The Workers' Paradise

November 30, 2009

#13 Voluntary and Open Membership

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 12:06 pm

The principle of voluntary and open membership has always held problems for co-operatives. It is a very important part of co-operatives that keep them community based and relevant; however, it can also challenge founding members when late-comers express their rights (and their generational view). It can also challenge governments that want to have an alternative to capitalism, but only in a way that they can control.

Let’s start with the Identity Statement’s definition:

“Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.”

In this statement is the echo of the definition of a co-operative. More importantly, the language reaches back to the founding members of Rochdale who were universal suffragists and included women in the rights of membership. Notably, too, the membership is about the ability of the member to use the coop’s services and accept the responsibilities of membership. Nothing else really matters–even the political affiliation of the individual must be excluded.

This statement, however, should not be considered static. In a society which remains dominated by specific cultures, gender and class, co-operative must do more than simply ensure the policies and membership are neutral. Co-operatives should strive for communities that look like the larger community around them. They should develop program to encourage leadership development throughout the membership with special encouragement to those groups that normally don’t get promoted in society as a whole.

The Background Paper makes the following point: “Co-operatives should also reach out, either through their own activities, or through assisting in the development of new co-operatives, to all evident population groups and minorities able to benefit from co-operative enterprise. The basis for this involvement should not be charity; it should be the result of a careful, practical and innovative assessment of the possibilities for co-operative action. “

I don’t think that this statement should be seen as a call for “affirmative action” as much as it is for understanding the historical methods of exclusion that have been internalized by populations in the majority and the minority. This principle does call for us to understand the concept of oppression and take action to develop anti-oppression tactics in our co-operatives.

The Worker Co-operative Dilemma

For worker co-operatives, this principle might seem problematic. We limit the number of members for reasons of maintaining a living wage. Even though this is called one of the “user principles” by the US Department of Agriculture, it is only happenstance that the worker-members use the co-op’s services. In some cases, the workers might not be able to afford the co-op’s services.

The Background Paper refers to one point of the worker co-op problem in a discussion: “The phrase ‘open to all persons able to use their services. . . ‘ acknowledges that co-operatives are organised for specific purposes; in many instances, they can only effectively serve a certain kind of member or a limited number of members. For example fishing co-operatives essentially serve fishing people; housing co-operatives can house only so many members; worker co-operatives can employ only  a limited number of members. In other words, there may be understandable and acceptable reasons why a co-operative may impose a limit on membership.”

For worker co-operatives, members must also be able to do the tasks assigned. Cab drivers must be able to operate a vehicle in city traffic safely. Engineers need the education and training to design the machines. Grocery store workers need the skills of retail. Bike shop workers need to know how to repair bicycles.

Another dilemma involves the responsibilities of membership. Often, our co-ops grow faster than we can find bonafide co-op types to work for us. We then hire and membership people who really just want a good job. This seems a large contradiction of the principle. What if our members aren’t willing to accept the responsibilities of membership? The other method would be to allow workers to not join the co-operative and simply serve as hired guns until such a time as they chose to embrace the co-operative model.

The Closed Shop

I support a closed shop. I believe that all workers in a worker co-operative must be members of the worker co-operative. I liken it to the concept of a closed shop within the labor union movement. The workers all share in the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement, so they should all support the labor union that speaks for them in bargaining. If they have problems with the leadership of the labor union, they can engage the membership and run for stewards, officers, and even the bargaining team. However, they need to support the infrastructure from which they benefit. Likewise, members of a worker co-operative enjoy the benefits of co-operation and should bear the responsibility of membership to support that beneficial working environment.

I think that the CICOPA Declaration on Worker Co-operatives presents a workable compromise, but 50% is too low of a threshold. It allows worker co-operatives to create plantations and two-tier worker classes. I won’t even refer to co-ops under 50% ownership as a worker co-op. At that point, they are employer co-operatives and the workers should unionize to protect their interests. There are some that don’t agree. Often the argument runs along the lines of “workers not being intellectually ready for co-operation” or that the culture doesn’t support co-operation. These all tend to be the same arguments that supported anti-democratic governments throughout history. They were wrong then and they remain wrong today. Worker Co-operatives cannot, however benevolent, be economic imperialists.

The voluntary nature of this principle is the basis for the argument of an open shop. People shouldn’t be forced to join the co-operative if it is voluntary. One could point to this cogent argument of the Background Paper: “People cannot be made to co-operators. They must be given the opportunity to study and undestand the values for which co-operatives stand; they must be allowed to participate freely.” This sounds like a great argument for an open shop, but it isn’t. In fact, allowing this argument in a worker co-operative creates a method to use the ideal of “voluntary and open membership” to restrict workers’ rights. If we simply say “well, these workers don’t want to join!”, then we must also ask
“Why don’t they want to join?” What is creating the barrier? Is is a gender gap, a racial divide, a class division? Are the workers only there for the money and nothing else? Do we really want hired guns representing our co-operative?

Of course, the authors of the Background Paper focus on consumer, producer and housing co-operatives. I think that worker co-operatives have a unique situation. While their discussion concerns the role of governments in pushing people into joining co-operatives, it applies here as well: “In those instances co-operatives have a special responsibility to ensure that all members are fully invovled so that they will come to support their co-operatives on a voluntary basis.”

Worker Co-operatives have a special duty under the first principle. They must activate the other principles to an even larger degree that non-worker co-operatives. They must educate the workforce on the benefits of co-operation. They must work to develop their members as human beings. They must actively encourage participation among the workforce. Worker Co-operatives must be about worker liberation and human dignity.

Coming Up Next: Democratic Member Control

Sources:

MacPherson, Ian            (1996) Co-operative Principles, ICA Review 1995 (pdf)

For more extensive reading on the Statement on the Cooperative Identity, please visit the International Cooperative Information Centre through the UW Center for Cooperative’s website.

November 23, 2009

#12 The Principles of Co-operation

Filed under: Identity Statement Series,Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 12:44 pm

The Co-operative Difference, which creates the Co-operative Advantage, results from the creation of the Co-operative Principles.

The Principles have been with the Co-operative Movement since the success of Rochdale Society of Pioneers. Most of us know the story, after several attempts to create an ethical market enterprise; the organizers of Rochdale tried a different tactic. They created a set of rules that would govern the co-operative. Among these included the prohibition of credit to consumers and other tactics used by markets to control consumers and workers. Many of these principles and practices (such as food at meetings) have passed through the generations to our co-operatives today.

The Background Paper on the Identity Statement makes this point about the principles:

“Many people understand principles as iron-clad commandments that must be followed literally. In one sense, that is true in that principles should provide standards of measurement. In another sense, they should restrict, even prohibit, certain actions while encouraging others.”

“Principles, however, are more than commandments; they are also guidelines for judging behaviour and for making decisions. It is not enough to ask if a co-operative is following the letter of the principles, it is important to know if it is following their spirit, if the vision each principle affords, individually and collectively, is ingrained in the daily activities of the co-operative. From that perspective, principles area not a stale list to be reviewed periodically and ritualistically; they are empowering frameworks—energizing agents—though which co-operatives can grasp the future.”

In many of our co-ops, we ask if our choice of action is financially feasible. How many of our choices are socially feasible when compared to the principles? Everyday managers need to make key strategic decisions without the luxury of a consultant. The principles should guide their decisions along with the values and ethics of the Identity Statement. The teachings through the Masters of Management: Co-operative and Credit Union program focus on the merging established management practices with co-operative principles. When these two diverge, the goal of the MMCCU candidate will be to find a way to amend the practices to fit the principles. This is the key difference between programs such as MMCCU and other educational programs that utilize co-operatives as part of a large toolbox to reform capitalism (non-profits, ESOPs etc).

They also make us strong. They cause us to spend money on things that our competitors don’t. I think, however, that expense on the principles creates a competitive advantage not a disadvantage. Sometimes, when times get tough, co-operatives have to make decisions that may cause the principles to get “set aside”. In other co-ops, the lack of a clear co-operative identity may cause the principles to be co-opted as something else. In either case, the path to demutualization may be built by small decisions to ignore the principles.

The history of the principles is interesting. The Identity Statement, like the Rochdale Principles, is a living document. Since 1844, co-operative leaders from around the world have reviewed and amended them. The changes reflect the generation of co-operators that existed at the time as well as honoring the history of the co-operators that have gone before.

In 1844, Rochdale had a lenghty list of “laws” detailing every aspect of the co-operative. By 1860, the list of “Rochdale Practices”* had been whittled down to nine many of which sound quite familiar:

  • That capital should be of their own providing and bear a fixed rate of interest.
  • That only the purest provisions procurable should be supplied to members.
  • That full weight and measure should be given.
  • That market prices should be charged and no credit given nor asked.
  • That profits should be divided pro rata upon the amount of purchases made by each member.
  • That the principle of “one member one vote” should obtain in government and the equality of the sexes in membership.
  • That the management should be in the hands of the officers and committee elected periodically.
  • That a definite percentage of profits should be allotted to education.
  • That frequent statements and balance sheets should be presented to members.

As they have evolved, they have become integral to each other. In 1937, the seven principles were officially created as the Rochdale Principles:

  1. Open membership
  2. Democratic control
  3. Distribution of the surplus to the members in proportion to their transactions.
  4. Limited interest on capital
  5. Political and religious neutrality
  6. Cash trading
  7. Promotion of education

The seven principles that most of us know came into being in the late 1960′s and reflected the new ethos of that era. They continued to evolve to the Identity Statement of 1995. Today, there is a strong effort to add an 8th Principle called “Ecological Perspective”.

As the Background Paper continues:

“The principles that form the heart of co-operatives are not independent of each other. They are subtly linked; when one is ignored, all are diminished. Co-operatives should not be judged exclusively on the basis of any one principle; rather, they should be evaluated on how well they adhere to the principles as an entirety.”

Is it possible to have democratic participation without education, information? The first three principles “voluntary and open membership”,  “democratic member control” and “member economic participation” are collectively known as The User Principles by the US Department of Agriculture. They detail the internal dynamics of the co-op while the last four deal with the operation and external relationships

Over the next few weeks, I will consider the seven principles of the Identity Statement as well as three principles of Mondragon that I think should be part of the identity statement (or at least part of our identity as worker co-operatives).  Mondragon’s principles focus on the elevation of the worker over capital and social cohesion of the co-operative.

Here is a great video on the principles of co-operatives:

Next Week: 1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership

Source and Reading Recomendation:

*Fairbarin, Brett  The Meaning of Rochdale: The Rochdale Pioneers and the Co-operative Principles, Centre for the Study of Co-operation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

November 16, 2009

#11 Caring for Others

Filed under: Human Relations,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 12:55 pm

This is the last of the ethical values and the last part of the identity statement that was added to the set of familiar “Rochdale Principles” in 1995. As such, it wraps up the concepts that have gone before. It acts as a bookend with the first value of self-help.

We can’t help others if we can’t help ourselves. We can’t be only about ourselves. In thinking about this entry, I couldn’t help but remember the scene from Hair in which a women confronts the father of her child who is otherwise a hip cat trying to change the world:

Cooperatives are a social movement, an economic movement, and an educational movement. As a result, caring for others takes us beyond the social responsibility so easily co-opted by caring capitalist and benevolent dictators. We have to be about caring for each other. This value of caring likely attracted the likes of Don José Arizmendiaretta and Moses Coady and other Christians in Italy and throughout the co-operative world. This sense of community service and support finds itself in the religious movements of  the Abrahamic religions. For more on this topic, check out Andrew McLeod’s book, Holy Coooperation!

For those of us in the secular world, caring for others is just as essential a value as it is for the religiously inclined. It is a human value, after all. The human species can survive on its own, but it flourishes as a community. As such, the need to cooperate is necessary to our survival.

Tom Webb presented the value of Caring for others in this manner:

“Caring implies not just charity but active concern about how to act and create structures so as to enable others to realize their potential and live full and satisfying lives.”

Worker Co-ops have a special mission under this value. We need to create structures in our co-operatives that develop us as human beings and even world citizens. We need to help our members break away from the bad habits of other workplaces that only value the labor of the worker. The “move them up or move them out” aspect of Human Resources (whose very name suggests that the human is simply another asset to be managed) must be replaced with Human Development.

Many workers (at least in the larger worker coops) come to co-operatives without a lot of knowledge about co-ops. They may be seeking a good job in the industry more than a commitment to co-op development. I’ve heard one co-op organizer describe them as post-traumatic stress syndrome victims. A lot of workers have learned the wrong lessons from other workplaces and they need to see that the workplace can be healthy for human  beings. Caring for others means that our policies and work places place the worker’s well being (physical and emotional) at the center of their purpose. This means creating strong resolution process that go beyond simply ending conflict, but transforming the individuals to make them stronger people.

Loyal and happy workers lead to loyal and happy customers. By creating a supportive and nurturing community inside our cooperatives, we create a strong and vibrant business model. Caring for others creates the basis for the co-operative difference in a worker co-operative. Creating strong relationships and human development among our work force allows us to develop life-long relationships with our customers.

Of course, not everyone is able or willing to participate in this sort of environment. It may be that the wrong lessons of how humans treat each other have become so ingrained that the individual can’t overcome them and prosper in a co-operative community. It may be that some people see the co-operative community as “easy to get over” and manipulate others for their personal ends. The value of caring should not imply that co-operators are emotional doormats. The value of caring for others should empower ourselves to step up and confront members who don’t act co-operatively. Mostly, these issues will be resolved through education and development programs. In some cases, however, the only way for the co-op to exhibit “caring for others” will result in asking unco-operative members to leave the community. We can’t pretend that co-operatives can fix everyone—especially in the United States where the co-operative option is such a minor part of the overall economy and workplaces. In this extreme case, caring for others means protecting for the larger community. Of course, even in this sad situation, the people involved should be treated with dignity and respect.

Caring for Others gives guidance to co-operatives on how to create thriving, human based businesses. This ethical value moves co-operatives beyond the concept of social responsibility. By expressing caring for others, co-operatives create a healthy workplace that helps people realize their full potential as human beings.

Next: We start on the familiar principles and will make a few detours along the way to learn about the Mondragon principles as well.

November 11, 2009

No More Social Clubs–Thoughts on the Steelworkers

Filed under: Movement,Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 8:59 pm

It’s been a couple of weeks now since the groundbreaking announcement of potential collaboration between Mondragon and the US Steelworker’s Union. The press conference occurred just as, Bernard, an author on this blog and the host of Jasecon posted some thoughts about the role of Mondragon in US Development on this site. The announcement set a lot of us into action. Andrew McLeod posted some follow-up work while he was in the Land of Steel. I waited to write about this because I just wasn’t sure what to make of the whole thing.

During the press conference my thoughts drifted back to my first experience with unionized industrial workers. I spent a lot of my high school time in a group called the Toledo Sub-Mariners. It was a group of scuba divers dominated by autoworkers and other factory folks. It was an odd spot for the son of a doctor and nurse from the suburb of Ottawa Hills. Yet there I was. They told me stories of factory life. How scabs tended to be “accident prone”, the importance of solidarity and labor unions. One told me of the time that the managers at Davis-Besse, a nuclear power plant, found out that he dove and asked him to do some underwater electrical repair. He asked what was in the water. They said it was safe, but wouldn’t tell him. He refused the job and if he hadn’t had a union, he would have lost his job. The early ’80′s were a rough time in Toledo (as they are today). Don showed up at a meeting and announced his retirement. He was 57 and had 30 years in with American Motors (now Chrysler). He showed up to work and was given a broom. With 30 years seniority, he was back to doing the first job he was hired to do. Such is the life of the industrial worker in the United States.

My next experience was just a few years later. I had left Toledo and was a reporter for The Daily Cardinal--the older student newspaper of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I was also a steward for the Memorial Union Labor Organization–an independent industrial union representing student workers at the UW’s student union. I reported and participated. I have never had as an electrifying moment as when we all stood and sang the anthem of Labor: Solidarity Forever! It was a great conference. Nurses from Buffalo, NY spoke of their successful union drive. There were workshops on organizing, grievances, and collective bargaining. The Teamsters for a Democratic Union were present.I forget the name of the keynote speaker, but during his talk, he spoke to those of us from the academic world. He said that the workers in the factories need to make common cause with the students. He then said that the students need to realize that there role is to support the unions from outside (put pressure on the politicians and the owners). “We don’t need you in the factories like what happened in the sixties.” I wasn’t quite sure of the history, but I got the message. They were perfectly capable of organizing themselves and wanted our support, but really didn’t want us telling them how to do it.

Ah, back to the present day. The press conference seemed quite devoid of “press” except for the people from Dollars and Sense and bloggers such as Andrew and myself. The questioning came from the federations, academics, and NCBA. It kind of felt like an alien spacecraft had landed and we curious humans (who knew a lot about aliens) were trying to figure out what was going on and how we might get to be a part of it.

I was happy when Leo Gerrard, the President of the International Steelworkers’ Union stated that he wasn’t interested in creating another “social club.” It was clear from his presentation that the Steelworkers were in this to create a future for themselves, their members, and their country. I know that Mondragon doesn’t mess around. They wouldn’t be here if they weren’t serious about investment. Gerrard made the statement that caused my little flashback. One of the participants asked how they (we) could help. Gerrard simply said that the USW and Mondragon would need several months to talk to each other and then would call a meeting for “allies and friends.” I don’t know if anyone else got the message, but it was “Thanks for the offer, but we know what we are doing and when we want your help, we’ll give you a call.”

So that is where I sit. I think that the Mondragon Co-op knows how to start worker co-operatives. They create about 30 a year and have been doing this for over 50 years. The Steelworkers know how to organize workers–they organized in 1937 and fought the “goons and ginks, the company finks and the deputy sheriffs who made the raids” (as the great Woody Gutherie sang). I don’t know if they need a bunch of middle-class over-educated kids from the ‘burbs telling them how to run their show.

I would love nothing more than to be a part of this historic movement, but I figure that I already am a part of it. The critical mass that makes worker ownership a viable option today (not the ESOP scam) has happened because of the work that we have all put into our co-ops to make them successful. While I would love to get a call from President Gerrard, there are plenty of things for worker co-operators to be doing. We need to build our Peer Technical Assistance Network. We need to continue to beef up our infrastructure. We need to continue to raise our profile. We need to build the US Federation.

The Steelworkers and “the Mondragon”* may be the sexy new kids on the block, but after 20 years in the worker co-operative movement, I’ve come to realize that it worth staying focused on the projects before me instead of veering off to the newest thing. Mondragon and the Steelworkers have both been around, organizing industrial workers, since before I was born. They will likely be doing it long after I am gone.

I welcome Mondragon to the US. I welcome the Steelworkers to the worker co-operative movement. It is a great moment to see the worker co-operative movement and the industrial labor movement join forces. I hope that they know about this great property in Janesville, WI that they can probably get for a song! I hope that they also know that an accessible, alternative fuel hybrid taxicab could be a great investment. But I’ll keep the voice in my head from that Labor Notes Conference. I’ll focus on supporting them and do my best to avoid instructing them.

November 9, 2009

#10 Social Responsibility

Filed under: Governance,Human Relations,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 8:00 am

In my office, I have the Identity Statement posted where I can easily refer to it (along with Union Cab’s vision, mission and core values). I have a version that is based on the background paper, but includes other commentary.

This version describes the ethical value of Social Responsibility as follows:

“Social Responsibility—the interdependence of people and recognition of their dignity leads to a realization that individual and group action has profound effects on individuals, groups and their relationships.”

Clearly, this ethic ties into the values of solidarity, mutual self-help, and self-responsibility. It is, however, an ethic that has been co-opted by the corporations under the ideal of “corporate social responsibility” or CSR.

Of course, a lot of corporations do engage in a more humanized version of capitalism and that comes from a true belief that capitalism and an ethos of humanitarianism may be compatible. This group still pales in comparison to the clout and numbers of the neo-liberals and neo-cons; in fact, they are teaching those groups how to put a smiley face on their corporate actions. In some cases, they are also teaching the leaders of co-operatives without decent co-operative management theory the wrong ideas about management. In the corporate world, CSR is often about charity and marketing. Support a local little league team, clean up a highway, and sponsor the Komen Race for the Cure will offset the exploitation of developing countries environment and swear shop labor. Getting accreditation though SA8000 puts lipstick on the corporation that might also lobby the host governments to codify exploitation through ridiculous minimum wage laws ($2/day).

In the co-op world, social responsibility shouldn’t be about marketing. It should be about a genuine concern for the community and building a better world. This means to work to avoid or minimize the effects of exploitation. That includes exploitation of the earth and exploitation of labor. In the consumer co-ops, working with local producers and vendors, concentrating on fair trade (and fair production as fair trade is being co-opted). It means reducing waste, encouraging environmentalism, supporting worker rights.

In worker co-ops, social responsibility means the above as well, but it also means working to overcome the tendency to focus on the internal process of the co-operative. Worker co-operatives need to reach out to the stakeholders of their organization who aren’t members: consumers, suppliers, and the community as a whole. But how does the Worker Co-op Social Responsibility differentiate itself from CSR?

If WCSR means sponsoring benefits, cleaning up highways, and supporting little league teams, then worker co-ops aren’t really doing much different from their corporate counter-parts and failing to create the co-operative difference. Without a co-operative difference, the co-operative advantage fails.

How should we engage the public in our co-ops? For the retail outlets, consumer education offers a lot of value, but we need to go further. We need to be willing to be a voice in our community (especially around our specialty). We need to accept a role as community leaders because we are just that. By choosing the model of co-operator for our business (a model that says that workers don’t need bosses, but can manage their own affairs), we have chosen a model that promotes the worker as a community leader. Transportation co-ops should be active in promoting sustainable transportation systems even if it means promoting options other than what the co-op offers. Grocery Co-ops in promoting food security and sustainable living. Sex worker co-ops in promoting healthy choices affirming our humanity without the dogma of morality. All of us should be supporting the dignity of workers and the rights of workers to choose their representation (even if that means actively supporting and encouraging the unionization of the consumer and producer co-ops).

For the most part, most of the worker co-operatives that I have come into contact with do a good job on social responsibility. Although I have met some who don’t really support worker rights (they tend to be co-ops in a high-tech field or who see themselves as “entrepreneurs” rather than identifying as workers. Of course, a key part of WCSR is joining your federation of worker co-operatives. There really isn’t a good excuse not to do so. We need to start measuring it, however. The corporate world is measuring their success through SA8000, the WorldBlu Democratic Workplace, and other means.

The Co-operative, in the UK, has an extensive system of measuring their values. I am part of a research group through St. Mary’s University that is creating a similar tool for worker co-operatives. We want to create an index for worker co-ops that will create a score for them along the lines of the Identity Statement.

Ultimately, social responsibility is about more that patting ourselves on the back, but in accepting our role as community leaders, creating the change in our communities needed to develop a more sustainable and just society.

Next Week: Caring for Others

November 2, 2009

#9 Openness

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 8:30 am

What does openness mean?

At one level, it is an ethic that relates directly to the first principle of co-operatives (voluntary and open membership).  At another, it suggests a way of being and communicating with each other. Perhaps deeper still, openness suggests transparency in all of our actions within the co-operative.

I think that all of these senses should be part of the co-operative meaning of openness. If members engage in hidden agendas they aren’t being very open. If members engage in hidden vested interests, they aren’t being very open. Finally, and this might be a very tender point, if people engage in hidden relationships (real or imagined), they aren’t being very open.

How far does this go? Is it an obligation of two workers who start a sexual relationship to make that open to their co-workers? Should that be anyone’s business? What about a less complicated friendship?

This isn’t just about individual rights to privacy. In a worker co-op, the relationships can get very complicated. If the friendship or relationship goes bad, it can create a social rift in the organization and reduce or even destroy the social cohesion necessary for an effective co-operative.

A lot of the conflicts around openness can be resolved through the creation of checks and balances on power, on limiting the ability of any one person to be the “decider” on another person’s advancement or discipline, and by creating a culture of equality and equity that would make hidden relationships meaningless. However, it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I raise this point mainly because of an interesting article in a local business journal, In Business. In an essay, (I forget the author’s name, but will update when I get the chance), an experienced HR consultant suggests that companies should avoid creating any more “protected classes.” Madison, he mentions, has 20 protected characteristics (the standard Federal and State protections against discrimination as well as those unique to Madison such as status as a student, gender identity, criminal record, etc). He suggested that businesses have enough “protected” employees and don’t need to create more through conflict avoidance and favoritism. Creating an open work place means, in part, creating a system in which “what you know” and “how you do it” outweigh “who you drink with.”

Of course, openness isn’t just about personal relationships. It is also about communication between the leaders and the rank-and-file. If the members don’t know a proposal is coming up for a decision until it is too late, that isn’t a very open process and hurts the democratic nature of the co-operative. If the rumor mill is the main source of communication in the co-operative, that isn’t a very open process either.

We get told that we live in an open society, but the level of state secrets is high. We have 24 hour news that doesn’t seem to tell us anything that is really going on. Conspiracy theories get held with the same regard as the rest of the news while the actual activities of corporate America get ignored or lost in the hubbub over ACORN, the latest star scandal, or the weather while the people who have actually engaged in crimes against the nation and corporations who use their money to write the laws get ignored.

We have a lot of culture to work against in creating truly open environments in our co-ops. Part of the debate over privacy is likely because we have so little of it in the world outside our co-ops. Too many people seem to want to use information about ourselves in order to manipulate or attack us. How do we create an ethos of openness inside the co-operative without destroying people’s right to privacy and protect their privacy from those outside the co-operative?

Each co-op will be different, but clearly focusing on the job performance and creating clear rules on behavior will provide a foundation. Flattening that hierarchy so that no one person gets to make decisions about another person should provide a lot. We need to create good communication outlets that provide a safe means for people to discuss issues facing the co-op and present ideas (even if they aren’t popular). Mostly, as members, as individuals, we need to live this value. We need to be willing to stand up in the break room and tell someone that they shouldn’t be gossiping. We need to be willing to tell our friends that they are wrong. We need to defend another member’s right to express their opinion even when disagreeing with it.

As much as I’ve tried no to make this about personal relationships, that tends to be where a lot of worker co-ops hit the skids (and that shouldn’t be surprising as these of people based organizations), but one co-op shows just how powerful and economical openness can be.

Just Coffee decided that they weren’t going to worry about certification through TransFair anymore. The Fairtrade Coffee Roaster is a worker cooperative in Madison, WI.  Here is what they have to say about financial openness:

“A fair economy should be based on total transparency. Way too often when activists and consumers try to find out how companies deal with suppliers and customers, they are hit with tired rhetoric about “trade secrecy” and “sensitive information”.

“We at JC feel like any information about our books and contracts should be out there for our customers and allies to see. That is why you can find our contracts online and why we will eventually have our annual financials available on our site. If you have questions that are not available through our site, please e-mail or call us and we’ll do our best to get you the information that you are seeking.”

They eventually want to create a system on their website that will allow consumers to enter the bar code from their bag of coffee and find out the entire history of those beans (who grew them, how much the seed cost, how much they sold for (and to who), the cost of roasting, shipping, etc). When we toured their last summer, they mentioned how some see their action as a competitive disadvantage, but they see it as an advantage. Let Maxwell House meet our contract, they challenged. The farmers will still win.

So there we have it. Openness needs to be a critical part of our co-operative structure. It is an ethical value that influences our social cohesion, our democracy, and even our financial relationships. Openness requires a lot of trust within the organization. That should make it a perfect fit for a business model based on mutual self-help, self-responsibility, equality, equity, democracy, solidarity.

Next Week: Caring for Others

Powered by WordPress