The Workers' Paradise

January 28, 2013

The Farmer’s Union, Cooperation, and the Environment

Filed under: Imagine2012,Movement — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 7:00 am

Over the weekend, I had a really wonderful opportunity. I was asked to moderate a panel for the Wisconsin Farmer’s Union 82nd Annual Conference entitled, “Cooperatives – Empowering the Rural Economy… Again.” I also spoke to the Youth Conference presenting the Mondragon Cooperative model. It gave me that chance to also listen to William Nelson of CHS Foundation speak.

This weekend just happened to fall right after I represented my cooperative hosting the Sustainable Business Network quarterly breakfast in Madison with guest speaker from Gundersen Lutheran Health Systems.

The Wisconsin Farmer’s Union, part of the National Farmer’s Union, promotes the slogan “legislation, education, cooperation” and they really do mean all three things. In addition to helping family farmers work for legislation to protect their family farm and promote sustainable farming practices, the Union also operates a Youth movement with and Kamp Kenwood, a cooperative owned and operated summer camp that teaches the principles of co-operatives while also providing a fun summer camp for members.

While it was fun to present Mondragon to a group of people who hadn’t yet heard of the Basque cooperative society, it is more important to share the take-away mirrored Bill Nelson’s message. The next 40 years will likely see a dramatic change in the way that the world produces farmers as the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.With a projected world population of nine billion or greater and significantly less water and land to produce food, the challenge to today’s young farmers will be incredible. It was my point that the challenge to the founders of Mondragon was also great, but the the role of the cooperative allowed them to focus on their values, work together, and find solutions instead of amassing profit. It will be the co-operatives that figure out the solution to climate change, because our focus is on sustainability  not simply amassing profit. Money doesn’t do any good sitting in a bank vault. Like manure, it only works if we spread it around and prevent run-off.

The panel brought three great stories of how cooperatives create sustainability. Fifth Season was the newest of the three coops presented. This is a relatively new model of food coop in the US. Rather than GM dominated consumer coops that cater to the wealthy, it is a multi-stakeholder co-operative that offers membership to each of the six different segments of the food chain: producer, producer groups, processors, distributers, buyers, and workers. Everybody is at the table. They aren’t operating retail outlets, however, most of their buyers have institutional needs, so it is a bit different than the foodie focused consumer coops, but it also caters to working people who can’t really afford shopping at boutique food stores and still want good food. It is a really neat experiment in sustainability and local development in the rural area of Wisconsin. Organic Valley also presented with a focus on how they are working to become even more sustainable  The organic producer coop  has been a leader in sunflower oil technology and has found the means to develop it for either food-grade or bio-fuel. In addition  they have been working the Gundersen Lutheran (which is also a member of Fifth Season) to install two ginormous wind turbines. The energy production gets shared between the two organizations, but Organic Valley’s representatives said it covers almost 90% of their electrical needs! Finally, Cooperative Care’s  Tracy Dudzinski spoke on the important work of providing home care and health care in the rural areas and the powerful nature of cooperatives to transform workers from people who work to live into fully actualized human beings as well as the growing need for home care as the baby boomers age into a large community of single people with limited personal support networks.

The last bit brings me back to my Mondragon talk and one of the things that I wish that I had mentioned at the panel. During the discussion of  the three panelists, I was reminded of a series of short stories by Hamlin Garland entitled Main Travelled Roads . He wrote about the farmers of the Coulee Country of Southeast Wisconsin. How they were preyed upon by eastern bankers, crooked salesmen, and a host of other issues that helped found the Grange and ultimately the Progressive Movement and the Wisconsin Farmer’s Union. I wondered how he would see the farmers of Wisconsin today (I wasn’t sure how many people in the audience got my reference, but I was presuming that everyone who grew up in Wisconsin and is a farmer has read this book–it is a great collection of short stories). More importantly, I wish that I would have amplified Tracy’s comments recognizing how cooperatives, especially worker cooperatives, function to change people. Arizmendiaretta, the spiritual founder of Mondragon, always believed that worker ownership would transform workers into strong and moral community leaders. It has been my experience to see that effect over and over again. It is one of the reasons that I believe that it will be the cooperative movement that manages to deal with climate change. It will take real leadership to build a new sustainable economy. Not leadership in the form of politicians, but leadership in the form of making tough decisions that provide the most benefit to the most people even if that means some short term sacrifice. Politicians are a dime-a-dozen these days, but few are leaders.

It was my pleasure to meet some of the future leaders of Wisconsin in Eau Claire this weekend. Leaders who understand the important role of education and cooperation and will help lead to better legislation. Leaders who are committed to dealing with three of the most important issues of our day: food security, energy and climate change, and an aging population and health care. At the very least, rural Wisconsin seems to be in good hands.

January 14, 2013

What is Progress? and How Do We Measure It?

Filed under: Imagine2012 — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 1:05 pm

Imagine 2012 continued

Ron Colemen, the Director and Founder of the Nova Scotia based GPI Atlantic (a non-profit research institute measuring wellness and developer of the Genuine Progress Index) spoke on the nature of progress and how the means of measurement work against a sustainable ecosystem. The following are my notes from his talk and the following commentary. However, first let me add a few comments. This conference didn’t just bring together economists such as Coleman and the cooperative world, it also presented a challenge to the existing cooperative paradigm. We need to do more that play by the rules that are made for us. We need to change the rules. As Coleman points out, the way that we count creates the the ability to hide the environmental costs of our actions. No accounting firm would ever allow a cab company to ignore depreciation of its vehicles and the surplus or profit shown would be expected to help replace those assets. So why don’t we have the same concept with natural assets (trees, water, breathable air, etc)?

Likewise, the small federal credit unions of Brooklyn have resisted the urge to get big. Not surprisingly, they maintain a humanity about them that has only become a marketing ploy of some giant credit unions. It isn’t enough to call a business a coop or credit union. It needs to be making a real difference in the world.

 Ron Coleman on the New Economic Paradigm

The window for change is shrinking rapidly. Within a short period time, the earth will be locked into the a period of climate change.

Coops are planting the seeds of the new economy. If change doesn’t happen within this movement, then where will we find it?  Yet every coop uses the same accounting system that has gotten the world into trouble in the first place. To make a change, we need an accurate accounting system that includes the human, social and ecological costs. If co-ops can structure their annual reports to include the real cost, it can affect price signals and make a change in the way that we do business.

Let’s begin with diagnosis and then change the way we measure progress.

Our current GDP based accounting system that only measures market flows in monetary value of what is produced. It ignores a wide range of social, human and ecological costs which send inaccurate signals to the public and the policy makers. Accounts assess values and we can change how that works. The current account mechanisms do not account for natural wealth, beauty and ecological services, voluntary work, family/leisure time and more.

Robert F. Kennedy on the GDP: “It accounts everything except that which makes life worthwhile.”

If you hire a housekeeper, the GDP goes up. If you marry your housekeeper the GDP goes down. If you hire a stranger to care for your child, GDP goes up, if you care for your child, it has no economic value.

The quicker we cut down trees, deplete our fisheries and use up our fossil fuels, the faster the economy will grow.

What we count reflects what we value. it determines what makes in ont the policy agenda and influences behaviour. Is this system appropriate for cooperatives and credit unions? We do our own members a disservice by using an accounting system that is fundamentally flawed and anti-cooperative.

Accounts Are Powerful.

If we understand that, then the alternative is very straightforward. We need to expand our accounting. We need to include social capital in our accounts. Natural resources should be subject to depreciation and requiring re-investment. Voluntary work, safe communities enhance social capital.

General Progress Index Accounts

Crime, sickness, disasters and pollution clean up are counted as costs rather that contributions to well being. 1/4 of the world’s prison population is in the United States and the Prison industrial complex grows the economy.

The GPI Nova Scotia has over 100 detailed reports. Natural Capital Account, Human Impact on the Environment, Living Standards, Social and Human Capital.

Price signals are very powerful. Nothing removed SUVs from the road more effectively than a massive increase in fuel.

This is the 20th anniversary of the Canadian moratorium on Cod fishing–the GDP sent no signals since the only thing that counted were the fish that were caught. There was no accounting method for fish stocks and when they collapsed, 40,000 jobs collapsed with them. This proves that environmental costs lead to dramatic economic losses.

Using a net process, we can see that the costs to farming are increasing as a percentage of Income.

Full Cost Accounting:

  • Internalize “externalities”
  • Recognize economic value of non-market assets (voluntary sector, natural capital)
  • Fixed–>variable costs (e.g. car registration, insurance)–give credit to workers to carpool or use public transit.
  • $ Values–strategic only= inadequacy of $ as valuation instrument. “Value” = larger.

Dutch experiment with part time work at good pay and benefits. People work better in shorter hours. .

The political will is not present (even with the New Democratic Party). What will bring the political will to happen? Bhutan is the first sovereign nation will be using this new accounting system and present the rudiments of the paradigm presented to the United Nations in 2013.

However, Cooperatives can start doing this today. They can be a powerful force in the development of a new economic paradigm.

Commentary on New Economic Paradigm from Joy Cousminer

Commented on how large credit unions call it the credit union industry instead of the credit union movement and that is antithetical to what credit unions are.

“BetheX credit union was formed to serve poor and working poor in New York City. Most early members were women on welfare  (Aid To Families with Dependent Children). the Board is a volunteer group. Members benefited by having a safe place to save compared to a sugar jar. Women made small loans and could avoid the loan shark and the pawn shop.

Our growth is horizontal–we seek out poor people and do not recruit from the middle class, but they find us on their own. We visit homeless and domestic abuse shelters to find new members.

We specialize in start-ups and run credit reports to please the bank examiner but ignore them. We make loans to seniors even those over 70. Employees come from the community and hire relatives (considered a “no no”) and all start as tellers and work their way up. The Credit union pays all health care and dental and a clothing allowance for the workers. We encourage staff to improve their education. As we do better financially, we reduce fees and interest.

Created a group called “We care for Credit Unions” to assist small credit unions.

By making money easily available, we are reducing stress, and helping families. Poor people do not dream of living in mansions, they dream commensurate with their station in life. They want a nice dress for their daughter and a car that won’t break down on the way to the family picnic.”

 

January 7, 2013

Imagine 2012 and Beyond

Filed under: Imagine2012 — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 12:56 pm
In October, economists and cooperative thinkers from around the world met in Quebec to bridge the gap between the disciplines. The conference, Imagine2012, International Conference on Cooperative Economics featured a number of presenters such as Neva Goodwin, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Stefano Zamagni and Vera Zamagni. Maxnfred Max-Neef was unable to attend and Elinor Ostrum was scheduled but passed away prior to the conference. The next several posts will be from my notes on the event. Starting with the opening press conference.
This event is particularly important in the last quarter of the International Year of the Cooperatives. It allows us to spotlight our enterprises. My notes, even with quotes, should be seen as paraphrasing.
Colin Dodd, President Saint Mary’s University
Colin Dodd spoke of some of the origins for the idea of the conference which began through Saint Mary’s unique master’s program in cooperative management. He noted that Tom Webb had proposed a program based on a course at Saint Francis Xavier (home to Moses Coady and the Antigonish Movement). Further, Dodd’s own background was growing up in the mining community of Northern England near Manchester home to the birthplace of cooperative and trade unions, which had, by Pres. Dodd’s day created a “cradle-to-grave” cooperative movement.
The master’s program was build from the ground up, not simply a copy of an MBA. It reflects the essentials of the cooperative movement and complements the goals of the Sobey School of Business and SMU to be a global university. It creates a sustainable global economic model based on democracy.
Monique Leroux, CEO and President, Desjardins
Cooperatives are diffierent, our goals are difference, our long term vision is different. So few universities and business schools recognize coops. I hope that more universities will follow St. Mary’s lead. We need more innovation, sustainable growth, and more businesses to invest and think long-term. Cooperatives are not an alternative to businesses, what make them distinctive is that they base themseves on the needs of people, not profit.
Why are coops more likely to be studied in sociology courses instead of business courses?
Dame Pauline Green, President, International Cooperative Alliance
We are delighted to be part of this event. We need fresh thinking about how to go forward in building the cooperative movement. This event is a kickstart to where we want to go in the future. The IYC has been an opportunity to reach out to the cooperative movement.  For the first time in 170 years, our movement has worked together in a cohesive manner.
We need to keep on working to make sure that our model is a key part of the global economy. A billion people in the world are not “idealistic”.
Tom Webb, organizer of Imagine 2012
Tom commented on the differences in approaching cooperative management and understanding cooperative economics:
Want we need to do is to account how we use our resources to meet our goals and meet human needs. How do we market to human needs. We don’t teach human resources, we teach personnel management. We realized that we could not teach neoclassical economics to coop managers.
In neoclassical economics, needs get trumped by wants. income inequality is of no concern (as opposed to economies of scale and minimal markets).
What have we gotten, more wealth than ever even why we cannot afford education and healthcare. 100 million people work in coops.
Has the economy become an angry god to whom we must sacrifice: children, the elderly, the environment, the poor, healthcare, education
“The economy is a complex set of relationships that people use to provide thmsevles with the goods and services needed to provide themselves with a meaningful life.”
Economics is the sutdy of how effective the economy is at meting human need in a manner that allowes people to have a meaningful life.
Stefano Zamagni, Vice-director, Bologna Center
Prof. Zamagni is a leader in cooperative economics and, with his wife Vera, has produced some excellent works on the topic such as “Cooperative Enterprise: facing the challenge of globalization.”
“Why did cooperatives disapear from economic thought? Since the start of the market economy, their are two types of competition. Since globalization era began, the cooperative model has grown even if the economist will not admit it. Connective capital has also grown but that is simply another way of saying cooperative competition.  Why does mainstream economic theory continure to ignore coops?
It is common theory that assumes that everyone is Homo Economica statest thats self-interest is the only reason for people to act. Zamagni suggests that a different model is needed a Homo Cooperative? We need to see that common-interest, not self-interest, is what has allowed humans to flourish and will save the planet. Thinking thought vs. calculating thought is what is needed with our cooperatives,
Karen Miner, Manager, MMCCU program at Saint Mary’s University
Emphasis of new economic theory for the future development of cooperatives. Notice how capitalist model borrows from co-operatives. However, co-ops must be careful when borrowing from capitalists that they don’t lose themselves in the process. A cooperative movement must articulate a “future” state. Cooperative managers need specialized knowledge. “
These are only some brief comments from the opening press conference. Over the next few posts, I will be poring through my notes of the speakers.  It was a dynamic conference that explained the perilous state of the environment and the role that economics plays in creating our natural, political and economic environment. The discussion also focused on how we, as cooperators, can turn this around. Not, necessarily  through government intervention, but through a better understanding of economics.

November 22, 2010

Business or Democracy? Why Is That Even a Question?

Filed under: Movement — Tags: — John McNamara @ 2:59 pm

“To be successful, co-ops must lead with a competitive, quality product, not their cooperative values.”

“The is no mission, if there isn’t a margin.”

Sound familiar? I’ve heard both in the last couple of days. The latter was part of a dialogue deconstructing the former. Nevertheless, I am sure that you have heard.

There are always those that want to make this differentiation, but it is a false dichotomy. Our worker co-operative of socio-economic organizations. There is no difference between being a successful business and a democratic workplace. In fact, it is the democratic nature of our businesses that make us successful (if we chose to embrace that aspect). It allows us–our front line staff–to make the key connection with the consumers that other businesses simply cannot do.

I would argue that if a worker co-operative cannot run a sustainable democratic business then it is either in the wrong market or has something wrong internally that doesn’t recognize the real value of their product or service. It may be that they are not charging enough to meet their needs or have too high a price to engage the critical mass of the marketplace that will help them survive.

Regardless of the situation, it is a mistake to claim that the co-operative values are atavistic or alien to creating a large enough surplus to meet the capital needs of the business or have the best pay and benefits in the industry. If a worker co-op can’t accomplish that, then it needs to re-focus. In terms of co-operative values, the value of “self-responsibility” clearly speaks to this dynamic.

We have to be both a well-run business and a democratic business. Otherwise, we might as well give over to the capitalists, admit that we can’t do it, and unionize. If we really want to create a new world, we can’t pretend that it is impossible to achieve. We can’t forsake our values and principles to survive–in fact, we need to push those values and principles to the forefront and make them our competitive advantage! This is what the MOCA (Marketing the Co-op Advantage) is all about.

Again, I have to channel James Connolly. In his sarcastic, satirical essay, “Let Us Free Ireland!”, he ridiculed those who wanted an Irish Nation, with English governance:

“After Ireland is free, say the patriot who won’t touch Socialism, we will protect all classes, and if you won’t pay your rent you will be evicted same as now. But the evicting party, under the command of the sheriff, will wear green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you our on the roadside will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic. Now, isn’t that worth fighting for?”

So I say to our worker co-operatives: what, exactly, is the point of being a worker co-operative if you aren’t creating a better world? If you aren’t leading your industry in wages and benefits and being sustainable, then what are your really doing? If you aren’t changing the way the work is done in your industry (allowing the front-line workers and all workers to participate in the strategic planning and goal setting of the organization), then what are your doing? We don’t need paternalistic do-gooders telling the working class what to do. We can get that anywhere.

If we want to change the economy to something more sustainable and fair, then we need to begin in our own co-ops. If we really don’t believe in that, then we should get out of the way of those who do.

August 7, 2010

Deep Thoughts on Coops

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 3:10 pm

“Cooperation summons people to a collective project, but leaves each person with his or her own responsibility. Cooperation is the development of the individual, not against others, but with others. The objective is the human person, not the monstrous development of the individualist who is determined to, or at least at constant risk of , crushing other. Rather the objective is the development of what is the best and most sacred within each human person. Cooperation is something that is close to humans. Cooperativist philosophy rejects both the collectivist and the liberal conceptions of the human natures. It recognizes instead the unique value of the human person, but insists that this person cannot be totally him or herself until entering into creative as well as spiritually and materially productive relationshps with the worlh  or she is part.” –Don Jsoé María Arizmendiarrieta (spiritual founder and leader on Mondragon Coopertive)

This statement provided the basis for this workshop at the US Federation of Worker Cooperative National Conference. The title of the workershop, Deeper Meanings of Cooperation, was meant to get at the society of our cooperatives and, as facilitator Rebecca Kemble noted, how we refashion ourselves as humans and deal with co-workers who either won’t or can’t refashion themselves.”.

It was a round-table discussion that focused on the issues of self-responsibiitiy and self-help. We discussed how we work with conflict in our cooperatives and how we manage disputes. Part of this discussion involved the reason that people choose coopeatives. While some come to the coop movement out of a desire to work in a democratic environemnt, others come becuase the coop succeeds in providing good jobs and benefits for the industry. As Adam Chern of Union Cab pointed out that it isn’t neccessarily discussed in the lofty terms of coops but in the simple concepts of thsoe who see the need for long-term sustainability and those that want short-term gains. It reminded me of the analogy of the the Grasshoppoer and the Ant. These are two very different world views and as coop leaders, we need to figure out how to manage them.

There was a lot of discussion about creating strong educational programs and better communication structures. Lisa Russell from Equal Exchange noted a cultural part of our country. In her travels with EE, farmers in Salvador noted taht the Americans talk in small groups in the hallway, but stay silent in meetings. While the farmers make a point of airing their differences and working them out.

Peter Hough of the Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation noted that conflict may also result from the lack of a formal business plan and vision of the organization while John Langley suggested that we also need to recognize that “getting rid of the boss” doesn’t ensure change. Further, that people may start out with very idealistic goals but can gravitate towards a narrow self-interest.

There are a number of great comments along these lines. We ended the session with a discussion about pay levels and how that can create conflict when it seems to run counter to the vision or ideal of cooperatives. We also discused the cultural differnece between physical and intellectual labor. This drifted into a discussion of the social capital that we create. Not all of the wealth is financial. We need to find a way to reach out to those that only see the financial and help them see the social capital that they build.

I felt that we were getting at a lot of issues in our cooperatives. How do we create a truly meaningul community and society within a larger paradigm that seems to champion the antithesis of our values, ethics, and principles. One person suggested that the tension between capitalism and cooperation can be a good thing and help us impove.

Ultimately, I think that our discussion was getting at the concept of Entropy. In the physical world, Entropy is part of teh second law of thermodynamics. Without working on a system, it will decay to its most unorganized state. So it is with our cooperatives. We cannot expect people to simply walk in from the outside world and embrace the cooperative ideal. We need to create institutional norms and mores. We need to work against the entropy of our cooperatives that leads people to narrow their self-interest. This means creating and defending structures within our cooperatives to educate and inform on the cooperative identity. It also means that we need to be willing to confront (in a cooperative way) the negativity and we need to support each other.

In her opening remarks (held after this session), Executive Director Melissa Hoover said that we need to quit thinking ourselves as the “alternative”. We need to see ourselves as the model.To do this, we need to discover ways to help workes “refashion” themselves. Arimendiarietta famously asked if the worker co-operative is an economic movement with an educational component or an education movement with an economic component. He believed in educaiton. He also saw work as a form of social transformation. We need to see our workplaces as places to create social capital which can be used to help people reach their potential as humans. If not, then we must ask, as Sidney Prohubischy once did, “why work so hard to be a capitalist?” We have a responsibility to reach higher.

September 28, 2009

#5 Equality

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , , , , — John McNamara @ 12:34 pm

“Cooperatives,” states the background paper on the Cooperative Identity, ” are based on equality. The basic unit of the Co-operative is the member, who is either a human being or a grouping of human beings. This basis in human personality is one of the main features distinguishing a cooperative from firms controlled in the interests of capital. Members have rights or participation:

  • a right to be informed
  • a right to be heard
  • a right to be involved in a way that is as equal as possible

(sometimes a difficult challenge in large co-operatives or in federations of co-operatives). In fact, concern for achieving and maintaining equality is a continuing challenge for all co-operatives. In the final analysis, it is as much a way of trying to conduct business as it is a simple statement of rules.”

In a worker coop, the concept of equality gets wrapped up into the personalities of the people involved. Favoritism and cults or personality can destroy worker co-operatives precisely because it contradicts the concept of “equality”.  At the same, time equality can be used as a cudgel to beat down any attempt to recognize service or to build the business.

The value of equality in a worker co-operative should inform the leaders’ decisions on how to act. They need to  (whether as a individual or as a group) consider how their treatment of their co-workers and development of policy works to create a level field within the cooperative. It is also the individual members responsibility to strive towards a workplace dedicated to seeing the individual member free from the distractions of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and all of the other groupings of what we now refer to as “protected characteristics”. Worker co-operators must go beyond this, though, and also filter out friendships, animosities and loyalties.

As mentioned in the background paper, co-operatives are made up of humans not dollars. As a result, we have different challenges. We work together in our co-operative and form relationships. Sometimes, these relationships are fantastic (I know people that have met and married in my coop). Sometimes, they are not (I know people who have gotten restraining orders against other members). In either extreme case or the large middle where most of us exist, we need to balance our emotions about the individual relationship with the overall health of the co-operative and the value of equality.

Allowing friendships to influence decisions made (especially if one is a manager in a hierarchical structure) is detrimental to the cooperative, even if the decision is ultimately a good one. To this end, I think that the value of “equality” in a worker co-operative means that we must strive to flatten hierarchical structures whenever possible.

Because pay scales tend to be flat, the issue of equality tends to show up in the form or discipline and accountability.  We also need to develop strong measures of accountability. We need to develop support mechanisms to resolve emotional conflicts and force “old boy style networks” (please insert any preferred term for “boy”) into the open. Having a supportive network of friends is important to anyone’s sense of community, but when it is used to advance a personal agenda or development, then it can be a negative force within a cooperative.

The value of equality plays a strong role in worker co-operatives. A lot of us come to the co-operative movement precisely because we were treated unfairly by the traditional corporate/business model. This makes our expectations high and, in contrast, the anger greater if we feel that we have been wronged and that the value of equality has been ignored or manipulated.

As worker co-operators we must struggle to create a sense of fairness. Not just in hiring practices and the legal concept of equality. Nor just in right of participation as outlined in the background paper. We must create a sense of equality that ensures accountability of the membership to each other in terms of the values of self-help and self-responsibility. These values of the identity statement do not stand alone, but act in unison to build a strong community.

Next Week: Equity: the other side of Equality.

September 20, 2009

#4 The Value of Self-Responsibility

Filed under: Governance,Identity Statement Series — Tags: , — John McNamara @ 1:35 pm

The second value of the co-operative identity also refers to the individual. I think that this is important. As the old saying goes, “you can’t do for others until you do it for yourself.” Therefore, it is with cooperation. We really cannot co-operate unless we come to that idea through our personal development and take personal responsibility for it.

In the background paper, the concept of self-responsibility is laid out as follows:

“”Self-responsibility” means that members assume responsibility for their co-operative—for its establishment and its continuing vitality. Further, members have the responsibility of promoting their co-operative among their families, friends and acquaintances. Finally, “self-responsibility” means that members are responsible for ensuring that their co-operative remains independent from other public or private organizations.”

The first idea to pop into my head after reading this statement is that this is the one point in the co-operative identity mentions the importance of the sustainability of the organization. Often, it is common to hear managers (and members) argue for fiscally stable decisions even at the expense of social issues due to the need to keep the cooperative a float. This can degenerate into a division between the needs of the business outweighing the needs of the members; however, sustainability or vitality is a very important part of the cooperative. On the other hand, if the co-operative is only about profit margin, then, as Sidney Prohubischy* noted, “why work so hard to be a capitalist?”

In our workers cooperatives, self-responsibility has many dimensions. Often, we do not have the need for our cooperative’s products or services. Sometimes, we might need them, but cannot afford them and neither can our friends. However, we all need to take responsibility for promoting the cooperative. Despite how the organization is set up, it is every member’s role. Of course, the issue of slackers always comes up. Every business has workers who shirk their duties. In the capitalist world, this is part of the labor-management antagonism. In a worker co-operative it is a failure of this value and not just counter-productive but an act of hostility against the co-operative. At the same time, worker co-operatives also need to be humane workplaces that understand the human experience, not Tayloristic dystopias.

In the larger sense, self-responsibility is not only taking on the responsibility of ownership, but also expecting other members to also act as owners. It is about accountability, not in the sense of being called before a tribunal, but in a very personal sense or putting the co-operative’s interest above one’s own interest. This is not something that we are trained to do in this country. To accomplish this value, worker co-operative need to build infrastructure within their organization. We need to understand the worker come to the co-operative from the larger society. They need to be educated about self-responsibility. At the New Orleans conference, a co-operator referred to this group as “recovering wage slaves” and we need to instill into them a sense of co-operation. We cannot simply assume that people “get it” and that is part of self-responsibility: to look after the members of our co-operative and help them understand the Identity. This can have many forms but should include some method of peer support to allow workers to engage each other and themselves in being responsible to the co-operative and to each other.

Next week: Equality

*I never met Sidney (he was too ill to participate in the MMCCU’s orientation when I attended and has since passed). He, however, a lion of the Maritime Co-operative. I do not have a link to his writings on the identity statement, but he was one of the main participants in the lengthy discussions leading to its creation.

October 24, 2006

Mifflin St. Co-op to Close?

Filed under: Movement — Tags: , , — John McNamara @ 7:00 pm

One of the student paper’s on the UW-Madison campus, The Daily Cardinal, ran a story about the potential closing of Madison’ s oldest grocery cooperative, Mifflin St. Co-op. The Capital Times also ran a story in which the end seems more certain.

I know that there will be as many opinions of why Mifflin failed as there are co-op members in Madison!  Suffice to say, they haven’t closed yet and may still find a way to overcome the huge obstacles that appear before them.

Others can give a more detailed history than I, but here is a general synopsis:

Founded at the hieght of the anti-war movement in 1968, Mifflin Street set up shop at the corner of Bassett Street and Mifflin Street–the heart of the student housing sector of the city. In addition to selling natural and organic foods long before it became trendy, the co-op also became a main meeting place of the area activists. In 1969, they sponsored a street dance that was attacked by the police. After that, the coop became most known for its annual Mifflin St. Block Party (with special brownies made for the occassion). In the early 1970′s, N. Bassett Street came within one vote of being renamed “Ho Chi Minh Trail” by the City Council and the corner is still known as Ho Chi Corners by some of the city’s cab drivers.

Mifflin’s success helped other co-ops get off the ground inlcuding: Williamson Street, WORT-FM, Union Cab a small group of housing coops for students, etc. It wasn’t so much that Mifflin started these other coops as they paved the way and made others believe that co-ops could work.

Of course, times do change. The City of Madison changed the rules on block party insurance which caused the Co-op to quit sponsoring them. The grocery industry changed dramatically in the late 1980′s moving towards bigger square footage spaces. Stores with Mifflin’s footprint either became convenience stores, coffee shops or other retailers.  At the same time, the students changed. The students who most identified with Mifflin grew up and moved out. The ones coming in were wealthier, trendier and more mainstream. In many ways, the Mifflin Street Co-op became the allegorical “Puff, the Magic Dragon“.

The 1990′s added another twist as major retailers started branding organics and natural foods. With the immense growth of Williamson Street Grocery cooperative on the east side and the arrival of Whole Foods Grocery on the west side, Mifflin was caught between two larger retailers offering the same and more. Added to this, many “members” of Mifflin Street chose to shop at Williamson. They kept their membership for nostaligic reasons, but didn’t financially support the cooperative.

For the last ten years, it seems to me (an outsider), that Mifflin has always been in a financial crisis. They aren’t closed yet, but they do need to take some serious steps. Maybe they should change their focus from groceries to something more fitting for their shop and what the market will support today.

Mifflin will likely join Burely as a cautionary tale of ignoring the changes in the market. While not capitalist, co-operatives are, after all, market driven economies. They need to pay attention to the changes and adapt to them. Ultimately, people choose do business with vendors and stores that supply what they want. Ideology only gets so many people in the door and only for so long. As witnessed by the many Mifflin members who show their card at Willy St., ideology is a poor form of customer loyalty program.

Powered by WordPress