The Workers' Paradise

February 23, 2010

Capital? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Capital

Filed under: Movement,The Cleveland Model — Tags: , , — Fred Schepartz @ 12:17 pm

Publisher’s Note: this is the second of hopefully several articles about the Cleveland Model Fred Schpartz. Fred publishes Mobius: A Journal of Social Change publisher is a member of Union Cab of Madison Co-operative and authored Vampire Cabbie.

Labor, properly organized, accompanied by sufficient community support equals capital. That is the lesson of the Cleveland Model.

Cleveland, like many Rust Belt cities, is an economic disaster area. Its population has dropped to less than half of what it was in 1950. Glenville, the Cleveland neighborhood where worker-owned Evergreen Cooperative Laundry is based, has a median annual income of roughly $18,000. Yet, in the depths of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, something amazing has happened.

Last year, Evergreen Cooperatives was born. Spearheaded by the private, non-profit Cleveland Foundation, grants and loans were secured allowing for the creation of the Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund with the purpose of creating worker-owned cooperatives, starting in the Glenville neighborhood, thus taking advantage of the presence of a university, a hospital and a large medical clinic in the neighborhood and the subsequent demand for a variety of services that previously had been provided by non-local businesses.

Last year, Evergreen Cooperative Laundry and Ohio Cooperative Solar were born. Aside from being worker cooperatives, both businesses are significantly green. Green City Growers, an urban hydroponics greenhouse and Neighborhood Voice, a community newspaper will open their doors later this year.

Taking a cue from Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque region of Spain, each Evergreen cooperative is obligated to pay 10 percent of pre-tax profits into a cooperative development fund.

The Cleveland Model is a significant development given the devastation wrought by capital abandonment, not just in Cleveland, but all throughout the Rust Belt. Capital abandoned the inner city in favor of the suburbs. Capital abandoned the north in favor of the Right To Work south and west. And when the imposition of neo liberalism in developing nations allowed capital to sidestep local labor and environmental laws and regulations, capital abandoned the United States.

During the current recession, we’ve seen a different variety of capital abandonment. Fearful of financial instability, capital hoards its resources. The financial sector won’t loan money to businesses. The Obama Administration is desperate to launch a new green economy, but capital is unwilling to risk their resources on a new, unproven economic sector.

This points out a significant advantage of the sustainability model versus the profit model. The reluctance of capital to venture into untested waters is understandable, given the financial risk. Obviously, a cooperative wants to turn a profit, but the cooperative is not out to maximize profits. Its board of directors does not demand tribute. There is no CEO demanding an eight or nine figure salary. In addition, risk is spread among more people in a cooperative, so cooperatives are willing to go where capital fears to tread.

Obviously, it takes money to start a worker-owned cooperative business. In the case of the Cleveland Model, this was accomplished through community support, with funding coming from area foundations, locally owned banks and municipal government, along with some federal grants.

When capital abandons a place, the solution is that labor can become capital, if properly organized and with sufficient community support. And given that capital has abandoned a great deal of this country, the Cleveland Model is a solution for Anywhere, USA. We as a nation need not be held hostage by capital.

Workers need to march back to the shuttered factories where they used to work and decide they will resume building goods in those darkened plants. And that effort needs to be supported by the community and by local, state and federal government. The Obama Administration must lead the way by allocating economic stimulus money for the formation of worker-owned cooperatives. Imagine the impact of one billion dollars provided as seed money for worker cooperatives. That’s a little more than one tenth of one percent of the total amount of money allocated for the stimulus. This would be money well spent. Not only would it get people back to work relatively quickly, but it would provide a conduit for long-term economic growth.

Lest I paint too rosy a picture, I should mention that I have heard a critique of the Cleveland Model that it is top down and thus paternalistic. I believe that criticism is fair. I have not visited any of the Evergreen Cooperatives, so I cannot say this with utmost certainty, but it appears that the management and leadership structure is superimposed upon these cooperatives rather than grown organically from the membership. My sense is that the Cleveland Foundation et al probably believes professional leadership is necessary, at least in the beginning, for these cooperatives to survive, that it was absolutely necessary for hired-gun technocrats to be brought in to run things.

While The Nation absolutely gushed about the effort it took to organize these cooperatives and how green these businesses are, there was not a word about what it’s actually like to work in any of these places.

Are these workplaces democratic? Is it a humane work environment? Are workers paid a living wage?

A worker’s cooperative that does not have these things is not much of a cooperative. At Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, there is the hope that workers can accumulate upwards of $65,000 in retained equity within 10 years. This is an admirable goal, but is it realistic or is it pie in the sky? And to achieve that goal, are worker’s paid a substandard wage? I don’t know.

For the Cleveland Model to succeed in a meaningful way, each worker’s cooperative must have self-rule and self-determination. It is imperative that management provides training opportunities so the workers can learn how to run their own business because when it’s all said and done, it’s their business, and no one will know how to run it better than them.

I do sincerely hope a form of the Cleveland Model can be implemented on a national scale. Capital has abdicated its responsibility to the citizens of this country. The Cleveland Model teaches us that together, we can live without capital by essentially generating it ourselves.

A tsunami of new cooperatives could create thousands upon thousands of new jobs and could get America back in the business of building good that the rest of the world wants to buy.

But to make this a truly worthwhile endeavor, the cooperative movement has to be proactive in its efforts to train and organize those who might form these future cooperatives, so these future cooperative members can be best equipped to organize themselves.

February 22, 2010

#24 Concern for Community

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 10:06 am

Concern for Community is the last of the principles listed in the Identity Statement. It is the expression of the value of solidarity and social responsibility. It creates one of the multiple bottom lines for co-operatives. It is not enough for a co-operative to be a profitable business. If it fails to be a leader for a more just, verdant and peaceful world*, then it has failed as a co-operative and might as well just be a group of greedy stockholders. Too often worker co-operators become insular and prone to naval gazing. Our structure is set up that way. We are predetermined (if we don’t act or create other structures) to focus on internal operations to the exclusion of the outside world. If we don’t engage this principle, we can fall into a pit of arrogance.

Because I worked for a taxi co-operative, I see this particular principle as all encompassing. Concern for community, to me, means: yielding to pedestrians, not tailgating, not speeding through residential neighborhoods, helping people with their bags, helping the elderly and people with disabilities manage steps and slippery walks.

It doesn’t have to mean political action in the partisan arena. Indeed, I think that most co-operatives should generally avoid taking a partisan side until a political party based on the Cooperative Ideal comes into existence. It does mean caring about the community that we serve—not because they are potential customers, but because our co-operatives are part of the community and should be community leaders.

The ICA makes the short definition: “Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.”

Mondragon, parses “Concern for Community” into two separate principles that unpack the term a bit:

Universality

“The Mondragon Cooperative Experience , as an expression of its universality, proclaims its solidarity with all those working for economic justice in the sphere of the “Social Economy”, championing the objectives of Peace, Justice and Development, which are essential features of International Cooperation.”

Social Transformation

“The Mondragon Cooperative Experience manifests its desire for social transformation based on solidarity with that of other peoples, through its activity in the Basque country in a process of expansion which will contribute to economic and social reconstruction and the creation of a Basque society which is more free, just, solidary.”

The term, Concern for Community, is a huge concept. It is sort of a giant stew of issues. It might be about being good neighbors, good drivers, and good stewards of the land. It might mean participating in social development projects such as affordable housing, micro-lending, The Basque see promotion of the Basque language as part of this principle. Providing health insurance in an industry that normally doesn’t provide could be another example. Ensuring a living wage for workers in a consumer co-operative (or encouraging unionization of a co-operative’s work force) might be another expression.

For the worker co-operatives, it should mean excelling in customer service, being good stewards of the land that we control, creating systems to help our membership develop and succeed as human beings. We need to accept our roles as leaders in our community. We should conduct ourselves in a way that the general public (the community) will appreciate. We should set the standard of how a business treats the community as a whole if for no other reason than it is our community. It is where we earn our living, but it is likely also where we live our lives. Even in communities that have priced working people out of the central area (like San Francisco), it is still the co-operatives’ community.

Working for a better community means working for security for our members, their families, and their friends as well as our customers, their families and their friends and all of the other stakeholders that depend on us (our vendors, their families and friends) . It would be interesting to create a stakeholder map that listed everyone connected to our businesses and their connections (sort of like LinkedIn) to see the effect that our businesses have of the community. We are the George Bailey’s of the business world after all. As workers, we touch so many lives and, because we owners and control our destiny, have the opportunity to change people in a way that other businesses simply don’t.

It is really a small world out there spinning around a small sun in a enormous universe. All that we really have are each other. The co-operative community recognizes that and part of our job as co-op practitioners is to make that principle come alive through our co-operatives.

*I know that I am stealing from the NPR statement for some foundation, but it is such a great line!

Next Week: A summary of the Identity Statement including an examination of the writing of Dr. MacPherson as well as the comments on the 10th anniversary by Johnston Birchall.

February 18, 2010

The Cleveland Model–Take One

Filed under: Movement,The Cleveland Model — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 7:00 am

Recently, The Nation sent out a broadcast with an article about the emerging worker cooperatives of Cleveland asking those of us in the bog-o-sphere to comment. As someone who has been an active member of a worker co-operative for over 20 years and involvement in the national and international movement for the last 4 years, I definitely have some ideas.

The folks are really doing this right. I spoke with one of the organizers of Evergreen Laundry a few years ago. They lined up the customers as part of the planning stage. The idea wasn’t to struggle as so many worker co-ops do in the beginning, but to start-up with a strong source of work (this was touch and go, but it appears that Case Western and other institutions will be sending their laundry to Evergreen). Second, the Mondragon style commitment to return 10% of surplus (the article calls it ‘pre-tax profits’) to a development fund. Third, I like the commitment expected from the workers that may require a long-term buy-in—I think that low-cost buy-ins have a tendency to devalue the membership or ownership aspect of the experience.

I’m a bit stunned at the amount of capital amassed. One of the well identified stumbling blocks for worker co-operative development in the United States has been the lack of access to capital. I realize that there are a number of groups, involved, I would like to know where  the $5 million came from and what strings are attached to it. I’m not casting aspertions, but I just have to assume that these organizations that ponied up the start-up cash expect to getting something out of the project and won’t want it to fail. A look at their website suggests that all three of the start-up co-operatives have the same group of customers (Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve, City of Cleveland, and Housing Network). This project is a great example of what can happen when different organizations working around economic justice, worker rights and sustainable communities break down the “silos”. I do hope that other communities learn from the Cleveland model especially Milwaukee and Madison (sadly, Madison’s current Economic Director doesn’t really seem to know much about that subject other than the standard refrain that government should get out of the way).

This does turn the traditional model on its head in that this was a top-down organizing effort. This likely helped with fund-raising as established rain-makers were able to tap into professional relationships where a gaggle of workers would likely be turned away with a shrug. I’m not so sure how I feel about that. I’m happy to see the effort up and running, but I wonder how much of the paternalism associated with a  top-down organizing effort will interfere with the transition to a true worker democracy in which the workers may make decisions that the founders fundamentally disagree with. I can see a dynamic where there could be a difficult (even fatal) transition in generational succession. This may be exacerbated by the management being chosen from a management class that may not really have anything in common with the workers. Will future managers be developed within the organization or sought within the existing worker co-operative movement?

Another issue with the top-down model involves labor relations during the start-up phase. Who will decide who gets off of probation and becomes a member before there are members? Will there be an appeal process? How will disputes get resolved without ownership or a labor union? They are creating good paying jobs (although the article didn’t really mention expected pay and benefits) in a very depressed area. I imagine a lot of people are looking forward to the work and see the ownership part as an abstraction. Working is a worker co-operative is not for everybody (at least not without a lot of therapy and training). We don’t refer to the Yellow Family at Union Cab for nothing, the relationships are very personal and very difficult to walk away from when times get tough. The intimacy of the work relationships due to ownership can make the disputes powerful and difficult to manage. Not everybody is ready for that or can deal with it.

This brings up my other concern: how will these co-operatives interact with the co-operative movement? A similar co-operative is Co-operative Home Care Associates of New York that generally doesn’t interact with the larger movement despite being the largest worker co-operative in the country. Will the Cleveland Model co-operatives join the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives? Will they subscribe to the CICOPA World Declaration of Worker Co-operatives? Will they subscribe to the Statement on Co-operative Identity?

I raise the last question because it seems that there is a trend to see co-operatives and worker co-operatives as an extension of the not-for-profit model of community development. We’re not. The growth of social workers creating co-ops is, I think, a danger for US co-operatives as they become more identified with a movement that tends to enable the worst aspects of capitalism. The rise of Policy Governance Model among consumer co-operatives is, in my opinion, a travesty that has allowed small cabals of managers and directors to create fiefdoms and barriers to expressing the user principles as well as the values of co-operatives. I would hate to see that cancer emerge into the worker co-operative world.

Finally, I have a small bone to pick. The authors make this comment, “These are not your traditional small-scale co-ops.” <COUGH, COUGH!> Union Cab with 230 members, Rainbow Grocery approaching 250 members, CHCA with over 1,000 members have been “traditional “ co-operatives for over 25 years. Granted the common stereotype is 5-10 member organizations, but the Cheeseboard and Arizmendi co-operatives all have over 30 members. The Cleveland co-ops are only looking at around 50 jobs per co-operative (according to The Economist). What makes these co-ops Mondragonish is the funding and mutual support mechanism, not the size of the organization.

I think that the Cleveland Model is an exciting development in the worker co-operative movement. However, it is one aspect. Our movement has been active for decades if not centuries. I am glad to see journals such as The Nation finally discover the co-operative model, although they probably could have covered the Democracy at Work Conferences (2006 in New York City and 2008 in New Orleans, and the 2010 conference in San Francisco). Perhaps they could ask their colleagues over as Dollars and Sense for tips on covering worker co-operatives.

To me, the best thing about the Cleveland Model is that it promises to open up some serious capital for worker co-operative development. It will still need to be determined how the strings attached to that capital work. It will also need to be seen if a top-down organizing model works to create a truly democratic work place and governance model or becomes another version of ESOP. Finally, after all the news of 2009, it is nice to be in a movement that isn’t entirely invisible any more.

We can, however, definitely agree that CLEVELAND ROCKS!

February 16, 2010

Coming Soon-A Group Discussion (I hope)

Filed under: Movement,Site News,The Cleveland Model — Tags: — John McNamara @ 7:10 am

The March 1 edition of The Nation has an article on the growing industrial worker cooperative movement. I use the word “industrial” to differentiate it from the worker cooperative movement in the United States that has flourished over the last 30-40 years. This group is big (even by Rainbow and Union Cab standards). It is very traditional blue collar (laundry, construction, etc).

I have asked the folks who are on this site as authors to post their reactions to the article. This is because The Nation wants this to go viral. They sent out the following email:

“Afternoon,

I’m Ben Wyskida, Publicity Director for The Nation magazine. We have a major feature this week from Gar Alperovitz & Ted Howard (of the Democracy Collaborative and Community-wealth.org) and Thad Williamson  that they wanted me to share with you. We hope you’ll read the article, blog, tweet, email, post and pass on to your colleagues. Hardcopies are available as well. Here is the piece:

The Cleveland Model
GAR ALPEROVITZ, TED HOWARD &THAD WILLIAMSON : Thoroughly green and worker-owned, co-ops are a vibrant response to economic distress.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/alperowitz_et_al

The article features the work of five different organizations in Cleveland, and explains how their approach could be a potent model of sustainable economic development for cities across the country.

Thanks so much,

Ben

–
Ben Wyskida
Publicity Director
The Nation ”

If you aren’t on the list, we still want to hear your views. Send me a note on your ideas and I will publish them. Email me: johnmac<at>tds.net.

I hope to see the posts up soon. So far, only one of the other writers for this blog have committed (and even then only mildly so), I but I promise to have something up by the end of the week and I hope that the them will carry on through the end of February.

February 15, 2010

#23 Co-operation Among Co-operatives

Filed under: Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 8:57 am

I usually make the snarky comment that the only time that I hear about this principle is when some slacker co-op wants a discount or donation. . . that is horribly unfair, of course. Also, we should discount each other—we need to do what we can to keep the money inside the co-operative community!

This principle, however, brings the value of solidarity, caring for others and social responsibility into the principles. Co-operation provides the basic form of human survival. The Folks at Sesame Street get it right: Co-operation Makes It Happen!

The Statement on Co-operative Identity uses the following definition: “Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.”

This, of course, means that those of us in the North America should all join either the National Co-operative Business Association or the Canadian Co-operative Association as well as our sector. In the US, that would be the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives and in Canada, the Canadian Federation of Worker Co-operatives. We shouldn’t just join, but should actively engage these organizations. We also should put aside some biases.

One of the moments in my life that proved (to me) that I would never be a tele-marketer was when I fulfilled my duty as a USFWC director by calling members and checking in. This one high-tech co-operative contact told me that he wasn’t going to renew because he attended the New York Conference and thought that the workshop that he attended was allowed to be taken over by Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) ideologues. It didn’t matter to him that this was a third party organization or that other attendees should have the right to express their views. He wanted a workshop that talked about business, not this political crap.

Well, I couldn’t help but notice that he seemed to be speaking for the entire co-op even though I doubt that he actually presented a fair view of the federation to the other six members. I wonder if he even mentioned it. My interaction made me think that it was a “co-op” but that this guy was really the boss—which then makes sense that he didn’t want to hear from the IWW lest his fellow members catch on that co-ops should be a democracy.

In any event, the point of building the movement isn’t to bring immediate gain to one’s co-operative. It is to build the co-operative image as a valuable community asset. Arizmendiaretta noted, “It is a mistake to each a co-operative a closed world. We must consider inter-cooperative solidarity the only resource to be used to forestall other problems of growth and maturity: we must consider a growing development adapted to circumstance.” The reality is that we (worker co-operatives) have a lot to teach each other. Mondragon speaks of the concept of Inter-cooperation. They define this principle as a specific application of solidarity and a requirement for business efficiency. While it is great to be able to do business with each other, it is even better to support each other by trading concepts, trainings, and skills.

When I was younger (pushing 30) and president of Union Cab. I remember proclaiming that worker co-operatives in the US co-operative world and a blue-collar cab co-op was unique among worker co-ops. The upshot is that there was nothing to learn from the other co-ops. We were alone in the world and had to find our won way. I was young (and arrogant)—and there weren’t a lot of other worker co-ops known to us in the early 90’s. I hear our young leaders say that today and make a mental note to take them aside and have a talk. I also hear people lament our membership dues to NCBA and USFWC and The Co-operative Network wondering what our co-op gets out of our membership.

Well, we (individually and through our co-operatives) help build the movement. We help government officials understand what a co-operative is. We help each other learn how to co-operate better. We help other co-op sectors understand the importance of treating their workers well. We get back what we put into these organizations, but even if all we do is write a check, we help build the movement. This doesn’t have to mean just giving each other discounts. We should share our policy manuals, help each other find new ways of working together. In the US, we need to find a way to pool resources to provide some of the things that our individual co-ops cannot achieve on their own: affordable health care, pensions, retirement plans, etc.

I think that this principle needs to be expanded. Yes, the apex organizations can do a lot. However, we need to create local networks, marketing campaigns and even our own banking system. Even the casual observer of Mondragon recognizes that the Caja Popular had a significant (if not vital) role to play in the rise of Mondragon. The Cooperative Warehouse Society and the Co-operative Bank clearly played the same role in making The Co-operative* the largest consumer co-operative society in the world.

We all need each other to make the co-operative model succeed. I don’t want to limit this to just the co-ops either but to the other legs of the stool as it were. We need the academics who study and propose new concepts in management, who help educate as developers, or teachers, or professors. We need the politicians who help protect the co-operative model.

Co-operation among co-operatives starts with the individual but quickly moves on to the entire world. Our co-operatives need to educate the membership and help them to realize that they, but joining their co-operative, have joined an international movement of 800 million people. We aren’t in this alone, but together. If we can’t see the commonality between our worker co-operatives and the consumer co-ops or large Agriculture co-ops such as Land o’ Lakes, then we aren’t really seeing the co-op movement in its entirety.

When we take the time to understand the dynamics of a water co-operative in rural India, we make our individual co-operatives stronger. When we support the efforts of defending the co-operative movement in Bolivia and Argentina, we make the co-ops in the United States and Canada stronger. This isn’t a zero sum game where we take resources from our co-ops to give to other co-ops. Social capital, like fiscal capital, gains velocity as it travels. Both forms of capital, in the famous quip, are like manure, they only create something worthwhile if they get spread around.

*Normally, I hate it when organizations use a definite article in front of their name. I refuse to call Ohio State University, “The Ohio State University” and not because I’m a Badger through and through. However, if any organization deserves to use the definite article it is The Co-operative.

Next Week: #24 Concern for Community

February 13, 2010

Another View of the Undercover Boss

Filed under: Society — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 10:37 am

The really great people at Labor Notes also noticed this show. Definitely read their take on it.

The Labor Notes essay reminded me of one of the real problems of the show (and the co-operative difference).

The narrative follows a fairly old plot device: The King is bored and feeling insecure about his subject’s love for him so he dons the clothes of a peasant and heads out to the realm to see how life really is. Along the way, he finds corrupt Sheriffs acting in his name, a damsel in distress, and other failures that he never dreamed existed because his royal court kept him sheltered from it all. In the end, he returns to the castle, uplifts the noble peasants who were kind to him, throws down the corrupt, marries the damsel and nestles back into the world of comfort, wealth and power.

That is essentially the plot of this show. Like the ancient narrative that it follows, it ignores reality serving instead to instruct the peasants that it is “hard work” being the decider!

Shakespeare had the most honest version of it in Henry V. Never one to trust the mob, Shakespeare allows his disguised Henry to defend the power of the King and to exonerate the King from the blood of war:

“So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master’s command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant’s
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services. Besides, there is no
king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to
the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all
unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them
the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder;
some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of
perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that
have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with
pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have
defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God: war is his beadle, war is vengeance;
so that here men are punished for before-breach of
the king’s laws in now the king’s quarrel: where
they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish: then if
they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of
their damnation than he was before guilty of those
impieties for the which they are now visited. Every
subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in
the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every
mote out of his conscience: and dying so, death
is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained:
and in him that escapes, it were not sin to think
that, making God so free an offer, He let him
outlive that day to see His greatness and to teach
others how they should prepare.”

So it is with the CEO of modern commerce. They are the Dukes and Kings of our era and act much in the same manner. There decisions are just by the fact that they made them. Any consequences on the people cannot be laid at their feet. People are responsible for themselves, after all. Larry O’Donnell professes safety, but cuts hours without any realization that speed-ups affect safety. His company, according to Labor Notes, is a “safe” workplace where “Waste Management workers are three times more likely to get killed on the job than firemen, and 60 percent more likely than police officers.”

Of course, taking a week off work to see how the plebes survive isn’t the same as being one. At least the kings in the old stories actually risked their lives, but the CEO can jump safely back to the corporate office at any time. Undercover Boss is the modern grim fairy tale of corporatized America. Worker Co-operation is the reality anti-dote.

February 9, 2010

Undercover Boss–A lesson in the Co-operative Difference

Filed under: Human Relations,Society — John McNamara @ 7:04 pm

After the Superbowl, CBS presented its new non-scripted show, Undercover Boss. The premise is timely. CEO’s of major corporations lose the suits and go to work on the front-line without revealing their true identity. Can these bosses work under the corporate policy that they wrote?

The first episode featured President of Waste Management, Larry O’Donnell. Larry gets to see first hand the effects of cost cutting measures designed to improve profitability and reward shareholders. Probably the most incredible moment occurs when Larry realizes that his policies essentially force staff to urinate in coffee cans that they carry with them as opposed to wasting precious minutes using a lavatory. In the end, Larry promises sweeping changes to honor the men and women who remove quite a bit of material and human waste from our communities.

I thought how this show would be even better if they could juxtapose the profiled business with a worker co-operative. Or instead of revealing Larry’s epiphany, they could have created a panel of front-line workers from Waste Management to watch the show and develop a list of ways for the company to change.

Other little things that I noticed was the fear on the face of the middle-managers when they had to respond to Larry’s request. I wonder if that fear even registers with him? Maybe he doesn’t even see it because it is the normal reaction. I certainly know what would happen in a worker co-op if the GM or anyone presented demands disguised as  requests. The person would probably unpack the request–how are we going to pay for it? is this really going to accomplish what the GM wants? does this fit in with the goals and values of the organization?

I don’t know if the schtick of the show will keep my interest but it certainly was enjoyable to see the structural failure of profit-based policy get its comeuppance.

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

February 1, 2010

#21-Autonomy and Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Week: #5 Education, Training and Information

Powered by WordPress