay scales tend to be flat, the issue of equality tends to show up in the form or discipline and accountability.  We also need to develop strong measures of accountability. We need to develop support mechanisms to resolve emotional conflicts and force “old boy style networks” (please insert any preferred term for “boy”) into the open. Having a supportive network of friends is important to anyone’s sense of community, but when it is used to advance a personal agenda or development, then it can be a negative force within a cooperative.

The value of equality plays a strong role in worker co-operatives. A lot of us come to the co-operative movement precisely because we were treated unfairly by the traditional corporate/business model. This makes our expectations high and, in contrast, the anger greater if we feel that we have been wronged and that the value of equality has been ignored or manipulated.

As worker co-operators we must struggle to create a sense of fairness. Not just in hiring practices and the legal concept of equality. Nor just in right of participation as outlined in the background paper. We must create a sense of equality that ensures accountability of the membership to each other in terms of the values of self-help and self-responsibility. These values of the identity statement do not stand alone, but act in unison to build a strong community.

Next Week: Equity: the other side of Equality.

September 20, 2009

#4 The Value of Self-Responsibility

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 1:35 pm

The second value of the co-operative identity also refers to the individual. I think that this is important. As the old saying goes, “you can’t do for others until you do it for yourself.” Therefore, it is with cooperation. We really cannot co-operate unless we come to that idea through our personal development and take personal responsibility for it.

In the background paper, the concept of self-responsibility is laid out as follows:

“”Self-responsibility” means that members assume responsibility for their co-operative—for its establishment and its continuing vitality. Further, members have the responsibility of promoting their co-operative among their families, friends and acquaintances. Finally, “self-responsibility” means that members are responsible for ensuring that their co-operative remains independent from other public or private organizations.”

The first idea to pop into my head after reading this statement is that this is the one point in the co-operative identity mentions the importance of the sustainability of the organization. Often, it is common to hear managers (and members) argue for fiscally stable decisions even at the expense of social issues due to the need to keep the cooperative a float. This can degenerate into a division between the needs of the business outweighing the needs of the members; however, sustainability or vitality is a very important part of the cooperative. On the other hand, if the co-operative is only about profit margin, then, as Sidney Prohubischy* noted, “why work so hard to be a capitalist?”

In our workers cooperatives, self-responsibility has many dimensions. Often, we do not have the need for our cooperative’s products or services. Sometimes, we might need them, but cannot afford them and neither can our friends. However, we all need to take responsibility for promoting the cooperative. Despite how the organization is set up, it is every member’s role. Of course, the issue of slackers always comes up. Every business has workers who shirk their duties. In the capitalist world, this is part of the labor-management antagonism. In a worker co-operative it is a failure of this value and not just counter-productive but an act of hostility against the co-operative. At the same time, worker co-operatives also need to be humane workplaces that understand the human experience, not Tayloristic dystopias.

In the larger sense, self-responsibility is not only taking on the responsibility of ownership, but also expecting other members to also act as owners. It is about accountability, not in the sense of being called before a tribunal, but in a very personal sense or putting the co-operative’s interest above one’s own interest. This is not something that we are trained to do in this country. To accomplish this value, worker co-operative need to build infrastructure within their organization. We need to understand the worker come to the co-operative from the larger society. They need to be educated about self-responsibility. At the New Orleans conference, a co-operator referred to this group as “recovering wage slaves” and we need to instill into them a sense of co-operation. We cannot simply assume that people “get it” and that is part of self-responsibility: to look after the members of our co-operative and help them understand the Identity. This can have many forms but should include some method of peer support to allow workers to engage each other and themselves in being responsible to the co-operative and to each other.

Next week: Equality

*I never met Sidney (he was too ill to participate in the MMCCU’s orientation when I attended and has since passed). He, however, a lion of the Maritime Co-operative. I do not have a link to his writings on the identity statement, but he was one of the main participants in the lengthy discussions leading to its creation.

September 14, 2009

#3 The Value of Self-Help

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — John McNamara @ 10:34 am

The value of “self-help” appears at the head of the list of values for cooperatives. Sometimes, it is referred to as “mutual self-help” but that sounds a bit kinky to me, so I just keep it at “self-help”.

When I first learned of the identity statement, this one struck me as a bit odd. It doesn’t sound very cooperative—the definition of “self-help” in Merriam-Webster’s 11th Edition defines it as “the action or process of bettering oneself or overcoming one’s problems without the aid of others; esp. the coping with one’s personal or emotional problems without professional help.”

Of course, at Union Cab, we have an old expression to encourage drivers to work the airport or bus stations: “Help the Co-op and help yourself” which means, of course, that by seeking out flag fares the drivers can increase both the revenue of the cooperative and themselves.

In the background paper to the Identity Statement describes the term “self-help” as follows:

“Self-help is based on the belief that all people can and should strive to control their own destiny. Co-operators believe, though, that full individual development can take place only in association with others. As an individual, one is limited in what one can try to do, what one can achieve. Through joint action and mutual responsibility, one can achieve more, especially by increasing one’s collective influence in the market and before governments. Individuals also develop through co-operative action by the skills they learn in facilitating the growth of their co-operative; by the understanding they gain of their fellow-members; by the insights they gain about the wider society of which they are a part. In those respects, co-operatives are institutions that foster the continuing education and development of all those involved with them.”

Self-help, as a value, goes to the heart of co-operation. It explains how co-operation works as a market economy. The people who follow Adam Smith or Milton Friedman argue that self-interest rules everyone’s choices—capitalism works (provided that all markets are free and open) through the balancing of every individual’s selfish instincts. This isolationist and selfish view of economics ignores friendships, families, communities and the humanitarian instincts of people. It has also had devastatingly destructive effects on friendships, families and communities which is why the Co-operative Movement started in the first place. For more on the free-marketeers, read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

However, people do co-operate out of a certain sense of self-interest. Clearly, as a species, we have the physical ability (and psychological ability to some extent) to live alone, but the survival of the species demands co-operation whether the society is a hunter-gatherer or an agricultural, industrial or service based. We all get something out of co-operation.

In terms of worker co-operatives, we collectively take on the duties and responsibilities of The Boss. This is important because many of us have no interest in either being the boss or having one. The worker co-operator is a weird mix of socialist and libertarian instincts. We create our communities that reflect this mix and because of that, we expect our members to step up to the challenges. This requires an ethos of “self-help”. Worker coops can help train and develop members; however, the member must have the basic desire to improve themselves for their own benefit (and the benefit of the cooperative).

The “help the co-op” slogan sums this concept up very nicely which points out how powerful the identity statement truly is. The statement did not create new concepts requiring significant changes in co-operative culture. It took existing values and ethics from the 150-year-old movement and expressed them. We have always been about self-help. Worker co-operators, by organizing to create their own jobs, take this value to heart and give the value of “self-help” its ultimate expression in a co-operative context.

Next Week: Self-Responsibility

September 7, 2009

#2 Identity: Definition of a Co-operative

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 10:03 pm

The definition of a cooperative is “A co-operative is 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.”

Of course, this is the “social” definition determined by the International Co-operative Alliance. There are also legal definitions that vary depending upon where you live. To me, the point is that this definition exists regardless of what the law says a co-operative is (or isn’t).

It seems fairly straight forward. Much of the language mirrors that expressed in the values and principles that follow the definition. To a large extent, the key purpose of the definition is to provide a brand, if you will, for co-operatives. This had to be done in 1995 because the people emerging from the Eastern command economies experienced co-operatives that were mandatory, corrupt, and anything but focused on the needs of the members.

I think that even for those of us in the West with mature co-operatives have a lot to learn from this definition. For worker cooperatives, the concept of a common economic, social and cultural plays a significant role in the strength of the social cohesion of our communities. Worker Coops need to hire workers who can perform the work of the cooperative and also blend in with the culture of the cooperative. Of course, our hiring has to be done in accordance with the law and nondiscriminatory.

The members of co-operatives also self-select to a certain respect. As I learned in the 90′s, even the job of driving has its cultural nuances. Cab drivers and School Bus drivers have very different cultures and the people who gravitate to these jobs have different aspirations. But our worker co-operatives also need to meet demand. This may cause some conflict with the definition as we may need people who are willing to work regardless of how well they fit into the social and cultural aspects of the co-operative. Likewise, the economic needs can vary dramatically based on a worker’s life habits, the presence of dependents, and health care needs (health is particularly an issue these days and the importance to a worker depends on a lot of issues).

That conflict can create serious problems within the co-operative, but the solution lies in education and organizational process. Some co-operatives work hard to develop anti-oppression mechanisms to overcome cultural differences and even create the sense of diversity as part of the culture of the organization. The solution also comes from the democratically controlled nature of the organization. What democracy means varies greatly. Some worker co-ops seek to eliminate hierarchy and create strong participatory democratic mechanisms while others see democracy solely as an action of voting.

The term jointly-owned is also a neat addition. We all know that co-ops are “one member, one vote”, but the concept of jointly-owned takes it a step further. It should remind us that these organizations are “ours” only in the collective sense. I only own my co-operative in a collective sense with my fellow members. Regardless of how important a member might feel to their co-op (or even how the other member feels), they are still one of the whole. This should remind us to work to avoid the evils of the political and corporate and even non-profit world: personality cults and win-lose coalitions. It speaks to the sense of achieving consensus over simple electoral supremacy. It is, at its heart, an associations of “persons” of equals.

This is why the definition is important to us. It keeps us focused on the True North. It reminds us of the key aspects of the cooperative difference: voluntary membership, democratic control, benefits to the members.

Powered by WordPress