The Workers' Paradise

October 22, 2006

Should Co-ops Create Multi-nationals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 17, 2006

Sometimes It Doesn’t Always Work

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

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

Powered by WordPress