The Workers' Paradise

March 30, 2010

Shoving utopianism in the closet

Filed under: Movement,Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Bernard @ 12:39 pm

At the end of last October the United Steelworkers (USW) and the Mondragon Co-operative Corporation, located in the Basque area of Spain, announced an alliance to explore joint projects in the United States. The Mondragon co-operatives are a diverse, transnational corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues and employing over 100,000 people, most of them voting members of the enterprises. And while they have extensive operations in countries like China and Mexico, they own only one small company in the US – a branch of a Spanish company that they purchased some years back.

A collaboration between a large American labor union and a successful and innovative foreign enterprise should have been headline news, but not surprisingly, given the paucity of today’s journalism, it never made the pages of your local paper.

And since their joint statement there has been little public information available. At the time of the announcement the USW made clear that they had no immediate plans to venture into what for both parties was uncharted terrain, and so those who saw great promise in this development have been patiently waiting for some follow up.

A “follow up” of sorts occurred at the beginning of March, this year, when Rob Witherell of the USW spoke at the Western Massachusetts “Jobs with Justice Conference.” Mr. Witherell has been charged with leading the USW team in discussions with Mondragon.

Witherell’s presentation(1) situated the USW/Mondragon discussions within the context of the deplorable economic conditions the US faces and suggested that new thinking along the lines of workers actually managing their workplaces could reverse the trend of industrial decline. Sustainable manufacturing situated in new technologies and worker control, as Witherall outlined, meant that communities eviscerated by runaway corporations, could rebuild with a solid foundation.

Overall the speech presented a dynamic future based on principles of corporate governance and worker collaboration hardly imagined in the US except with a few worker co-operatives, like the ones highlighted in Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story.

However, one aspect of his talk seemed not only contradictory to the main thrust of his presentation, but also emblematic of a certain frame of mind that I believe works against our best intentions for change. Here are the two short paragraphs in question:

To start with, let’s always remember that these cooperatives were started and supported not out of some utopian ideal, but rather a very pragmatic means of helping people put a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food on their tables. The goal was, and remains, to create jobs that can support their families and their communities.

The success of the Mondragon cooperatives comes from putting people first. Prioritizing people before profits – imagine that. We have become so conditioned to think that companies must prioritize profits above all else, usually for the sake of some group of unnamed, unknown shareholders, that’s is hard for us to imagine any alternative.

The first paragraph above negates a “utopian ideal” that in the second paragraph is explicitly endorsed: “putting people first” before profits.

Further, Witherell suggests that we “keep in mind that [Mondragon] is no utopia.” I fully agree with this sentiment and in fact serendipitously wrote on this theme(2) hours before the USW/Mondragon announcement was released last October. But ideals and facts are two different things.

Without venturing deeply into Fr. Arizmendi’s biography, as the priest who in the 1950’s counseled the five engineers who founded the Mondragon co-operative, most of his contemporaries recognized his quiet charisma. And too, they all knew his library was filled with classic texts of socialism and anarchism along with Catholic social teachings. And I will venture, based on my long-abandoned study of Catholic social thought, that, as we see in Fr. Arizmendi’s Pensamientos, he went far beyond the corporatist teachings of Pope Leo XIII, the so-called “socialist” pope of the 19th Century. If he wasn’t utopian then I don’t walk on my feet.

But this isn’t the point. We are not debating what Fr. Arizmendi wrote or said 60 years ago. The point is that today the term “utopian” is a gratuitous slur meant to show – what? The levelheaded seriousness of the writer? Is “utopian” a codeword for nonsense?

In their book Social Economy(3) Eric Schragge and Jean-Marc Fontan write the following:

Throughout its long history there have always been two competing visions of the social economy. The first can be described as pragmatic/reformist. It regards the social economy as playing a role in the management of individual and group social welfare through initiatives which target and are limited to specific problems and groups, for example agricultural cooperatives or mutual societies. Those promoting these projects are not concerned with changing the social order, but with making changes that would ameliorate specific problems.

A second position links the social economy with fundamental change, or the building of a new society – utopian/social change. Propositions to this end go back as far as … the 18th Century. This voice which was a counter-cultural current was actively repressed or marginalized by the dominant class and supporters of their ideology because their vision and practice constituted an attack on the social order. This perspective can be situated in relations to the traditions of social change movements of the left.

I would argue that today both perspectives need to be incorporated in our work. The pragmatic/reformist is the defensive strategy to cope with a world we have not made, but need to keep at bay, while we build the new society we want to live in. To denigrate vision, utopian ideals, is to relegate the necessity to maintain and practice our ethical beliefs to our Mission Statements. It’s like church on Sundays – hollow principles polished for public display.

I can understand why labor leaders would wish to tame a flamboyant remonstrance of rhetorical excess, though I favor them myself. (I prefer Albert or Lucy Parsons at their most mild exclamations to anything that Samuel Gompers managed to sputter on his podium.) The question of raising hopes beyond delivery, as our current president has shown, cannot be dismissed as besides the point. But to assume that evocations of our suppressed desires amounts to populist pandering and political manipulation is to condemn us to the most petty concerns lacking all motivational insights. The human spirit is not equivalent to a calculator. History would be a pathetic soap opera if that were the case.
Bernard Marszalek
3.30.10
- – -
1.http://wmjwj.org/keynote-speech-rob-witherell
2.http://www.cooperativeconsult.com/blog/?p=129
3.Black Rose Books (Montréal, 2000)

March 29, 2010

Internal Functioning Rules of Worker Co-operatives

Filed under: Movement,World Declaration — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 2:27 pm

Worker co-operatives, by their nature, focus on the internal dynamics. While this may sometimes devolve into navel gazing that can be dangerous to their ability to compete, the internal functioning of a worker co-operative defines it from ESOPs, partnerships and other competitors.

It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that the CICOPA World Declaration on Worker Co-operatives devotes a significant part of itself to the internal functions of a worker co-operative. Upon reading them, I am reminded of the mandate from Sidney Prohibuschy (a Canadian Co-operator): Co-operative must not engage in exploitation.

Self-exploitation is the demon of worker co-operatives. Sometimes, we choose survival over purity; however, we often mistake exploitation as self-sacrifice. Paid hours and volunteer hours need to be defined carefully. It might be one thing to volunteer time at a membership meeting or a committee, but true labor for the operations should never be considered part of volunteerism.

The Declaration establishes eight clear rules for the internal functions of a worker co-operative:

  1. Compensation must be equitable with the aim of reducing the difference between the highest and lowest paid.
  2. Operations must contribute to the increase of capital and growth of funds. This is essentially stating that the co-operative must operate in a manner that is financially sustainable.
  3. The workplace must be humane, it must be ergonomically correct. It should enhance the ability of workers to have decent working conditions.
  4. In addition to equitable compensation, the social security of workers must be protected (this means a wide variety of things from health care to pensions, to time off).
  5. Democracy must be the key word and have a presence throughout the co-operative.
  6. Education, Training and Information will build the capacity of the membership to govern themselves and to find innovative solutions to collective problems.
  7. The worker co-operative must focus on the member and the member’s immediate family as well as the sustainable development of the community as a whole.
  8. Worker Co-operatives cannot become substitutes engaged to exploit other workers. They cannot be scabs to the labor movement. They must act in a way to bolster the labor movement, to be a wage and benefit leader in their industry. They should act in a way that forces their competitors to increase their wages and benefits, not as a seems to undercut other workers.

Of course, I paraphrased most of this. Please read the Declaration for yourself (and I hope that you already have and refer to it while reading this discussion.

For me, the most interesting parts of this section are points six through eight. However, the most interesting is the seventh rule. Often, in US worker cooperatives, there is a presumption that benefits should only focus on the individual, not the family. As someone who has described himself as a “non-breeder”,  I have certainly been an advocate of that position. Healthcare provides a great example of the dilemma. The cost for individual coverage is manageable, however the cost for partners and children quickly creates astronomical increases. The ability of a worker co-operative to provide decent healthcare can be undermined by also providing for family care. This creates a natural division between those that have family and those that don’t: the breeders vs. the non-breeders. Here is the non-breeder argument: Why should single members subsidize the cost of health care for those who chose to have children? People who chose to have kids should pay the extra costs related to having kids and not expect others to pay for their costs. For those with kids, the argument might be that worker security depends on a quality homelife. Healthcare is a human right. While the government may not acknowledge that, the worker cooperative should recognize that security of health is a worker issue. Workers cannot perform and give their all at work if they are worried about their family’s health. Cooperatives are a social economic engine and the family unit is a key part of society. Tomorrow’s members are, in many cases, the children of present day members. They deserve support as they will be supporting us when we are old and unable to work.

It is a difficult part of the equation, in the United States, because health care is so incredibly expensive. This rule, also touches on so many other areas. Co-operative need to consider means to support everyone that depends on them. Yes, people with children chose to have children, but children are also the future.

The eighth rule also points out the universality of worker co-operatives. We are part of the labor movement. I would even argue that we are the future of the labor movement! We cannot exploit other workers or destabilize their workplace. If we engage in an enterprise, we must make sure that set the lead on wages and benefits for our industry. We should never cross a picket line during a bonafide strike (or at least without the expressed permission of the labor union).

The sixth rule means that we need to elevate our membership. We cannot accept a board of directors ignorant of basic economics and finances. We shouldn’t accept that from the membership either. Don José María Arizmendiaretta, the spiritual founder of Mondragon, famously said that worker co-operative are either an economic movement based on education or and educational movement based on economics. We exist to create a quality of life for our members and to enhance our communities. Part of the strategy to attain that goal must be education of the membership. Not only should our members learn about economics, finances, and customer service, they must also learn about problem solving, conflict resolution, and a host of other disciplines (Union Cab has offered some training in SSL (Spanish-as-a-Second Language).

I think that the other rules speak for themselves. Utlimately, our work places should be the best. We may not make the lists of the “best places to work” because of how those lists make the determination. The point is that we collectively own our workplace and it should be a humane and friendly workplace to everyone and their families. The ergonomics of the workstations don’t need to “first class” in the sense of frivolous amenities, but they need to be functional, safe, and comfortable. The compensation should be fair and equitable. The voice of the workers should be heard throughout the organization. We should have established programs to promote and develop the next generation of leaders. Last but not least, we need to ensure that the co-operative will exist into the future to give those leaders a great place to work.

Next Week: Relations Within the Co-operative Movement

March 22, 2010

CICOPA: The Basic Characteristics of a Worker Co-operative

Filed under: Movement,World Declaration — Tags: , , , — John McNamara @ 1:47 pm

There are six basic characteristics of worker co-operatives in the CICOPA World Declaration of Worker Co-operatives:

  1. Creating and maintaining sustainable jobs, improving the quality of life for their members, creating dignity in human work, democratic self-management, and promoting community and local development.
  2. Free and voluntary membership
  3. The majority of workers in a worker co-operative should be members of the co-operative and the majority of a co-op’s members should be workers.
  4. The nature of the relationship with the co-operative is different from that of wage-based labor or independent contractors.
  5. The control and management of the enterprise is democratic, agreed upon and accepted by its members.
  6. Worker Co-operatives are autonomous and independent in terms of government and third party control as well as in the control of the means of production.

My co-operative, Union Cab, expresses the first characteristic in its mission statement: “To create jobs at a living wage or better in a safe, humane, and democratic environment by providing quality transportation to the greater Madison area.” I think that is a great summary of the first characteristic. This speaks to the core difference between worker co-operatives and other types of co-operatives. Our worker co-operatives exist to elevate the worker as a human being and to provide them the security and rights that they deserve as human beings. If a worker co-op isn’t engaged with this thought in mind, then it might as well be an US style ESOP or have a traditional ownership with a labor union representation. While we might joke about, there shouldn’t be self-exploitation in any worker co-operative.

The second and third characteristics bring up a serious challenge for modern worker co-operatives. I think that some worker co-ops misinterpret the “voluntary and open” clause. This isn’t to allow people to “choose” whether or not to accept their responsibility as an owner, it is to ensure that the co-operative doesn’t discriminate against visible minorities or create an enclave of “the right type of people”. It urges co-operatives to welcome all people and to create a co-operative that looks like their communities. I think that there is a danger in allowing a class of worker to exist in a worker co-operative who does not (through their choice or that of the co-operative) have a path that will lead to membership. Part of that danger is that the number of worker-owners will fall below 50%. In my mind, at that point, the worker co-operative ceases to be a “worker” co-operative and becomes an “employer” co-operative. This may create two classes of workers—those who are owners and those who are employees. Ultimately, I think that this will create different expectations for the groups. In addition, the workers need a controlling voice even if they allow other stakeholders.

The fourth characteristic brings up another point that I think is vital. Those of us engaged in a worker co-operative are a unique type of worker. We aren’t (and shouldn’t be) independent contractors and we aren’t wage workers. We need to quit thinking in that dichotomy even if the law doesn’t recognize us. If I had unlimited money and time, I would make the creation of a third worker, the worker-owner are legal reality. We need our own set of labor laws that recognize our control over the means of production.  This has many applications from labor standards to taxation. The US government’s rule show how bizarre the discussion is. They recognize a “partnership” of owners as long as each owner owns at least 2% equity. This means that the government recognizes a “partnership” of 50 people, but not 51. That is ridiculous. They need to recognize that organizations wherein the workers have “one person, one vote” are partners—are owners. This doesn’t mean that worker co-operatives should be free to self-exploit, but they should have more latitude to set their own rules and the tax laws should recognize that equity and profits work differently in a worker co-operative.

The last two characteristics speak to ensuring that worker co-operatives are not false fronts put up for other means. The membership must agree to the governance structure. If there is hierarchy, it needs to have control by the workers. Workers must have the ability to change their structure whenever they agree to do so. Lastly, just as all co-operatives must be independent, worker co-operative must work even harder at this. As a movement, we cannot tolerate pseudo-co-operatives masquerading as democracies when they are really controlled by government organization and politicians or as a means to defeat labor movements in emerging countries. Worker co-operatives should only be subsidiaries of a larger worker co-operative—and then, in a federated style similar to what Mondragon or the Italians follow.

The Basic Characteristics seem simple enough. However, there are many self-described “worker co-operatives” that do not meet them. These characteristics prevent the worker co-operative movement from being co-opted by multinationals seeking to enjoy good public relations while undercutting labor movements in emerging nations (or in developed nations for that matter. It instructs new worker co-op models such as The Cleveland Model in the way that a worker co-operative needs to be developed to ensure that the workers don’t become the well kept pets of social workers. It provides a check on existing worker co-operatives who need to grow and worry about the effect of difference types of workers entering their co-operative. There is no international or federal law defining worker co-ops in the US, Canada or the UK (although there should be), so it is up to those of us in the movement to hold each other up to these standards.

Next Week: Internal Functioning Rules of Worker Co-operatives

March 15, 2010

CICOPA: General Characteristics of a Worker Co-operative

Filed under: Movement,World Declaration — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 4:39 pm

If you are a member of a worker co-operative, as defined in the World Declaration on Worker Co-operatives, then CICOPA considers you a “proponent of one of the most advanced, fair and dignifying modalities of labour relations, generation and distribution of wealth, and democratization of ownership and of the economy”.

Heady stuff!

The Statement on the Declaration begins with a discussion of six General Characteristics that leads up to the actual Declaration. They are, in a nutshell:

  1. Humanity has consistently sought a qualitative improvement in the way that it organizes work with a steady progress towards labor relationships that are more fair and dignified.
  2. There are three modals of work:
    1. Self-employment
    2. Wage earners
    3. Worker ownership, in which work and management are carried out jointly
  3. Worker Co-operatives are the highest level of worker development in the present world. They are based on the values and principles of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity (adopted by the ICA in 1995 and supported by the ILO’s Promotion of Co-operatives 193/2002).
  4. Worker Co-operatives commit to being governed by the Identity Statement. In addition, they accept the additional definitions of this Declaration in order to further the worker co-operative model and differentiate it from the other types of co-operation. This will improve grow the movement while preventing deviations and abuses.
  5. The Declaration is necessary to allow the co-operative movement and the world to focus on the importance of worker co-operatives.
  6. The Declaration encourages co-operatives from all sectors to provide membership status to their workers and grant recognition to human work.

In some ways, this is a “shot across the bow” for the fake worker co-ops. These co-ops are really employer co-ops. Usually it is a partnership of a few who then sub-let to “independent contractors” who are not offered membership. This is most common in taxicab companies. It is a shell game used to avoid tax burdens and, in some cases, labor law.

The general characteristics also take a bold step in proclaiming in a very subtle way the old Wobblies motto: “Labor Creates All Wealth!” The Declaration encourages all co-operatives to respect their workers, to treat them as a significant stakeholder group and to create a membership class for them. This is very radical in co-op circles (at least US circles). Most Ag co-ops in the US do not allow members to work for the store. Consumer co-ops often only allow one or two workers (who might also be members) to serve on their boards. Usually, that service comes with a browbeating to ensure that they vote against their class. One consumer co-op that I know takes great pains to lecture their worker members to “think like an owner, not an employee”. As if the “employees” do not have a vested interest in the success of the consumer co-operative!

Quebec is a hot bed of worker co-operation. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the work being developed there follows this concept. In Quebec, the work has been laid to create the “New Co-operative Paradigm”. I can tell you that this discussion was the most popular of the St. Mary’s MMCCU program for my cohort. Its creator, Daniel Coté speaks at length about the need to develop social cohesion within a co-operative. A key part of his paradigm utilizes the value of Solidarity. Specifically, he sees the core success of the co-operative of the future as the solidarity between the worker and the consumer (by which I mean the consumer, the farmer, the housing consumer, and financial consumer).

The World Declaration on worker Co-operatives may not be the US Declaration of Independence, however, it does present a challenge. It presents a challenge to all worker co-operatives to examine how they operate. It challenges the fake worker co-ops, that are really employer co-operatives to own up to the falsehoods. It encourages all co-operatives to honor their workers, the people who actually produce the wealth and the benefits that the members enjoy.

Next Week: Basic Characteristics

March 10, 2010

Co-ops at center of coming elections in Great Britain

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , — Bernard @ 10:59 am

Co-ops at center of coming elections in Great Britain

Are British politicians proposing to alleviate austerity by creating co-operative public services?

In Great Britain this spring, the Labour Party, in power for thirteen years, is threatened with electoral defeat by the Conservatives. The British public, disgusted with Labour’s submissiveness to the bankers, may vote for the Conservatives as a protest – a political dynamic Americans will recognize.

The Labour Party re-branded itself as New Labour to return to power in the late ‘90’s after twenty years in opposition. It formally jettisoned its socialist heritage (abandoned in practice since the 60’s) and opting for a “progressive” neo-liberalism. Labour’s new leader, the young and photogenic Tony Blair modeled his campaign on Bill Clinton’s, and even hired Clinton’s managers to direct it. Labour won handsomely.

Blair’s star declined two years ago (he can thank Bush and the Iraq war) and Gordon Brown, his Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) became party leader and Prime Minister. Brown, as Finance Minister and then as Prime Minister championed unbridled financialization until the banks collapsed, so it’s fitting he gets booted out of office. The Conservatives, not a better alternative, are however not certain of victory – their “numbers” are declining – and so both parties have been scurrying about to find a Big New Idea to wrap themselves in.

That idea is to have public services, like healthcare and education, managed by their staff. To push this program, bizarre in itself, both parties are endorsing the participatory management structure of John Lewis, a home furnishings retailer and supermarket chain. This 150 year-old enterprise, employing 70,000 and grossing £6.05 billion ($7.5 billion), introduced profit-sharing in the 20’s along with a system of employee respect and recognition that today accommodates staff-wide communication from the clerk up to the president. It’s not a worker co-operative. There is no equivalent business that Americans can related it to; it might be characterize as a firm where the employees have stockholder privileges without holding any stock (!) and the closest equivalent might be a “democratic” Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). It does provide, without question, far more worker participation than any business outside of the British co-operative community.

To have both major parties in Great Britain vying over schemes of worker participation elevates the concept to the popularity attained in the 70’s, when several thousand small worker co-operatives blossomed in the contentious political terrain of that era, also a period of economic decline. When the Conservative Party came into power it de-funded the Cooperative Development Agencies that Labour had created to aid this new economic sector. Without the necessary professional help the fledgling worker co-ops declined to the point that today fewer than 400 exist. Unlike in the US, where agriculture and energy are the major players in the co-operative sector, in the UK, the Co-op Supermarket dominates. And that network is huge. In fact, it’s the world’s largest consumer-owned business, with over 4.5 million members and 123,000 employees.

It’s interesting to note that UK’s largest worker co-operative, with 130 members, also functions in the food sector. Suma, a food wholesaler wholly managed by its worker force, supplies organic and fairly traded food to co-ops and natural foods stores. Despite its size, Suma proudly maintains its founding vision: it combats hierarchy by paying all members the same wage, and it encourages job rotation.

Something is rotten in the United Kingdom

Both the Conservatives and Labour recognize that the economic collapse, coupled with a House of Commons scandal over expense account fraud affecting members from all parties, has generated unprecedented popular anger. As in the States, the bank bailouts have been the focus for much of this anger, but unlike in the States, where at best we are encouraged to move our money to small banks, among the Brits a movement has grown to seize one of the largest banks, Northern Rock, and transform it into a community-owned bank.

Another aspect of the popular outrage in the UK resembles a growing hostility to large corporations that we see here. And for the same reasons: overweening political influence, off-shoring, growing inequality of wealth and severe cutbacks of wages and benefits. The “ethical deficit” of modern corporations has spurred universal condemnation.

The politicians in the UK, however, have created a clever way (they hope) of defusing outrage against the private sector by seemingly endorsing a radical response – worker control of the public sector. They are proclaiming a radical new kind of citizen participation as their answer to popular discontent and their lack of legitimacy.

It should be noted that for several years the British have been re-structuring both health-care services and education through community and staff collaboration. These efforts, called Trusts (and sometimes referred to as “Mutuals” share similar characteristics to multi-stakeholder co-operatives), have been somewhat successful in eliminating bureaucratic overreach and streamlining operations to better serve the public. And they have been financially successful; they have saved the government money.

Co-opting popular outrage

While the two major parties ostensibly endorse these new management arrangements in hospitals and schools, they nonetheless do have rival brands of “citizen control” on offer. The electoral circus must appear as a contest between rivals for votes, after all. Here’s what’s being proposed, first by the Conservatives and then Labour.

Based on the ideological premise that Labour’s statist approach to public services, mainly in education and health-care produces inefficiencies and waste, the Tories propose to have state-funded services managed by their staff. They actually have called for “worker co-operatives” and, further, that the staff would pocket any savings resulting from efficient operations.

Labour, on the other hand, offers a borough of London, Lambeth, as its model of public control of public services. Here the local council government experiments with volunteer community efforts. They point to a successful urban garden program, for instance, that the local council organized by hiring an experienced activist who organized 50 community gardens. Besides the gardens, her efforts to involve the community achieved a benefit that is commendable but can’t be easily tabulated. However paying one skilled community activist was a lot cheaper than hiring a crew of gardeners.

This same borough encouraged parents to petition to take over a local closed school and transform it into a community center, especially for after-school youth programs. And again the participants’ time was not calculated in the local budget and, of course, neither was the newly generated “social capital.” Labour seems to see this as a “problem” that can be addressed by offering local tax rebates to community members who participate in the volunteer projects.

Lambeth, not inconsequentially, is the home of a successful worker cooperative that may have been influential by its example of good management. Greenwich Leisure, was taken over by its staff in the 90’s when the cash-strapped Lambeth council could no longer maintain the services. Today the original leisure center has been replicated to include 70 facilities in thirteen London boroughs. While managed by the staff, these centers have community members on their boards to broaden involvement. This is the model that Labour seeks to adopt with maybe more community and less worker control. It differs from the Conservative’s proposal that seeks only the participation of staff, which many fear will eventually lead to privatization.

Again, once more, smoke and mirrors

Though innovative on the surface these proposals, by Labour and their “rival,” present some organizational (and political) difficulties that need to be considered.

Both parties advocate a form of participation that differs considerably from the worker cooperative model situated in the private economy. When public funds are the sole source of financing how much control will the staff actually possess? And what to do when funds are cut? Already the Lambeth council expects at least 20 percent less funding for 2010. And what about the physical plant? Will it be leased? Sold? Can the worker co-op institute its own for-profit ventures? And what will be the role of unions in all this? These and other “details” the Labour leader of Lambeth says will be discussed in commission hearings later this year.

Currently the Conservatives, in local councils that they control, propose to respond to funding cuts by charging for services above a minimum level. The wealthy, in other words, will move to the head of the line, a familiar scenario in the US. Or worse, they will be privatized, and we know what that means also.

So the Labour initiative on public services seems a wiser choice. It allows, in theory, for more local control by the users, the public, and the staff. If the follow-through reduces bureaucracy and top-down control, then this could be a positive development and mark a significant departure from the way public services are currently delivered.

Transforming the public sector to be more “user-friendly” is a worthwhile goal. But whether that goal will be met in the manner Labour, much less the Conservatives, are pursuing it seems dubious. The hallmark of co-operative ventures must be their democratic practice, without that we have just verbiage in tow to political gain. Something similar happened in the US during the discussion last summer about so-called healthcare co-operatives. No politician wanted local, democratic control of healthcare.

If the Borough of Lambeth were proposing something like participatory budgeting based on the extensive municipal practice pioneered in Brazil, where citizens actually had at least a bit of control over some funds to improve services, then maybe the goal of true community involvement could be attained. But without a radical revision of how local government allocates resources, especially in a time of austerity, enticing local community support with monetary perks, as has been suggested, risks creating a claque of self-interested locals who, for whatever reason, pursue their agenda instead that of the community.

Civic engagement occurs for many reasons that need not entail comprehensive, centralized administration. The joy of working on a worthwhile project with one’s neighbors needs little stimulus from some bureaucrat in an office someplace. Encouragement to engage in larger projects is needed. Who will entice strangers to collaborate, so that they cease being “unknowns” and successfully engage in pursuit of meaningful activity? Having access to real power, the goal of participatory budgeting, may be the possible institutional avenue towards reviving civic life by creating significant, practical change people easily recognize.

Diverting the focus from the private economy to the public realm appears to be a pretty transparent attempt to change the subject. One suspects that both Labour and certainly the Conservatives have no idea how to salvage an economy that has been devastated by more than twenty years of neo-liberal practices. The UK for instance has lost manufacturing on a scale similar to the US. The recent Cadbury Chocolate take-over by Kraft Foods was just the last episode in a recurring story. The trade unions anticipate huge cuts in the 7,000 jobs so that Kraft’s heavily indebted exposure is repaired.

The recent closing of the only large turbine facility in Great Britain by its Danish owner without a response exposed Labour’s inability to think creatively about retaining manufacturing.

Creating a co-operative economy

While the politicians prepare their circus acts, the real news on economic matters in Great Britain comes from Scotland. There, a four year-old co-operative development group is successfully establishing employee-managed firms. This group can advise for a range of alternatives, from start-ups to employee buy-outs of firms ready for transition of ownership. Scottish government development funds finance them and over the years they have assisted a host of thriving firms and have gained valuable experience creating ventures that provide for economic sustainability.

If Labour (or the Conservatives) really wanted to tackle economic development and not simply pose with a half-baked idea, they would fund replications of Co-operative Development Scotland in all major British cities. This act alone would not solve all the problems of an economy facing the worst prospects in generations, but it is at least a start. It would be a real demonstration that there are alternatives to another financial bubble economy. And it would place the focus on local economic development as the prime response to strengthening initiatives to deal with climate change and food security issues.

Funding local co-operative development agencies should also be considered a viable program for the US to adopt. The Obama administration has restored Bush’s cutbacks to the Cooperative Rural Development Grant Program, and in the current budget will double its funds. This granting program has proved effective in strengthening rural economic development. The next step would be to create an urban equivalent maybe modeled after the Dept of Commerce Minority Business Development Agency. Co-op projects already underway in the Bronx, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee and Chicago, to name the most prominent and recent examples, demonstrate the viability of this approach. Isn’t it time for the federal government to recognize these accomplishments and fund more of them?

Bernard Marszalek
info@jasecon.org
March 10, 2010

=-=-=-=
John Lewis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership#History

UK Co-op Food

http://www.co-operative.coop/food/

Suma: http://www.suma.coop/about/ethical-policy/
Lambeth Council

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/home.htm

Taking over Northern Rock Bank

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Rocking-the-system

http://www.kellogg.ox.ac.uk/researchcentres/meob.php

Mutual Manifesto

http://www.thenews.coop/news/Wider%20Co-op%20Movement/1735

Co-operative Development Scotland

http://www.cdscotland.co.uk/

March 8, 2010

Why Do Worker Co-operatives Need a World Declaration?

Filed under: Movement,World Declaration — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 3:27 pm

In 2007, during Congress in Saskatoon, Canada, which included the joint meeting of ACE, CASC and the ICA Research Committee, April Bourgeois presented a paper by that same name.

Unfortunately, I misplaced my notes from that discussion. However, the upshot is that the concept of what constitutes worker ownership varies greatly based on location and political motive. Even in countries with national laws regarding co-operatives, the specific definition of a worker co-op often gets ignored.

This allows people to create “worker co-operatives” for marketing and tax purposes that are really traditional partnerships. This waters down the co-operative brand as a whole and the worker co-operative brand in particular. For instance, a cab co-operative might only have 3-4 members who each own and lease out 40 vehicles. Because they drive, they are “workers” but they also exploit the work of 40-60 other workers who do not get the benefits or protections of membership.

This scam plays out across the globe. It can (and does) happen in South America and North America. In addition, in the United States (and to some extent the UK and Canada), the concept of worker ownership has been further diluted through schemes such as the Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) in which workers often invest in the company that employs them. These may be truly worker owned company, but often the majority of the shares (and the voting power that goes with that ownership) rests in the hands of senior management.

Finally, there is a movement to shore up the image of companies in the mind of the consumer. Groups such as World Blu Democratic Workplaces exist to help companies improve the worker experience by creating participatory management models. While this work is exemplary, it creates the false idea that “democracy” is the same as participatory management. While participatory management may be a key part of a democratic workplace, without the actual control afforded through the universal suffrage of “one member, one vote” the workplaces of Wolrd Blu exist through the benevolence of the majority stockholder.

Outside of the US, Canada and Western Europe, governments may interfere with worker co-operatives and even try to control them. This was certainly true in the Soviet Union as well as central African nations. It is part of the debate in Venezuela between the two separate worker co-operative movements. One is aligned with the Chavez government and one maintains a political independence. While the Chavez linked co-ops tend to run government work, I want to be clear that I do not think that President Chavez controls them either personally or through his political apparatus–the point is that people make assumptions on the independence of these types of co-operatives.

In 2005, the ICA approved the World Declaration on Worker Co-operatives at its General Assembly in Cartegena, Colombia. It was developed through the sectoral organization CICOPA and finalized at CICOPA’s meeting in Oslo, Norway. Because of this, it is often called the Oslo Declaration; however, this (in my mind) gets too confused with the Oslo Accords which is an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis for how they would negotiate peace. Given the failure of those Accords, it seems that it would be better for us to simply refer to the CICOPA Declaration. Not only is it simpler, but everytime that I say CICOPA out load, I think Copacabana and the song that goes with it).

In any event, the importance of this declaration comes from it defining a worker co-operative across international boundaries.  It has eight parts: General Considerations, Basic Characters, Internal Functioning Rules, Relationship within the Co-operative Movement, Relations with the State and with Regional and Intergovernmental Institutions, Relations with Employers’ Organizations, and Relations with Workers’ Organizations. Over the next eight weeks, I will present each part with my take on it.

Now, I was not part of the drafting of this document (a bit before my time in the Co-op World). Of course, I do know people who were part of the drafting. I want to encourage them to pop in and correct me when I am wrong, expand on things that I miss, and generally help to illuminate this important document that may be almost entirely unknown in the United States.

Next Week: General Considerations

March 1, 2010

#25: The Internationalist Nature of Co-operatives

Filed under: Identity Statement Series,Movement — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 2:00 pm

Over the last 6 months,  I have been working my way through the Statement on the Co-operative Identity that the International Co-operative Alliance adopted at the 1995 meeting which also commemorated its first century of service. This statement solidified the Rochdale Principles as well as adding a list of values and ethics. In part, this was done to assure countries emerging into the world after decades of the Cold War, that co-operatives were not co-opted. That co-operatives that they experienced behind the Iron Curtain or as part of an attempt to shore up a rulers power in an emerging nation were not a true representative of the co-operative model. The Identity Statement also was a challenge to the western co-operatives as well. It was, and remains, a challenge to not rest of the laurels of the past, but to constantly struggle to improve our co-operatives and credit unions. The ICA created a true touchstone by which every co-operative and credit union in the world could be measured. That 1995 meeting may be the most significant moment in the movement’s 167 year history.

Dr. Ian MacPherson made these salient points in his background paper to the Identity Statement:

“It was a task much more difficult than the delegates of a hundred years ago knew. Overcoming the differences created by national perspectives and histories, coping with the ideological cleavages that swept the world in the Twentieth Century, recognising the biases each of us possesses, understanding empathetically the nature of co-operative experiences in non-European societies has not been easily accomplished. In the important book she prepared for Congress, Rita Rhodes has explained the deep tensions that made progress in creating a strong international Movement for most of the Twentieth Century difficult to achieve. It is a story worth pondering as we seek to understand how we can forge even stronger links among co-operative organisations spread around the world.”

In my days college days, we often challenged ourselves to “think globally, act locally”. We needed to recognize that the struggle of people is an international struggle but that we also aren’t saviors for those in other countries. To fix the world, we need to fix our local communities and share our story with the world. The Identity Statement embodies that ethos. As MacPherson notes, the co-operative movement exists as an international movement. The creation of the International Co-operative Alliance in 1895 was to help co-operatives world-wide and to share their stories. When workers in the Argentine factories succeed as running their own plants, they create a better environment for cab drivers in Madison, WI (and vice versa) by showing that workers can manage themselves. When Equal Exchange workers broke the Reagan Quarantine on Nicaragua with Café Nica. they helped farmer/workers the world over know that cold war politics could be defeated by workers and farmers uniting in a common cause.

The Identity Statement is our touchstone as a co-operative and credit union. It is an international document that makes our individual membership in our co-operatives and credit unions an international act of solidarity. Our membership in our organizations and our support for the ICA and the Identity Statement force us to “think globally”. By striving within our co-operatives to bring the Identity Statement to life, to “operationalize” the statement, we act locally. One of my projects over the last couple of years has been assisting in the development of something called the “Co-op Index.” It is a diagnostic tool to measure an individual worker co-operative against the Identity Statement (and the Mondragon principles). Ultimately, it will create a maturity index for worker co-operatives world-wide but in the short run, it will provide worker co-operatives with the information and tools that they need to become stronger co-operatives and create “best practices” for worker co-operatives in particular. It will be a means of improving our workplaces and the world at the same time.

The Identity Statement cannot just hang on the wall. We need to teach it in our co-operatives. We need to connect our actions to it. At my co-operative, we attach a “policy note” to each measure before the board that connects the proposed action to the co-operative’s vision, mission, core values and the Co-op Identity. It is a useful exercise that I think all co-operatives should adopt. The basic premise is that if we cannot explain why the proposal works from the vantage point of the Co-op Identity, then maybe it isn’t a proposal worth adopting.

On a final note, the Identity Statement is not a final document. It is, like the Rochdale Principles that it replaced, a living document. Each generation since 1843 has re-visited the co-operative identity and made adjustments appropriate to their time and place. In 1995, a strong movement existed (but eventually lost) to include a principle of co-operative management that would instruct co-operatives to manage in a different way and to create co-operative management schools. That effort didn’t fail, but continued and my imminent graduation as part of the 4th Cohort in St. Mary’s MMCCU program shows the power of that principle. It may be that the next incarnation of the statement will include management as stronger educational efforts on co-operative management have sprung up throughout the US and Canada to join existing programs at the UK’s Open University, Cooperative College and Spain’s Mondragon Univeristy. (These include the recent creation of an undergraduate degree at the University of Toronto, the CooperationWorks! Program, the Southern New Hampshire University program and the USFWC’s Peer Assistant Network).**   In addition to educating ourselves to manage from a co-operative framework, there is also a growing effort to expand the ‘concern for community” principle by adding a new principle specific to the protection of the environment.

The Identity Statement will celebrate its 15th anniversary this year. It has changed the dynamics of co-operation; it has given us an international touchstone that tells us that a co-operative in Sapporo, Buenos Aires, Winnipeg, Manchester, Madison, Bilbao, Bologna, Gdansk, Tel Aviv, Kiev, Dar es Salaam and Sydney all act under the same set of principles and values. The co-operative label is a label of trust, honor, and dignity for working men and women.

Next Week: This ends the series on the Identity Statement. I hope that people enjoyed it. I appreciated the comments on this site (and on Facebook where it mirrors). Feel free, as always, to use or redistibute my posts. I intend to keep the Monday entries going. The next series will be on a document that is just as important but little known: CICOPA’s World Declaration on Worker Co-operatives. Thanks for reading.

***Sadly, I have heard a rumor that there is some sectarian attacks on the Canadian programs coming from south of the border. The attack is jingoistic in nature (that the Canadian programs aren’t “american” and therefore not appropriate for US co-operatives. I haven’t had anybody say that to me directly (most likely because I would correct their opinion). It is a shame. Each program offers a means to manage our co-operatives according to the principles. I personally, would love to see the day when a co-operative undergraduate degree and the MMCCU are as ubiquitous in our universities and colleges as the business degree and MBA. We shouldn’t be fighting each other over our turfs, but co-operating to expand the educational opportunities for co-operative managers, directors and members. I chose MMCCU because it fit my life at this moment. In a different scenario, I might have elected for Mondragon, the UK, or SHNU. Had any of these programs been available to me when I was in college (1982), the path that my life took would be amazingly similar and different at the same time! It is my hope that in my lifetime learning of a young co-ed can earning their undergraduate degree in co-operative administration while working at a co-operative becomes a normal expectation and doesn’t require moving to specific part of the world.

Powered by WordPress