OURbiz

HAPPINESS IS A MEASURE OF SUCCESS

In our last issue Frank Adams presented a short essay entitled “Another Source of Wealth†in which he contended that cooperatives might be overlooking happiness, (the satisfaction gained from working in a cooperative workplace) as a measure of effectiveness in cooperative businesses. Now comes Bernard Marszalek of Inkworks Press with a response to Frank’s essay. Here's a link to the original essay.

BERNARD MARSZALEK ON HAPPINESS

Several months ago the BBC did a series on Happiness. Their policy-wonkish approach made for some hilarious moments, as when a British Labour Party consultant offered some inane ideas about integrating the spate of “Happiness Research†into governmental programs. His suggestions were all on the level of making people “feel good†by adding bright plastic statuary to the parks or more upbeat TV programming.

The BBC presenter then interviewed some high-level Bhutan official about the country’s goal of increasing happiness. So here we have a theocratic kingdom issuing guidelines that limit consumption of Western cultural junk. Well great! Of course there was no mention of the human rights issues Bhutan avoids.
See <http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/02/09/bhutan12647.htm>

So call me a cynic, but I think the BBC made fools of themselves and completely side-tracked what IS significant in the current field of happiness research: the fact that more people registered higher on the happiness scale 50 years ago, than they do now. How can this be when we have so many more commodities today than two generations ago?

Happiness research itself avoids that core of generalized dissatisfaction polls continually demonstrate exist with employment. The approach is to deal with the most banal aspects of daily life on the job. Let’s note the birthdays with cake at 3; beer on Fridays; an afternoon with the “Ropes Course†or maybe, if the boss is especially nice and the profits are secured, a retreat for a day to a spa! This is like guilt-tripping the workers to “feel good.†How pleasant.

What has any of this to do with worker cooperatives? Obviously, a lot. Happiness is a concept with many components, but probably the most basic elements revolve around the notion of autonomy and respect. I can’t think of a better way to describing truly transparent collective effort. How about friends coming together to clear a garden, or decorate a hall for a party or a ceremony? Isn’t this the essence of what we want from our work situations? To keep them on the level of playful interaction as much as possible?

Personally I don’t think that taking a daily poll is the way to achieve the consciousness of this quest. I think that we need, all of us, to devise practical methods to model a different way of life and furthermore (guess what?) most of us are doing this already, we just don’t look at it from the perspective of changing life, but more from finding ways to get by the daily, market-dominated tribulations.

Bernard
Check out Inkworks Press at this link.

U.S. Banks Fighting to Stymie Growth of Credit Unions

Why and How Worker Cooperatives
Should Defend Them

Harry H. Simmons, chief executive of Zion Bankcorp in Salt Lake City and current president of the American Bankers Association, is heading up a nationwide effort to curb the growth of credit unions, organizations founded by the same women and men in Rochdale, England, who in founded the first worker-owned industrially cooperative.

He has encouraged local banks, or their associations, to file lawsuits in Utah, California, and Pennsylvania courts.  The suits seek either to strip credit unions of their tax-exempt status, or to limit the definition of “common bond†to one county or to one business.

Simmons is also lobbying in Washington, claiming the member-owned, not-for-profits have “outlived their relevance†as sources of financing for people of modest means.  This purpose prompted Congress to grant them tax-exempt status during the Great Depression.

Credit unions and worker cooperatives share a common history.  In 1844, the same out-of-work visionaries in tiny Rochdale, Great Britain, founded both the first financially successful retail food cooperative, and they opened a credit union in 1844. 

Three years later, with reliable sources of food and of credit available, as well as money accumulating in their savings accounts, these barely schooled individuals bought and started operating a shuttered woolen mill, also in Rochdale, where many of them worked.

This mill thrived at first making calico.  Soon, however, they needed capital to expand.  The credit union’s reserves were not enough to help.

After a fruitless search among other workers in Rochdale, the owners sought investors to furnish that capital in return for a more than respectable rate of interest on their investment, plus a say in the mill’s day-to-day operational affairs.

These outside investors, not one who helped produce calico, owned the mill, renting the labor of the mill’s owner-founders.

Seeing this saddening event take place, the Rochdale credit union’s leadership stated three simple operating principles still practiced today throughout much of the world:

1.    Only people who are members may borrow;
2.    Loans are made only for “prudent and productive purposesâ€; and,
3.    A member’s desire to repay – their character – is more important than their ability – income – to repay.

This is not how banks operate today or then. 

Simmons, quoted by The Wall Street Journal, is quite direct about what ticks him off about credit unions.  “My bank paid $263.4 million in state and federal taxes last year.  Credit unions paid zip.â€

Don Mica, a former Florida congressman and now chief executive officer of the Credit Union National Association, recently warned 4,200 members their tax exemption is “ life or death issue for credit unions.†  

“Harold Simmons is criss-crossing the country attacking us everywhere he goes,†Mica told The Wall Street Journal.

Credit unions are no longer small, marginal financial institutions in the U.S. economy.  In some regions of the country they have quietly become major threats to banks.  Over all, credit unions assets total nearly $700 billion, or 7% of U.S. bank assets.

Today’s worker owners should consider making common cause with today’s credit unions.  Most bankers show little or no interest in worker cooperatives, or employee buyouts.  Their attack on credit unions should be seen as an attack on worker cooperatives, too, despite the fact that few, if any, credit unions finance worker cooperatives.

One thriving credit union in North Carolina, the nationally known Self-Help Credit Union based in Durham but operating a statewide network of branches, is busily attacking “pay day lending†practices of businesses often directly tied to banks with a nationwide reach. 

These storefront businesses charge “people of modest means†exorbitant interest rates to cash checks, or for loans against their next weeks’ check.

One officer of the Self-Help Credit Union has received death threats with substance such that the Durham Police Department assigned officers to protect him and his family.

The National Credit Union Association is urging Congress to enact legislation rising will raise the limit on business loans to 20% of their portfolio from 12.25%.  Bankers have been passing out copies of a 2002 study by the Government Accountability Office showing that banks serve more low-income persons than credit unions.

Last November, William Thomas, a Republican from California, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, questioned during a hearing whether credit unions were fulfilling their historic mission “to serve people of modest means.† He urged regulators to document for the Committee just how credit unions use their assets for poor and low-income persons.

To learn what you, as a worker owner, or your cooperative, can to support the Credit Union National Association, write Don Mica, chief executive officer, CUNA, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Washington, DC 20004-2601.  Or telephone 202-638-5777. 

- Frank T. Adams

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME

When we first began publication of OURbiz back in June, we ran this article, the first of three, on the subject of whether the names we use to describe the movement are really appropriate. Our readership wasn't very big then. Now, with the Federation (see above) about to take its final form, we'd like to raise the issue again. We'll publish the parts again over the next issues. 

Part One: Is there any unity in our diversity?
Now that the effort of many people to democratically create and run their own enterprises is on the brink of establishing a national consciousness, it seems important to find an inclusive name for what we do. We are variously known as worker cooperatives, collectives, worker-owned (and self-managed) businesses as well as democratic workplaces.

The question is whether any of those titles can encompass the great diversity of who we are and how we practice. To wit:

Legal structure. We are corporations, cooperatives, Sub S and LLC partnerships, collectives, for-profit and non-profit businesses as well as tax-exempt educational and charitable non-profits.

Governance. We decide policy in our businesses in a continuum of arrangements from traditional Boards of Directors elected by members to Committees-of-the-Whole with sub-committees for various policy functions. Decision-making may be by majority vote, super-majority or consensus.

Management and operational style. Some of us manage our businesses as fairly traditional hierarchies. On the other end of the spectrum are those who make a point of a flat operational structure with no bosses and in which operational decisions are delegated to variously structured sub-groups.

How ownership is expressed. In some companies ownership is expressed by stock and within that category some enterprises distribute stock equally while others allow unequal distribution of stock. In still others all stock is held in common by all members. But in non-corporate organizations and non-profits there is no stock at all and ownership is expressed more in terms of membership.

Ownership/membership qualifications. Some companies require long and fairly involved probationary periods prior to ownership vestment. Others require little or no qualifying internships. Similarly, some organizations require substantial membership contributions to capital while others require almost none.

Distribution of risk/benefit. Most organizations share profits with their owner-members. But, within that group, shares may be determined by percentage of stock ownership while others base share size on hours-contributed and still others base share on the total annual earnings of each worker. Further, some companies defer all or part of profitshare to capital accounts available only upon leaving the company, while others distribute profit as salary or patronage dividend at regular, short intervals. And then there are those that have no profit-sharing at all because their organizations do not have a distributable “profit†(non-profit and tax-exempt organizations for instance).

How equity is handled. In some organizations “stake†in our enterprises is based on stock ownership (which can be equal but is sometimes unequal) and the size of individual equity is based on number of shares held. In others equity is based on total hours contributed to the organizational effort. In still others there is no equity involved and membership status does not confer any equity rights at all.

Hybrids. We have at least one respected companion that is a hybrid organization owned jointly by staff and customers. Some producer cooperatives are considering forming worker cooperatives to handle value-added production and sales. A pork cooperative, for example, is considering producing end-user products and selling them directly to the public. They wonder whether a worker-owned business might be the appropriate instrument for carrying out this program. It remains to be learned how these organizations will develop in all the categories above.

We should celebrate our diversity. It indicates a lively experimentation with the application of the democratic principles to the world of work. In fact those democratic principles (open membership, one-person-one-vote) are probably the only commonality we can claim. Within all the diversity it seems important to find a title that meets these tests:
.
•    Internally we need a name that accurately accommodates the diversity of our practice so that we can all feel comfortable applying that name to what we do, even if we each maintain our usual titles (worker-owned, cooperative, worker cooperative, collective) to describe our individual enterprises.

•    Externally we need a name that is intuitively understood and has positive associations for the public. It would be good, if we could construct one that is easily reduced to a memorable acronym.

In the next article we will discuss our mostly commonly used names and why they might have significant shortcomings in meeting both internal and external tests. After that we’d like to suggest some approaches to solving the problem.

In the meantime, we welcome your comments. Just click on the “comment†link below and fire away!

WHY WORKER-OWNED ENTERPRISES?

Would you believe?  In Charlottesville, the very heart of Jefferson's dream of democracy, there is an advocate for workers' cooperatives?  And one, who, believe it or not, writes for Jefferson's university's contemporary newspaper, The Daily Cavalier?

This is a well-informed essay. It focuses on the undisputedly most successful federation of worker cooperatives in the world today.  I doubt that Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.  But I'm certain that the report is a fog for the leaders of economic life and work in Charlottesville today!  Or, rather, are we glimpsing the future in Charlottesville?  And elsewhere?  Is asset-based community organizing coming into it's own in the epicenter of Southern Culture, Charlottesville? Read Zack Fields' article.

Frank T. Adams

DEMOCRACY AND THE GULF COAST RECOVERY

TEPITO: LESSONS FROM A NATURAL DISASTER
How do communities recover from disasters on the scale of Katrina/Rita? Bernard Marszalek sends this article as an exemplar of how some democratic and imaginative efforts along the Gulf Coast might be deployed now. It is an abbreviated and annotated version of a twenty year-old essay on the self-organization of Tepito, a neighborhood in Mexico City. This essay began circulation on the web after Naomi Klein mentioned in her Nation article, "Let the People Rebuild New Orleans". 

This precedent is of ordinary people rebuilding their neighborhoods after a devastating natural catastrophe. Here are a few sentences from her Nation column followed by an extended post of the original article by Harry N. Cleaver with comments by Bernard Marszalek of Ztangi Press.

To read the excerpts of the original Cleaver article and Marszalek's comments, click on the "Continue" link below.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME ... What Fits?

In the first two articles in this three-part series we looked at the broad diversity of our practice and considered whether any of the commonly-used names for what we do suitably include and describe all of us. Then, we asked whether any of those names convey an understandable, positive message to the general public.

Our conclusion was that none of the labels we apply to ourselves fill the bill and suggested that we take seriously the job of finding one that works for us all as well for the public.

In this third article we suggest a possible line of thought for creating a new name.

A Rose By Any Other: Part Two ...... Do any current names really fit us?

Last issue we began a series of articles addressing the question of whether there can be a name for our varied enterprises that describes the great diversity of the ways we do worker-ownership. Last issue we looked at the diversity. This time we consider all the current names we use to describe ourselves. Conclusion: none of our current names fill the bill.

Click this link to find the article: Download rose_part_two.pdf

Missed the first article? Click on "A Rose By Any Other Name" in the Recent Posts section of the sidebar, then make the link to the article.

Please join the conversation at the comment link below.

A rose by any other name: Is there a title that encompasses the variety of our practice?

The Board of Directors of the tentatively titled U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives is moving toward recommending a final name for our association. It will not be easy because of the great diversity of how we practice. It seems prudent that, in the search for a suitable name for the Federation, we also consider coming up with a title that inclusively encompasses our diversity.

In three short articles, starting with this issue, we will examine the problem and suggest some possible solutions. Your ideas and comments, which will listed here (in the sidebar) and available to the planners, will give you an opportunity to be heard in the discussion to come. Download the article and it will be opened on your desktop.

Download first_rose.pdf