The Workers' Paradise

February 13, 2012

Markets Can Be Healthy

Filed under: Education,Movement — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 12:12 pm

As part of my studies this semester, I am reading the English edition of Cooperative Enterprise: Facing the Challenge of Globalization* by Stefano and Vera Zamagni.

In their opening chapters, they lead a discussion about the nature of cooperation (from their Italian perspective), the nature of competition and the nature of the market.

For decades, Stefano has argued that capitalism has been incorrectly used as a synonym for “free market.” Indeed, that connection is so embedded in our culture in the United States that anyone suggesting anything else often gets labeled a socialist. The dominant paradigm sees the dichotomy of the planned economy of socialism and the market economy of capitalism. There isn’t any other means except the historically defunct feudalism.

Today isn’t about getting into the argument about State Capitalism of the former Soviet Union and modern China, rather, it is about debunking the intimate connection between a free market and capitalism. The Zamagni’s carry this thought throughout the introduction to their book.

Essentially, they argue in the language of Flora and Fauna taxonomy. If we consider the “marketplace” to be the Genus of this particular economic strain, then capitalism is but one species within it. Co-operation, they argue is a unique species within the free market. Cooperation is not opposed to the marketplace, but utilizes it in a manner that seeks to maximize the benefit for the community. Capitalism utilizes the market to maximize the benefit for those owning the capital. Both are subject Adam Smith‘s invisible hand of the marketplace that provide the mechanism for each type of business to make adjustments. Both seek to use government (although capitalism is much better at it) to ameliorate the effect of the invisible hand towards the benefit of their shareholders or stakeholders as the case may be.

As a condition of this, competition plays different roles. In the capitalist species, competition is expected to be a ruthless Darwinian arbitrator determining the most fit organization (again for the benefit of the narrow group of stockholders). In the Co-operative species, however, competition plays a much different, almost helpful, role. The authors argue that the root word for competition is cum petere (“literally, tend together toward a common goal”). It is the basis of a free market. This is the antithesis of “creative destruction”:

“We are well aware of the many economic advantages created by this mechanism. But we are equally familiar with its brutality, its harmful social and political reprecussions. And it is clear that creative destruction may enjoy some legitamacy as long as the value of what is created is grreater than that of what is destroyed, that legitamcy ends when–as is the case today–the relation is inverted. We call the specific form of competitive practiced by cooperatives ‘competitive cooperation’, which is a powerful antidote to the damage that would be done by positional competition. “(Zamagni, 2010, 4)

A competition to see who can best serve the community is part of a truly free market. Further, a free market also requires an educated consumer. In the cooperative species, this means much more that printing ingredients on labels. For one, it means that the consumer (in the broadest sense), must be able to read and understand that label! It means that the consumer must posses the analytical skills to discern between products and services and the related price. During this election year, we will hear a lot about paying for education and the free market, but we will likely not hear about how they are connected. We can’t have a free market if we don’t have a populace educated to a level that allows them to make informed decisions.

Of course, this is one of the key traits of the Co-operative species as espoused by the 5th Principle: Education, Information and Training. The principle states: “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.”

Co-operation, not capitalism, embraces the free market. Capitalism uses a vicious form of competition, the type found in nature by parasites, to stifle other actors in the market. The Zamagni’s quote economists Rajan and Zingales’s work Saving Capitalism from Capitalism (2003, University of Chicago Press):

“The worst enemies of capitalism are not union agitators with their corrosive critique of the system, but the managers in pinstriped suits who sing the praises of competitive markets in every speech while they try to suppress them with every action.”

The next time you hear someone trying to red-bait our movement, you could have a lot of fun pointing out that the practice of modern capitalism is much closer to the Kleptocracy of Russia and the party contolled economy of China while the true competitors and champion of the free market are, in fact, co-operatives.

*The only place that I have been able to find an English copy of Cooperative Enterprise has been through Abe’s Books, however, if your local book coop has a good search engine, they might also be able to find it.

February 9, 2011

Madison Mayoral Candidates Discussing Worker Cooperatives: Let’s Turn Talk Into Action

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , , — Fred Schepartz @ 5:47 pm

It appears that worker cooperatives may become an issue in this spring’s mayoral election in Madison, Wisconsin. Incumbent David Cieslewicz is blogging about a community-wide effort to facilitate the forming of worker cooperatives. Challenger and two-time former mayor Paul Soglin (the so-called Red Mayor) is blogging about it as well.

As a longtime worker/owner at Union Cab Cooperative here in Madison, I applaud both candidates for bringing up this issue. I’ve written about this before, that worker cooperatives could be a way to save our economy both by putting people back to work and getting back in the business of manufacturing things that people would want to buy. And of course, these would be safe, humane and sustainable workplaces more interested in serving the community than maximizing profit.

But let’s not be naive. This discussion comes in the context of a political campaign. It could be a lot of bloviating, just a lot of hot air that has no meaning once the last ballot is counted. Still, it could make for great discourse that could have real, concrete results but it is up to us. We need to get involved in this discussion to ensure that it has real focus to it. And once the election is over, we need to maintain pressure on whoever is elected to turn words to action.

On the treadmill at the East YMCA, it suddenly occurred to me that the best way to achieve this goal would be to propose something concrete, so we can have a real topic to discuss.

Here it is: I propose that the City of Madison establish the Madtown Worker Cooperative Incubation Center. And I know the perfect place: Union Corners on the east side of Madison. For those not familiar with Madison, Union Corners was where Rayovac had a manufacturing plant before corporate flew down south. A local developer had big plans for the site, but the financing fell through. Now it’s the most infamous blight in town. There have been various alternatives plans for the site, but none have come to fruition. Most recently, the city has proposed buying the land in order to be able to make sure that there’s at least a little rhyme and reason when it is eventually parceled off.

Union Corners is a good sized piece of property, and it’s certainly big enough for several small business. I propose that those businesses all be worker cooperatives, and that the city use its resources to help facilitate the formation of these new worker cooperatives.

First, the city should purchase and then develop the property in a simple but functional manner by erecting versatile structures and providing surface parking (along with ample green space as well).

Second, the city can establish a fund to provide seed money for these new business. The city would contribute to the fund, but would also solicit grants from the state and the feds, as well as the private sector.

Third, the city should participate in a community-wide effort to create a super-structure for MWCIC. This entity would oversee the creation of new worker cooperatives by approving viable proposals, facilitating funding and providing assistance in the formation of these new businesses. More importantly, however, this entity would do outreach in the community to let people know about the opportunities presented by MWCIC. Eventually, this entity would become an overall governing body for all MWCIC members. Down the road, MWCIC would buy the Union Corners property, but only if the city declares it as a Tax Incremental Finance district thus making it exempt from property taxes until its strong enough to contribute to the city’s tax base.

But MWCIC cannot merely be a collection of businesses that are housed on the same tract of land. There would need to be space for people to meet, confer and socialize. Also, within MWCIC there needs to be something I would call the Worker Cooperative Training Institute, which would do exactly what its name indicates. Obviously, MWCIC would attract people with previous cooperative experience. That’s all fine and good, but it’s probably even more important that member cooperatives include people with little or no previous experience with cooperatives so they would have an opportunity to learn how cooperatives can enhance and improve their lives.

The training institute would serve an important function and would give worker/owners the tools to be able to run their own cooperatives. In addition, the WCTI could eventually branch out and train worker cooperative members from all over the country and perhaps all over the world.

Another important institution for MWCIC would be the Workers Cooperative Credit Union. This credit union could be formed as a collaborative effort among the various local credit unions. The WCCU itself would be a worker cooperative. It could handle the financing of the various worker cooperatives at MWCIC, as well as the banking needs of member cooperatives and their worker-owners.

But what kind of worker cooperatives should there be at MWCIC? The answer is obvious: whatever kinds of worker cooperatives people can imagine, producing any and every kind of good and service. Get interested people together and talking, and they can come up with some of the most amazing and creative ideas. The only restriction is our collective imagination.

What are some of the great American products that are no longer made in America? We could make those at MWCIC. We could certainly create the Madtown Worker Cooperative brand, which could be recognizable from coast to coast.

Or another idea: one great resource in the Madison area is organic produce. A worker cooperative could perhaps make use of this produce to create various food products. MWC pickled vegetables. MWC liver pate. Again, the only limit is our imagination.

MWCIC is a win-win for everyone. It would create jobs where people would feel empowered. It would improve the city’s tax base and make use of Madison’s worst blighted area. In addition, it would represent a major step forward in the American worker cooperative movement. With Madison’s great progressive tradition, it seems logical for Madison to lead the way.

August 24, 2010

The Co-operative Index

Filed under: Education,Governance,Movement — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 8:18 pm

One of the last workshops of the National Worker Co-operative Conference introduced the Co-operative Index to a United States audience. Before going into the details of this tool, it needs to have a bit of the history explained.

In 2005, Johnston Birchall addressed the International Co-operative community. It was the occasion of the the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity. Prof. Birchall called for the community to “operationalize” the statement. In effect, to take the document off of the wall and out from under glass and make it part of the day-to-day decision-making process of our co-operatives. He used a phrase that had already started spreading around the movement: “market the co-operative advantage” or MOCA. However, he also used another phrase: “Managing the co-operative difference.” Birchall argued that we really can’t create a co-operative competitive advantage until we manage our co-operatives differently from our competitors.

In 2003, the St. Mary’s MMCCU program had begun towards this end, but the rest of the co-operative world had yet to really embrace the statement. It needed a push and Birchall gave it one. The folks at St. Mary’s also heard his call. While they were busy improving their Master program, they were also looking for opportunities to highlight the co-op difference and create the competitive advantage.

John Chamard, Sonja Novkovic and Tom Webb discovered a Polish professor of organizational psychology who had developed a method of measuring participatory workplaces with an eye towards helping them to improve themselves. His name is Ryzard Stocki and he created the Open Index as a tool for non-profits to measure themselves against their ideals. It was decided to see if such a tool could be developed for co-operatives and that the best sector to start with was the worker co-op sector. In 2008, the St. Mary’s team brought together a group of Co-op developers from Canada and worker co-op practitioners. I was one of the participants in a weekend long session of developing an “ideal” worker co-operative against which we could measure real world worker co-operatives. It was an exciting, and at times frustrating, process. In the end, we created a framework for a diagnostic tool that worker co-operatives could use that was different than tools such as the SA8000, World Blu Democratic workplace survey, or other such measurements. At the New Orleans meeting of the US Federation of Worker Co-operatives, the Federation membership agreed to support it.

We based our tool on the Identity Statement and the principles of Mondragon that go beyond the identity statement (sovereignty of labor, subordinate nature of capital, payment solidarity, and participatory management). The tool was fine-tuned and then put into the field to test its effectiveness. After the initial attempts were made, the reports were analyzed and the tool was fine tuned. It is now ready for a mass distribution. The workshop was its official exposure to a US audience.

What is the Tool?

The tool is a lengthy survey designed to measure the perceptions of immediate stakeholders in a worker co-operative (separating those who identify as “leaders” with those who identify as “rank-and-file”). It asks questions designed to rate the ability of the cooperative to meet its obligations under the identity statement: Values, Ethics, Principles as well as its organizational ability to meet its members’ needs. It creates an index for the co-operative to measure across time and, eventually, will create an index to measure against other worker co-operatives.

There are two methods of using the tool. It can be used for a very brief snap shot of the “state of the cooperative” or it can be part of a more intensive triangulation of issues facing the cooperative. In either case, it can, and should, help influence strategic planning, education, training, and leadership development. At the national and international level, it can help planner determine workshop needs and membership needs.

The first method is the simplest and cheapest. The co-operative works with someone from St. Mary’s to set up the survey (more information is available from either the US Federation or the Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation). The co-operative participates with a very real goal of 100% participation by its members. The assistant helps produce a report that distills the scores on a maturity index for the different segments: values, organizational, principles, etc.

The more involved method involves have the assistant work with a small committee of the co-operative. this could be the social audit committee or the strategic planning committee. Ideally, it is a committee of members representing the cooperative stakeholders (i.e. not all directors, or all rank-and-file). The survey gets completed as before, but the adviser also helps the committee build a document base to examine how the perceptions of the survey interact with actual policy and practice of the co-operative. This allows the committee to make solid recommendations on structure, operations, and governance as a means of improving the co-operative along the maturity curve.

Ideally, a co-operative might do the full process every three to five years and the short process annually. Obviously, the size and nature of the co-operative will make some differences in the process. However, even smaller co-operatives might find that they have a disconnect between groups within the co-operative.

This tool can help co-ops dig below the surface issues to get at root causes of problems and provide strong solutions. On the other hand, the tool can help co-operatives see where their strengths are and help them learn to share those strengths with other co-operatives.

The initial work on this tool has been so successful and the support for it so enthusiastic that the Canadian Co-operative Association received a substantial grant to design similar tools for the other sectors. The call the overall project “Measuring the Co-operative Difference Research Network”. Hit the link for more details.

With the development of the Democracy at Work Network of peer advisers coming on-line in January and the advent of the Co-op Index Tool, Federation member co-operatives and all worker co-operatives in Canada and the United States will have a powerful means of analyzing their processes, their policies and the functioning of their co-operative as a co-operative. This, in turn, will allow them to not just “manage the co-operative difference” but create a strong competitive advantage for themselves and other worker co-ops. This project is exactly, in my opinion, the sort of thing that the Federation was founded to accomplish. It allows us to bring our considerable brain power together in an act of mutual self-help and solidarity with the goal of creating strong sustainable workplaces and communities.

August 17, 2010

EdVisions Schools–Workplace and Educational Democracy

Filed under: Education,Management,Worker Rights — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 10:11 pm

One of the great treats at a national worker coop conference is to learn about the incredible stories that exist. It is easy, sitting in our cooperatives at home, to imagine a world where we are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then we come to a conference and get our mind blown–not just once, or twice, but several times.

One such event was learning of EdVisions. I had heard rumors of these folks. Located in the mystical Mississippi Valley of Southern Minnesota. They seemed like fairies from the days of Shakespeare’s England creating a magical place of learning and excitement. Needless to say, all we ever heard were the rumors of their existence. They are, after all, Charter Schools. Charter Schools, much like those fairies of Shakespeare are a dual edged sword as willing to spoil milk and ruin harvests as to help a poor Shepard. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the main stream media can’t figure out EdVisions as they don’t fit into the narrative of Charter Schools, School Reform, and Neo-liberalism.

As it was, I ended up sitting next to the Dee Grover Thomas, Principal of the flagship school: New Country Day School. She gave me a bit of a heads up for her speech. It was an incredible talk (I hope that this is an appropriate time to apologize for my grammar and spelling to Dee and my English teachers).

Ever the teacher, she asked the audience what they would like to study. Amazingly, the reply was “co-operatives!” she then asked if that would require history? yes. Writing? Yes. Math? yes. Art? yes. The point being that the core subjects can be worked into any field of study.

Rather than my telling you what they are about, here is their statement: “The belief is that teacher leadership is not about power, but about mobilizing the largely untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance by working collaboratively in a shared capacity. Cooperatives are about working collaboratively and sharing in planning, action, and in results. Cooperatives are democratically owned and managed. The founders of EdVisions Cooperative believe in teacher voice and teacher empowerment. They also believe in modeling democratic action as a means toward teaching adolescents how to live in a democracy.”

Here is the problem that the market was dealing with:

  • Estimated 50% of teachers resign with in the first 5 years
  • Teaching is a non-promotion job only promotion to administration
  • Schools are losing 1 of 3 students to drop outs each yeas
  • Schools are seldom democratic
  • Teachers are not seen as professionals and little ed entrepreneurship has happened. Schools look and act the same today as they did 50 years ago.
  • She noted that The TSB kids, despite what they are doing, still have to raise their hand to go to the bathroom—that is messed up!

Minnesota New Country School as established in 1994.

  • Got rid of bells and classes or employees
  • 120 students 6-12
  • 40% special ed/35% low income

Project based learning—the ask the student what they are interested in (what turns them on) and then they apply to core principles (history, language, math, science, art)

School should be arranged like life—we don’t spend exactly 45 minutes on the math part of our jobs and then move to the writing part for another 45 minutes, so why do we run schools this way.

They chose to limit the school size to 120 students to keep a sense of community

Student ownership of their education with teachers as guides on the side.

It is more about learning than about teaching. They have to design their project and have to sit down with three adults and defend their project. At  the end, they sit down with three adults to show what they have learned. Sometimes, they have to unlearn before they can begin to learn.

EdVisions Cooperative

What would happen if teachers became owners instead of employees? Would they look at teaching differently? Eliminate the “us” vs. “them” in the battle between teachers and administration and parents.

Started with one school (MNCS) and 13 owners.  Today: 12 members schools and 3 affiliated non-profits, 150 members and 8.6 million budget, (the non-profits help to fund the school through different mechanisms).

Expected Behavior

  • Collaboration—build and sustain strong professional relationships
  • Civility—respect, dignity, kindness (train on restorative justice)
  • Communication—clear ideas
  • Co-creation—everyone plays a role
  • Accountability—every members assumes responsibility for the organization’s performance
  • Commitment to improvement and development.

Desired Ends

  • Take charge of professional lives (normal school dictates to the teachers)
  • Accountability for the learning program
  • Embrace change—technology, cell phones, communication.
  • Gain independence
  • Be leaders
  • Be able to contribute to each others’ professional development
  • Become Owners.

I’ll give Dee a lot of credit. She got some tough questions about labor unions*, the lack of sports programming, and others. Also note the number of special ed and lower income children. This isn’t a school designed (as mine was) to replace the aristocracy of corporate Vice-Presidents, this is about fundamentally changing the way we educate in this country.

It reminds of a certain Spanish priest who believed that the workers’ kids could be just as productive with their mind as the bosses’ kids. Those kids grew up to create Mondragon. The work of EdVest clearly makes the 5th Principle of Cooperatives as active as it can be. The have taken the cooperative economic model with an educational element and truly made it an educational model with an economic element.

If the Charter Schools were all like EdVisions, I would be on the front-line pushing for more. This is a fantastic model.

*Her response to the Union question? She said that the teachers are free to join the union, but don’t want to. Further, what she would like to see is for the union to start opening and running their own schools just like EdVision did.

July 12, 2010

Worker Co-ops and Workers or All in the Family

Filed under: Education,Worker Rights — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 11:47 am

This might take several posts to really work through the issues, but the nature of worker coops conjures up visions of a workers’ paradise (and the source of the name for this blog); however, too often conflict rises and worker co-ops easily devolve into a deformed workers’ state (the alternative name for this blog when I am cranky).

Without a doubt, the biggest strength and greatest weakness of worker co-operatives revolves around the internal issues of discipline and treatment of workers. An acquaintance of mine in Madison told me about his two experiences with worker co-operatives. Both were bakeries (one small one and one large factory style).

The small one was controlled by the members who were mostly, in his words, Trustafarians. They weren’t interested in growing the business because they didn’t need to do so. For stiffs like my friend, who didn’t have a trust fund, this meant working for minimum wage. The love of making bread and doing one’s own thing didn’t pay the rent. To make matters worse, the paychecks would be distributed together in a basket. The core group often didn’t pick up their checks for months at a time! This only highlighted the economic disparity among the membership and made my friend feel belittled and embittered.

The larger bakery produced at a level where wages and benefits were competitive, but it was really controlled by management and had little input from the worker members. To highlight this, at the annual summer “employee” picnic, management provided commercial mass produced white bread and  buns and bread. My friend was shocked that management wasn’t even willing to spring for the worker’s own bread for the picnic and went for the cheapest crap that they could find.

My long career in worker co-ops (22 years) has seen a lot of internal disputes. I remember a trying time when it was external forces that threatened the co-operative and one fellow member noted that the success or failure of our co-op lies entirely within us. Regardless of the external economy or attacks on our company, we are, as Moses Coady would say, the Masters of Our Destiny.

I would like to pretend that size matters, but it doesn’t. As the tale of two bakeries suggest, the real struggle comes from activating co-operative values and interpreting them in the real world of worker co-operatives. There is a very interesting paper entitled Dispute Resolution in Worker Co-operatives: Formal Procedures and Procedural Justice by Elizabeth Hoffman. My co-op was the subject of this case study and I was president during the period of study. I have a few issues with the work (she never interviewed me or other officers for our perspective of what happened), however, I completely agree with her analysis and it ties in well with another important work, The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman. Co-operatives are societies and they require a certain level of bureaucracy and structure to work effectively. Unfortunately, a lot of people come to worker co-operatives because they want to get away from “the man” and stupid rules, and all the other BS of corporate America. As William Golding taught all of us, however, it just isn’t that easy. Humans are social animals and will establish a social order. It can be an order based on personality, mythology, power, or humanity (ethics, values and principles). For co-operatives, we choose humanity (or I hope that we do).  The point, however, is that an order will be created with or without our efforts.

How often do we hear bosses talk about their company as “being like a family”? I always find that annoying. How patronizing! However, they are simply trying to describe their structure which is based on personality and power. Sometimes I hear that language in co-operatives. We talk about the Yellow Family at Union Cab, but no one is talking about parents, we are talking about siblings, cousins, and weird uncles (I think after 22 years, I get the cranky weird uncle title). Of course, if we really think about this analogy, aren’t we also talking about sibling rivalry and all the BS that goes into dealing with families. There is a great line from the play, ‘night, Mother in which the protagonists speaks to her inability to choose her family.

The difference is that we chose to be part of our co-operatives. We voluntarily choose to join and participate. We don’t have the right to act like obnoxious siblings. We have an obligation to interact with our co-operative on the terms of the ethics, values and principles of the co-operative movement. This is not an easy step. Corporate America and the dominant paradigm created by them encourages us to act as siblings to their parenthood. Workers in our society are encouraged to fight each other (over race, immigration, gender, sexual preference, religion, creed and a host of other false differences) and let the parents (managers, politicians) control our lives.

Unfortunately, we sometimes bring this corruption into our co-operatives. Not all, but many, co-operatives mirror the paternalistic hierarchy of the corporate world. We create a “dad” or “mom” in the form of a General Manager and then act out the role of obedient and disobedient children (and attack each other in miming sibling rivalries). We need to be better than this and we can do it. Some feel that having more that 40 members means being forced into this world. Others might argue “human nature”. I think that we can do more and better by simply focusing on the Co-op Identity.

Rainbow Grocery is a great example of a large co-operative that has flattened its hierarchy. I am not on the inside, so I can’t speak to how their conflict mediation works, but they have shown a way that even a large co-op can eschew the Family Circus. Union Cab is currently revising its dispute resolution system holistically (for the first time in 30 years). The challenge for getting rid of “dad” or “mom” is that we can’t simply replace them with “big brother” or “big sister”. We have to really find a way for all of us in the society to exist as equals and take that responsibility seriously. This means spending a lot of money (co-operative assets) on education, training and information (the 5th Principle). It also means making requirements on our membership that may seem onerous (such as participating in the education, training and information).

I believe that part of the duty of a worker co-operative involves elevating its membership from the siblings of corporate America’s “families” and creating fully-developed human beings that can interact as equals and recognize their connection to the larger world of workers and economics. This will be how the worker co-operatives grow and move forward, not by imitating our former bosses but by creating a truly new paradigm based on our identity.

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

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

September 7, 2009

#2 Identity: Definition of a Co-operative

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

The definition of a cooperative is “A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 19, 2009

Democracy–practice makes perfect?

Filed under: Governance — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 7:51 pm

It is election season for a couple of cooperatives that have me as a member*. One is a worker coop and one is a consumer coop. In both, the main aspect of democracy is voting for the board of directors. this seems to be the one time of the year when the membership acts as a group and makes its will known. Our process seems very similar to the democracy practiced in our towns and on the national level. Once every couple of years we have a “meeting” of sorts and cast our vote for Mayor, Representative, Governor and President. Then we get  back on with our life (and maybe even kvetch about the people that we elected).

This seems to me a rather weak form of democracy. In my work with St. Mary’s University, I have been writing about measuring democracy (and other coop principles) in worker cooperatives. In everyone of our discussions about membership, the incidence of voting seems to be a minor or unimportant issue.  Instead, the measurement of democracy in a cooperative centers on worker development, communication and feedback systems, education of the membership about the business and the cooperative model, transparency, a humane and safe workplace, and the level of mutual respect between the internal stakeholders (managers, leaders, members, employees, insert-a-label-here, etc.).

Elections, I think, represent the worst form of democracy. It really works against building communities by creating winners and losers. At its worst, it creates cults of personality while repressing real issues that face the cooperative. This summer we have witnessed how people act when they feel that they have lost. Whatever you think of the angry mobs appearing at town halls (I don’t quite care if they are grass root or astroturf) the energy isn’t too far from the mobs in Seattle several years ago chanting the slogan “This is what democracy looks like!” Neither groups were building a lot of community or true democracy. In Seattle, at least, other groups were trying to engage in something other than shouting and building coalitions to oppose the forces of globalized capital. I can attest to having seen a few membership meetings in my 21 years as a coop member reach those same levels of frustration, so I know that coops aren’t immune to the problems of electoral democracy.

The solution, of course, is participation, transparency and building safe areas of communication. This isn’t easy though as our society seems determined to act differently and create a paradigm of democracy that is the opposite of these qualities. All we can do is practice what we preach. Practice making democracy a living thing that expresses itself each day in the work place. This might create some difficult and even heated conversations at first, but practice make perfect and eventually it might even seem quaint and odd to take a vote of the membership to find out what they think.

*As a disclosure, I got my butt handed to me last night coming in 12th out of 13th at the consumer coop–ouch!

August 11, 2009

Green Worker Coops Academy News

Filed under: Education — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 3:43 pm

In my last post, I was remiss in failing to highlight  the efforts being made to bridge the education gap in the United States. In addition to the Peer Technical Assistance Network through the US Federation’s Democracy at Work Institute (DAWI), the really cool and wonderful people in the Bronx have been hard at work creating institutions of social transformation!

We need more organizations like Green Worker Cooperatives throughout the country.

The following is the most recent press release sent out  by Sonia Pichardo in celebration of their academy graduates:

South Bronx, July 20, 2009- Green Worker Cooperatives Co-op Academy Graduates Create Green Businesses

Green Worker Cooperatives is proud to announce our Co-op Academy graduates, Eddie Charles, Don Butterfield, Chris Michaels, William Cerf, Joel Frank, Janco Damas, Jerry Kahn, and Jerome Villanueva.

Green Worker Cooperatives is a local, green, and democratic worker co-op business incubator. Its goal is to create jobs and keep Bronx communities clean for the people who live in them. The Green Worker Co- op Academy is a program that ran for 16 weeks. This intensive business program has taught participants how to develop South Bronx based environmentally-friendly businesses. Students learned about issues dealing with the most beneficial ways to run a worker co-op. In addition, the participants were taught how to prepare a real world business plan. Graduate Jerome Villanueva said, “ As a worker-owner you are hands on, you help out and you get dirty, here the community will actually see the owner.”

The graduates of the most recent Co-op Academy class have already started expanding their ideas into reality. Aquatecture and La Obrera are two worker co-ops currently in the incubation stage. Chris Michaels and William Cerf have begun steps to launch their 24/7 green diner in the South Bronx. Don Butterfield, Jerry Kahn and Eddie Charles are the founders of Aquatecture, a worker-coop to introduce solar energy and renewable energy in the Bronx. Jerome Villanueva, Janco Damas, and Joel Frank are the new transitioning worker owners at ReBuilders Source.

Rebuilders Source is a re-use store that takes in donated used or new building materials and sells those materials for below retail price. Rebuilders Source latest transitioning member, Janco Damas states, “We need to encourage responsible disposal of all these materials.” This is the first worker-owned building material center in the world. It is a viable alternative for contractors and homeowners from putting perfectly good building materials into the landfill.

Registration for the Fall 2009 Coop Academy class can be done if you attend an open house at 461 Timpson Place in Bronx NY on August 22nd. Visit www.greeenworker.coop. to register to attend the open house or to view videos of our graduates.

GREEN WORKER COOPERATIVES is a South Bronx-based organization dedicated to incubating worker-owned and environmentally friendly cooperatives in the South Bronx. Our approach is a response to high unemployment and decades of environmental racism. We don’t have the luxury to wait for new alternatives. That’s why we’re creating them. We believe that in order to address our environmental and economic problems we need new ways to earn a living that don’t require polluting the earth or exploiting human labor.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress