The WSM Employee Action Plan 2011

Well. It's not what I set out in my own suggested Action Plan. And it could definitely do with a little more punch - see my letter below. But you know. For all that. The draft Employee Action Plan, produced by the corporate office of Weaver Street Market Co-operative to address worker grievances, is not half bad.

It's more about setting up pathways of communication and accountability, than actually addressing concerns. But it's a start. Now. A few things have been missed out, and a couple of others need further defining. So. Of course. A letter to the General Manager. But a nice letter. Well. For me:

"Dear Ruffin and Deborah,

I have now had an opportunity to read through the proposed WSM Employee Action Plan. My first reaction is that it offers a very real opportunity to address the grievances raised in the WSM Employee Survey, provided what is suggested is genuine.

That said, I would add that there are one or two important matters missing. But here's the rub. It all comes down to pathways of communication. If you are sincere about opening the pathways of communication, as you appear to be in the Action Plan, then all of those matters can be addressed by employees down the line.

Genuineness of communication will be measured in three ways, in my opinion:

1) The extent to which communication is two-way. None of what you suggest will improve anything if all you allow is communication downward. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that what the Employee Survey was saying, among other things, is that employees are not as happy as they could be because there is not enough communication allowed upwards. We want, we need to be more involved in decision-making. To be allowed input. And to know that our input has had effect. It's not just a question of what would be nice. It's basic Business 101. Employees are more invested in implementing decisions they've been involved in making. More than this, it is required co-op policy under the Board's 'Treatment of Staff.' Which brings me to No. 2.

2) Communication includes accountability - downwards. Just as all of the communication is now downwards, all of the accountability is upwards. This is neither sensible, nor co-operative. Managers and support staff should be just as accountable to those they serve as we employees are to our managers for the jobs we perform. In a co-op, all are equal. We may hold titles, that imbue us with a job description. But different job descriptions do not engender a different status. At the end of the day, when it is time to communicate about our co-op, how it is performing, and to hold people accountable, that communication should be equal. Which brings me to No. 3.

3) Communication (indeed, the Action Plan as a whole) should be about all three of our bottom lines: financial, social and environmental. Again, if this Action Plan is merely another excuse for managers to enforce financial performance, it will fail. We are not just about selling groceries. We are not just about making money. We are about our Mission Statement. We are about our co-op policies. And it is the responsibility of all in our co-op equally to ensure that we meet all three of our bottom lines, not just the financial one. Specifically, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that, among other goals, our customers achieve a shopping experience that is fulfilling for them, not just for our financial bottom line. And that all employees enjoy a fulfilling work experience, not just one that satisfies managers and our financial bottom line. If this does not form the context of the increased communication set out in the Employee Action Plan, then we are wasting our time.

Ok. What is missing?

A) Financial Context -- The Employee Survey does not just say that we employees want more communication. The 52 pages of closely-typed commentary set out in statistically significant detail our concerns that we are overworked, overstressed, underpaid, under-equipped and under-supported with the tools we need to serve our customers, and the incentives that should form a part of your wanting us to perform better.

The Employee Action Plan you propose does not directly address these grievances. Why? I'm guessing because that requires money.

We do not need to be rocket scientists to know that the goal you set (not us, you) for us this past year (the 15% sales increase) has not been achieved. We do not need to be rocket scientists to know (notwithstanding the pap in the owner newsletter) that money is still tight. But you do not need to be rocket scientists to understand that you need us happy and fulfilled if we are to produce the results that you want. And that will take money.

The Employee Action Plan should be addressing how we workers can discuss how that money can be made available.

Nowhere in the Employee Action Plan is there any suggestion there will be discussion of our financial state, the gameplan, how to make money available, financial goals for 2012. Now again, if the improved communication you seem to be promoting allows for that, then ... hmm ... ok. But not if managers suppress such discussion in meetings, or say they do not have the appropriate information or personnel available. Um. Let's make sure the appropriate information and personnel are available, ok?

B) Worker-Ownership -- It is no good saying that incentive for financial performance exists for all workers through worker-ownership, if over half of our workers can not afford the $500 induction fee. It is no good saying that the opportunity for input to co-op goal-setting exists through the Election of Worker Directors, if over half of our workers can not afford the $500 necessary to buy a vote.

This point was made expressly clear in the Employee Survey. Could the Employee Action Plan please include the suggestion that worker-ownership will immediately be reduced to, say, $200? Ruffin, you told me there was no good financial reason for keeping worker-ownership so high. You all say you are grateful to us workers for our efforts. Prove it. With this long overdue gesture, and with this whole Employee Action Plan.

Now. To the Action Plan, section by section:

Communications - Departments

Good.

All I would repeat are my points above about what can be discussed, communication upwards and accountability downwards.

It is no good one of us raising in a Department Meeting what we are doing within the context of our financial state, if a manager turns around and says, can't discuss that here.

It is no good one of us saying that we are spending too much time focusing on finance and not enough on whether workers are fulfilled in what they are doing (and that is something workers should determine, not you), if a manager turns around and says, um, I have bosses and they won't allow me to allow you to discuss that.

The change in attitude and culture must first take place at the top. You seemed to agree with this at the last SV Unit Meeting. You were all hopping about, talking about improved financial literacy within our co-op. And when I raised the same points I mention here, that a co-op, our co-op is about more than just financial performance, we have a triple bottom line, and we should want to improve co-operative literacy also, you all stood there, nodding your heads vigorously.

Please now turn those nods into action.

Tell your managers that their performance will be judged as much on their compliance with the Mission Statement, co-op policy, and the entirety of the triple bottom line, as it will on achieving financial goals. That they will be perceived to have failed their job description if their employees are unhappy, even if those financial goals have been met.

Communications -- Unit and Co-op Level

Ditto to all of the above.

Again, this is not just communication down. And it is not just financial communication.

I re-iterate, I believe we could improve the Market Messenger, and make it more relevant to employees, and allow them to feel more invested and involved, if we formed an editorial committee of representatives from all Units, and then gave that committee free publishing rights to one page of the Market Messenger.

Subject to exclusion of pornography, what could possibly scare you about such openness (er, a co-operative value to which we subscribe)? Other than the truth?

I would like to see a firm commitment to holding an Annual Meeting of all Co-op Employees, where the primary agenda item would be Q&A with the co-op's senior management.

Equipment Maintenance

Nothing to say, if this actually happens, but thank you.

Technology

Ditto.

Consistent Department Standards And Accountability

The Administrative Office is a Department. And it should be accountable to all in the co-op.

Indeed, following on from the enunciation that we are all equal in our co-op, we just have different jobs, we are all equally accountable to each other in our co-op.

The problem is that, at the moment, there is no way for accountability downwards to be enforced.

So. Let's see if we can find a way, starting at the beginning.

Yes, let's set out a clear and consistent job description for all positions. But let's arrange it so that we may all agree on those job descriptions. All of them.

Post them. Have a folder in each Unit, setting out what are the agreed job descriptions and responsibilities of every employee, from the GM down to ... me.

It will come as no surprise to you that I will want to see included in every manager's and support staff member's job description the fact that they are responsible for compliance with the Mission Statement, the triple bottom line, co-op policy and specifically 'Treatment of Staff.'

But how to hold accountable?

Well. First, by holding regular Co-op, Unit and Department Meetings, where it is made clear that discussion of ALL job descriptions, responsibilities and performance will be allowed.

But here's another possibility. By turning the Annual 360 Degree exercise into a rolling Employee Survey. Where we are specifically invited to comment on the performance, not just of our fellow employees, and our immediate manager, but also our Unit Manager, the support staff, the GM, the co-op as a whole, etc.

Let's talk specific examples. We have not achieved your goal of a 15% sales increase. I could discuss the pitfalls of setting unattainable goals. And I probably will in due course. But very definitely, there needs to be an open discussion about whether or not the goal was not met because the much-touted Category Management was a complete disaster, and why.

This raises a point both general and specific. The Administrative Office staff regularly ply us with goals and means and gameplans and the like. But we never, as a co-op, in meetings, out in the open, review the same, discuss whether or not they were properly implemented, and who is to be held accountable. Why not? You do it for me twice a year.

Specifically. Who was responsible for Category Management of the food we produce? And why, at the end of the year, is the food no better, the labeling worse, and the packaging, an obstacle course? I don't want a written answer. I want open discussion and accountability.

And this is just an example. I think we should have the same for lots of other areas of activity we never discuss, like overall financial performance - for starters.

Systems and Processes

I'm not sure what this means. I am going to assume it is a catch-all. And that it will address co-operative, as well as strictly financial, matters.

The only thing I would say in that regard is that, the Intranet is all fine and well. But is there any reason we can not now adopt the Online Forum that was created three years ago, for worker and consumer use, for more general discussion?

Understanding And Achieving Co-op Goals

Make co-op goals more meaningful for workers and consumers, too.

Do this by including them in the formulation of these co-op goals.

Make sure these goals address all three of our bottom lines, along with our Mission Statement and co-op policy.

Then, change this heading to read: "Setting, Understanding and Achieving Co-op Goals."

And then, you'd have my more willing support.

We exist to meet the common needs of our consumers, owners and workers. If we learn anything from all that we are doing by way of surveys at the moment, I hope it is that the only people who can know what are those common needs are consumers, owners and workers.

Don't just ask them what they what, what we want, let us decide for ourselves what we want. That is the co-operative way.

The people who know best if a shopping experience was fulfilling are the consumer and the person who served them. Ask them how it went. Not some third party, unprofessional Mystery Mercenary.

The person who knows best if his or her work experience is fulfilling is that worker. Ask him or her. Listen to what they say. Let them decide how it can be improved. Don't override it. And supplant it with something you read out of a book, or cooked up in the Administrative Offices.

Do this, and the Employee Survey/Action Plan process will mean something. You will make your workers happier. And they will make you happier, when, feeling more invested and involved, they (we) help all of us to achieve all three of our bottom lines.

All the best,
Geoff"

A Victorian Englishman's Perambulations At The Beach ...

This video has absolutely nothing to do with Weaver Street, other than the fact that I made it while on vacation from WSM, at the beach. We can't all be serious, all of the time. Enjoy ...

Now It's Weaver Consumer Woes -- $3 Dividend

In among all the erroneous chatter the Board and corporate office of Weaver Street Market Co-operative are currently sending to consumer-owners about the supposed financial health of WSM, those of you who are consumer-owners will by now have worked out that it is not just the workers of WSM who are suffering financial woes. In contrast to the Board and corporate office's declarations of financial nirvana.

Tucked away at the back of the expensive-looking Board brochure that just thudded its way into your mailbox is the information that, in return for the WSM Board and corporate office taking away your 5% consumer-owner discount two years ago, they have just decided to give you a dividend of - wait for it - $3.

Of course, we are told, the amount of your dividend is as low as it is so that you can further help to build the financial strength of our community co-op. Um. Arrant nonsense.

And that the discount-to-dividend process is a nationwide phenomenon, designed to strengthen co-op's all across the nation by encouraging much-needed loyalty in co-op's. Er. Half true.

The WSM dividend is low in order to help build the strength of WSM? Hmm. The dividend is low:

1) Because we are still paying off $2 million a year on the undemocratically-raised debt, that was used to finance the failed capital expansion of 2007/2008. And, unless consumer-owners use the opportunity of the current feedback exercise to request change, we will be paying off at that rate for the next four years.

I continue to suggest that the sensible way forward is immediately to establish a Board Committee of Owners to undertake a thorough review of the debt, and to make recommendations as to its early disposal.

This would free up $2 million a year, which could then be used to invest in much-needed improvements, reward long-suffering owners with real dividends, and improve the lot of your hard-working, over-stressed workforce.

I first put forward the idea of such a Committee at the Annual Meeting in 2008 (um, we no longer have Annual Meetings; we have 'tables'). The Meeting agreed. The Board and the corporate office then undemocratically overturned the decision of the Annual Meeting of Owners. And here we are. With a $3 dividend.

2) Because the bulk of this year's financial 'profit' is being retained by the WSM corporate office, to build a capital fund, against which more monies will be borrowed (yup - MORE debt), in order to finance unspecified, undiscussed capital projects.

I have suggested that the Capital Plan first be discussed openly. That it should be costed. And that absolutely no funds should be set aside or monies borrowed until owners have approved the Capital Plan, and have given their specific authority to spend monies on it.

As for the claim that WSM is merely following the example of other co-op's around the nation, in changing the discount into a necessarily-smaller dividend, I say, 'almost.'

The concept is one called 'Economic Owner Linkage,' and was devised by a Professor Brett Fairbairn, with whom I have been in correspondence.

Not least when we agreed that Director Elections in a truly open and democratic co-operative are not the be all and end all of democratic expression.

Directors do not have carte blanche to do what they like. Their election represents merely the first step in co-op democracy.

Elections choose the folks we co-operators want to have structure the ongoing democratic conversation within our co-op.

Frankly, there is next to no conversation within our co-op. Conversation suggests two-way, immediate, accountable dialogue, where the outcome is determined by all those taking part in the conversation, not just a corporate office or Board operating a veto at the conclusion of the exercise.

Specifically, it is not one-way 'feedback.' Nor is it a 'Suggestions Box.'

The essence of 'Economic Owner Linkage,' if it is properly implemented, is that it is a deal.

In return for owners agreeing to have the return on their investment based upon the performance of the co-op, the co-op opens up the democratic process, to ensure that owners actually control that performance.

The Board of WSM are well aware of this. They attached Brett's report on the subject to one of their Board Minutes. Is there a consumer-owner out there who feels that, in return for replacing 5% with $3, they got more democratic conversation or more control of the performance of the WSM Board and corporate office?

Well, if you are a consumer-owner who feels that didn't happen, then now is your chance to ask for it.

Complete the WSM Feedback Form. Sigh - it's at least an opportunity to START a conversation.

Would you mind if I had a few suggestions for completing the WSM Survey - which can also be found online?

Question 1 -- Might I suggest that the most important of the proffered suggestions are (excuse the abbreviations): downtowns, food system, worker conditions, and product quality?

Question 2 -- This might be your chance to ask for more democratic control of the performance of WSM, as your promised 'return' on a smaller financial return.

You might want a restoration of Annual Meetings, more elected (as opposed to appointed) Directors, an online discussion forum, or a Consumer-Owner Discussion Group.

Question 3 -- Again, might I suggest the important proffered goals are: survival, savings and debt?

Question 4 -- (a) The Capital Plan first to be submitted to the ownership for approval; (b) Savings to be spent on new capital projects, only after projects are approved by owners; (c) No more long-term borrowing by WSM without the prior approval of owners; (d) A Board Committee of Owners to be established to review the existing long-term debt of $8 million, and to make recommendations for its early disposal; and (e) [This is a weird one; the WSM Survey touts improving worker conditions in Question 1, but not as a financial goal in Question 3; er, how do you improve worker conditions without it being a financial goal? So ... ] Establish a Committee of Worker-Owners immediately to draw up plans for improving worker conditions.

Question 5 -- Up to you!

Question 6 -- Ditto!

Question 7 -- The last few years have seen the WSM corporate office and its Board concentrate power in the hands of a self-selected few. It is time for this to be reversed, so that workers and consumers in our worker-consumer co-op are truly those who democratically control decision-making and performance in our community co-op.

I would suggest you might ask that, once Annual Meetings are restored, motions are allowed. They are not at the moment.

I would also suggest that the Board be stripped of the power it gave itself to change By-Laws without the approval of ownership. That's how $10 million was borrowed without owner knowledge in 2007/2008.

The path to true, sustainable financial health in our community co-op is to abide by the simple truisms that work for successful co-op's all around the country.

Sell what the consumers want, in the way workers want, by putting control in their hands, not in the hands of a self-selected few.

Spend only what you earn. Borrow as little as possible. Do nothing if it does not serve the common needs of your consumers and workers.

And, if you think you may be stepping outside those sustainable limitations, put in place a process that allows you to do so only after the most stringent, democratic and accountable consultation.

Now, try fitting that in the little box provided by the WSM corporate office in their consumer-owner survey ... !!

[This is a re-print of an article first posted on OrangePolitics.]

Letter To CHN Editor -- "Insulting WSM Workers"

Well, I'm pissed all over again. With a WSM Board that has the temerity to tell the public that 98% of WSM workers are happy with WSM. So. A letter to the Editor of the Chapel Hill News:

"Dear Sir,

You will shortly read in the latest newsletter from the Board of Weaver Street Market Co-operative that 98% of the workforce said in the recent Employee Survey that they were happy with WSM.

This is simply not true.

For sure, 98% of us said we love working at WSM. We do. We wouldn't be there otherwise. Specifically, we love co-operative principles.

But what the Board newsletter fails to say is that, along with this bland answer to a bland control question, we workers also provided 72 pages of closely-typed criticism of the leadership of our co-op, and its abandonment of those same principles.

We workers are over-worked, over-stressed, underpaid, under-staffed, under-equipped. We are not properly consulted, nor are we sufficiently included in decision-making.

The Survey results were, in fact, a damning indictment of our co-op's leadership and direction. For the Board to suggest otherwise is dishonest and insulting.

Geoff Gilson
Weaver Street Worker Advocate"

*********

The Chapel Hill News very kindly published my letter.

WSM To Borrow More Money -- Really ... ?!?

I have decided to set out in full my post on OrangePolitics in response to the latest WSM Board missive. Why? Because our Board Chair takes it upon himself, in that missive, in advance of worker discussions on Employee Action Plans, to tell the world that we workers are 98% happy with everything to do with WSM.

I was really, really, really hoping that the WSM corporate office had not asked that question in the WSM Employee Survey so that they could then dishonestly use the answer to pretend to the world that all was well with the lot of workers in WSM. The WSM corporate office have proven, once again, that they are creative only to the extent of dreaming up new levels to which to sink.

My post:

The Board of WSM are inviting feedback from owners on the WSM financial results for 2011, the financial priorities for 2012, and the manner in which the patronage dividend will (may?) be apportioned.

The Board Chair's report on the state of WSM's finances for FY 2011 is a re-hash of all that has been covered in the previous comments in this thread. He claims WSM has returned to financial health. I truly wish that were true.

The fact is, however, that our profit is lower than last year, and has been achieved by making exploitative demands of already hurting workers.

Frankly, the most galling reference by the Board Chair is to an unrepresentative answer in the recent Employee Survey. That reference suggests that the employees of your community co-op are totally happy with their lot.

The Board Chair (himself a worker-owner, who works in the WSM corporate office) is fully aware that the results of that Survey were a resounding vote of no confidence in the leadership of our co-op.

For sure, we said we like working at WSM. Of course we do. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. More to the point. We ARE here precisely because we do believe in the principles of co-operation.

The Board Chair fails to reference the pages and pages and pages of very specific, detailed and comprehensive commentary, offered by a statistically significant proportion of the workforce, which commentary states quite baldly that we workers are hugely disappointed that our leadership has simply set aside any pretence of being a co-op, and of complying with the co-op’s Mission Statement that demands that employees enjoy a fulfilling work experience.

We love working in our co-op. But we are very unhappy with the co-op’s leadership.

The Board Chair knows that, and dishonestly chooses to mislead consumer-owners into thinking we workers are happy with everything.

The fact is that the recent Employee Survey reported that workers feel overworked, overstressed, underpaid, understaffed, under-equipped and unhappy with the lack of communication from the WSM corporate office, and dissatisfied with the lack of inclusion in decision-making in a co-op they are told they half-own.

But the package of information that the Board has released gets worse.

You see, we employees are currently engaged in a process of abbreviated discussion about addressing the grievances we raised in response to the Employee Survey.

That discussion is supposed to lead to a specific round of discussions on Employee Action Plans to address worker grievances.

Indeed, I was approached by the corporate office, and specifically asked not to write publicly about that process while it was underway.

The ostensible reason given was to encourage discussion, without employees feeling their remarks might be published. So, I agreed.

We can now see that the real reason was to allow the WSM corporate office dishonestly to pretend to the outside world that all was well with our community co-op’s workforce.

The point is that those grievances will require funds to address. We workers rightfully feel that, having made huge sacrifices over the past few years, in order to bring our co-op back to some sort of health, it was time finally to address our work conditions, to bring them back to what they were – or better, as a sort of reward.

After all, we make the money that keeps the co-op afloat. Why should we not share in the product of our efforts?

Yet, before our discussions on Employee Action Plans are even begun, let alone concluded, we are told in the current Board missive that the Board and WSM corporate office have dreamed up a whole new 10-year Capital Plan, and it is THAT Capital Plan which will receive priority in funding.

Enough.

We workers were denied a dividend for three years. We were denied pay raises for two years. We have received paltry pay raises since then. All to help the co-op stave off bankruptcy.

We have agreed to work longer hours. We agreed to bust butt this past year to try to increase sales by 15%. We are over-worked, over-stressed and under-compensated. We work harder now than we did several years ago, for less. All to help pay off a debt of $8 million, which was borrowed without the approval of owners or workers, to fund the last disastrous capital expansion plan.

We have not yet paid off that debt. No doubt further exploitative demands will be made of us next year, since we did not achieve the 15% goal this year. Our own grievances and demand for better conditions are being shunted to one side.

And all the while, the Board and WSM corporate office, in secret, are devising yet more capital plans? Which will require more borrowing? Which we workers will have to repay by working even harder?

Again. Enough.

My fellow workers and I will be doing what we can in our meetings to try to stop this nonsense. But we can not do it on our own. We need the support of consumer-owners when they provide the feedback the Board is currently requesting.

But before we get to that suggested feedback, you may well be asking yourselves, how did all this happen without our knowing? Well, I could say because you good folks weren't paying attention. But that wouldn’t strictly speaking be fair.

You see. The Board decided last year not to hold an Annual Meeting. But how, you might further ask, could they do that without a change in the By-Laws? Because the Board has given to itself the sole power to change the By-Laws, without a vote of owners. And how did this happen? Er, cf. paying attention ...

Ok, so there is this Capital Plan. Which was developed undemocratically. How bad can it be? I don't know. The Board aren’t publishing it as part of their feedback exercise. They want you to agree to it blind.

Hmm. But what is all this I say about new borrowing? Well, that’s where the Board’s plans for the patronage dividend come in.

Consumer-owners will receive 20% of the dividend apportioned to them. The remaining 80% will be put into a capital fund (consumer-owners will never see it again). And we are told the capital fund will be used to make capital improvements.

Well, you say, that makes sense. Well, it would, if it were true, and if the capital projects were being approved by the workers and consumers in our worker-consumer co-op.

But the Capital Plan of projects has already been agreed, without our approval, and again, it is not being published.

But worse. The fund money itself will not be used to finance the capital projects. Oh no. The fund will simply be used as collateral to BORROW more money (perhaps three or five times the amount of the fund). Each year.

And we workers will once again be the ones having to shoulder the sole burden of paying off the debt and the interest. Which we are doing at the moment, to the tune of $2 million a year, on the still existing $8 million debt.

Yes. You're reading that right. Even after the debacle of the store expansion in 2007/2008, which nearly bankrupted our co-op. When we still have $8 million of debt to erase. When the only plan so to do is to make the overworked workers work ever harder. Yes. We are planning to fund yet more unknown capital spending with new borrowing.

But how, once more you ask, how could the Board possibly get the authority to borrow more money? We, the owners, would stop them. Think again. The Board changed the By-Laws to give them sole and absolute authority to borrow whatever capital monies they need.

All of this has been going on and continues because you good folks do not put down your foot. What can you do? Put down your foot. And save our co-op. Provide feedback to the Board.

Oh. And in case you were thinking that there might be meetings, at which you would be able to hold the co-op leadership publicly accountable, think again. There will be tables. Where you can have a chat with one or two folks. Away from the glare of any transparency or openness.

I would respectfully suggest that you might want to consider the following as a response to the Board missive:

1) Shop more at WSM. And take more of an active role in the co-op. So that plans like this are not just dumped on you.

2) Take part in the current feedback exercise. Write to: board@weaverstreetmarket.coop. Please don't let important decisions about our community co-op be taken by a self-selected few just because you allow them to do so by default.

3) Ask that that the first financial priority for 2012 be a sustainable profit, and an immediate plan to eliminate the existing $8 million debt – a plan that does not impose further burden on your long-suffering workforce.

4) Ask that the second financial priority be an improvement in the condition of workers to be agreed with the workers.

5) Ask that the third financial priority be that no Capital Plan be implemented until it has been agreed by workers and consumers, and simply refuse to allow 80% of your patronage dividend to be retained until such consent has been given.

6) Ask that the fourth financial priority be an absolute moratorium on any and all spending on or borrowing for the Capital Plan until such time as the current debt has been eliminated in full; consultation has concluded on the Capital Plan; and the grievances of the workforce have been addressed.

I too believe that our community can only benefit by having a thriving, sustainable co-op. I too believe that it requires a sound capital base. But I also believe that our community worker-consumer co-op can only thrive when it has a happy workforce, and a consumer base that is respected and included in important decision-making.

We are a co-op for a reason. And that is because we expect more of ourselves than to be thinking merely of making money. We are supposed also to be thinking of the social impact of our business on our owners, consumer and our workers. That is why we pride ourselves on having a triple bottom line: social and environmental, as well as financial.

It is time to take as much care of the social and environmental bottom lines as we do the financial. Either we have the funds to do so, or our Board should not be sending out missives saying we have returned to financial health.

Please provide the Board with your feedback. And when you think of borrowing, please be thinking only of 'borrowing' my suggested financial priorities for FY 2012 … !!

Will New WSM Finance Manager Impact Employee Action Plans?

Weaver Street Market Co-operative is about to hire a new Finance Manager, weeks before the end of a controversial Financial Year. Is this a reflection of the state of WSM's finances? And is that the reason for the WSM corporate office attempting to finalize Employee Actions Plans before the end of the Financial Year (June 2011)?

I have today written to the WSM General Manager (I thought I had left this behind - sigh), to ask him these questions, and to ask for assurance that Employee Action Plans will be agreed consensually (without a veto from the center), and that they will be allowed to address steps to improve the financial state of WSM.

We are all equal in this co-op. We may assign ourselves different titles. But those pertain only to the jobs we have been asked to perform. They do not confer a primacy of authority, nor a supremacy of viewpoint, on any individual or small group of stakeholders, such that it interferes with that co-operative equality.

It is my belief that we find ourselves in less than happy financial circumstances today, with our employees expressing overwhelming unhappiness with the senior management of our co-op, precisely because we have drifted away from that essential co-operative principle of equality.

I believe happier times lie ahead if we use the opportunity of these Employee Action Plans consensually to agree a way forward, to which we all subscribe and in which we are all invested - equally.

My letter to the General Manager, Ruffin Slater:

Dear Ruffin,

I am a little disturbed to see that we are now looking for a new Finance Manager. I'm wondering if this is, in any way, a reflection of the state of the finances of WSM, as we approach the end of the Financial Year, and whether the latter or the former will have any impact on the formulation of the Employee Action Plans?

It may well be that this has nothing to do with policy, and is simply a personal matter. In which case, it is none of my business. And I wish Tim well. But, if it is a reflection of or could have impact upon the state of WSM's finances, then this is a concern for all employees, and I would suggest that we need to know, before we begin discussion of the Employee Action Plans (EAP's).

I'm bound to say I have noticed that there is something of an all-fired rush to get the EAP's concluded before the end of the Financial Year. I'm hoping this is merely a co-incidence, and has nothing to do with what might be announced as the final results for the Financial Year, and any consequential action that may need to taken.

I, for one, regard the state of WSM's finances as an important context for discussing the EAP's, not least because those EAP's may have to address that financial state, and/or be affected by it. I do not think it would be appropriate to regard the two as separate. I would be unhappy to conclude discussion about the EAP's, only then, at our Unit Meetings in September, to be presented, without discussion, with a whole new barrage of financial objectives, which do not mesh with the new EAP's.

It could be said I am getting this all out of context and out of proportion. But let's just look at this past Financial Year, as it comes to a close.

Amid great fanfare, but next to no consultation, the WSM Admin. Office Management (AOM) presented to each Unit at the end of last year a draconian target of increasing sales this Financial Year by 15%. Next to no reason was given. I had to begin a Dispute Resolution Process to find myself having a meeting with you, to get some sort of information about why the need for a 15% sales increase. I also met with Tim. And by the way, I am still waiting to see a copy of the official Audited Accounts For WSM for the last Financial Year.

I was attempting at our meeting to provide positive feedback, almost none of which has been acted upon. Like, for example, devoting one edition of the Market Messenger, not to telling us workers what you wanted out of us, but rather what we would get in return, for providing what you wanted out of us. Never happened. And this sort of non-communication and non-interaction may well explain the rather dismal feedback to the WSM Employee Survey.

As a consequence of that positive approach, I did not attempt to pick holes in the rationale which you advanced. Which, essentially, was that we needed to increase sales by 15%, to raise $3.75 million, so that all of those extra sales could disappear into the cost of making those extra sales, solely to increase profit by a paltry $150,000.

As I say, I wanted to provide positive input at that meeting. So, I did not spend time making the obvious point that this rationale was nonsense, and that it was clear to me, and most of the shopfloor workers to whom I had spoken, that the extra money was primarily to start paying off the overall WSM debt of $8 million. On the basis that you have said this debt will be paid back in 5 years, that means that (including annual bank interest), the amount to be paid this Financial Year would be about $2 million.

Frankly, the disposition of that $3.75 million makes a lot more sense when it breaks down (roughly) into: $2 million for debt; $1.5 million for cost of extra sales; the remainder = extra profit.

I have made and continue to make the point that, whatever the financial rationale for the 15% sales increase, it was an unrealistic target (and you don't set unrealistic targets in sound businesses), and it would impose yet further unwarranted, unexplained and unnecessary burden on the workforce. Both predictions have proven true.

During the Grand Presentations to the Units last Fall, detailed plans were submitted as to how the co-op was going to be turned upside down in a no-holds-barred effort to achieve the 15% sales increase target.

Category Management in the Food House. Revamped Merchandising efforts. Marketing up the wazoo.

However, within months of the Unit Meetings, our Head of Merchandising, the lady tasked with both the Merchandising efforts and the Category Management project, left to start a restaurant. Later in the year, the Executive Chef and Kitchen Manager in the Food House also departed (after only just over a year with us). And now, the Finance Manager (who has also been with us for only just over a year), the guy who must have been overseeing all of this effort, is on his way out.

This can not all be co-incidence. So, no. I do not think I am over-reacting. Especially, when I review the consequences.

Food quality and service has gone down, not up, this past year. Not the fault of the shopfloor/Food House 'floor' workers. We all work as hard as we can. The fault of a lack of proper direction. And how could there be proper direction, with all the musical chairs taking place with the senior management responsible for implementing the efforts to achieve that 15% sales increase?

So, as we approach the last few weeks of this Financial Year, notwithstanding the sterling efforts of all the shopfloor workers throughout WSM, Q1 and Q2 saw sales increases of only 9%. And since then, it has got worse. Q3 = 8%. And Q4 is heading for 7%.

This will leave us about $2 million shy of the sales target, on a projected annual turnover for this Financial Year of some $28 million. Ironically, and possibly unhappily, almost the same amount we need to be finding to keep the banks at bay.

Clearly, there will be consequence. And it will be consequence that I trust will be explained fully and addressed during the formulation and discussion of EAP's.

Meanwhile, and not surprisingly, the overwhelming message from the Employee Survey is that employees are reasonably happy with what is happening in their Departments and Units, but are not happy at all with what is coming from the center.

They are not happy with decisions that have placed and continue to place upon them an intolerable financial burden, for reasons that are not properly explained, as a result of deciion-making in which they are not involved, and which leaves us overworked, overstressed, underpaid, and without the proper resources to provide to our customers the service with which we wish to provide them.

If the EAP's are to be a meaningful consequence of the process which the center volunteered, then they must address the state of our finances, how to improve them, how to create the space to find the resources then to deal with the lack of inclusion, lack of communication, lack of staff, lack of return, and lack of proper equipment. And finally, they have to deal with the distrust of employees with the center.

A distrust that was underlined by the response of the Admin. Office staff itself in the Survey -- a resounding vote of no confidence in the ability of Admin. Office management to provide future direction for the co-op on its own.

Hardly surprising, bearing in mind the disaster that has been the centrally-misdirected effort to increase sales by 15% this past year - and quite leaving aside the other central mishaps of the past few years. The bottom line is that the co-op as a whole no longer has confidence in the center to give direction on its own.

I have set out elsewhere that I believe the response in the EAP's should be to streamline the Admin. Office functions; devolve authority to the Departments and Units; and make what remains of decision-making in the Admin. Office more inclusive of the co-op's workers and better explained.

Of course, that can only happen if the appropriate management and Admin. Office personnel are present at those EAP discussion meetings. I was concerned that there was little (if any) management or Admin. Office personnel involvement in the discussion of the Survey's results. I trust that will not be the case during the discussion of EAP's.

We face a dire financial situation. It needs explaining to us, as we formulate the EAP's. Otherwise, those EAP's will be redundant before the ink is dry. That explaining needs to be done by the appropriate personnel. It's called accountability. And then, consequential action (the EAP's) need to be agreed consensually.

The state of our finances, the lack of confidence demonstrated by the Admin. Office employees in their own management, and the distrust expressed by employees throughout our co-op in the center is nothing if not eloquent testament to the failure of centralized and isolated decision-making, and a clarion call for more inclusion and consensuality in making decisions in the future - beginning with the EAP's.

There is no-one in this co-op, no one individual nor a small minority, who may operate a veto on the EAP's. We are all equal. We are seeing now, at the end of this Financial Year, in the results of the Employee Survey, what are the consequences of our having moved away from that notion of equality these past few years. It is time to move back to co-operative values and principles.

The reason for finding a new Finance Manager may not be something that needs to be explained to me or other employees. But what we should be able to expect is a full explanation of whether or not it is a reflection of the state of our finances, and what consequence that state will have on planning. In particular, we should expect to have that full explanation before formulating the EAP's, and we should expect that those EAP's will creatively address the state of our finances and the unhappiness of our employees.

Otherwise, we will merely be repeating the mistakes that brought us here. And we will be demonstrating the truth of what the Admin. Office employees themselves stated in the Survey: WSM does not encourage new ideas, nor does it support constant improvement. I trust this will not be the case.

All the best,
Geoff

Commentary On 2011 WSM Employee Survey Results

I am publishing my commentary with a degree of reluctance.

However, I am concerned that the process of allowing WSM workers meaningful input to the formulation of action plans consequent upon our Survey is too restrictive. I am disturbed that the WSM corporate office are permitting themselves greater opportunity for input than ordinary shopfloor workers. I have communicated these concerns to the WSM corporate office, and am not impressed with the response.

I promised the WSM corporate office I would not publish the results of the Survey. I am keeping to that promise. These are my comments, not the results. But why am I having to rationalize equality, openness and transparency in a co-op?

The thrust of my commentary (not very radically, and hardly surprisingly) is that the Survey results demonstrate that too many WSM employees do not feel that their work experience is fulfilling or that their co-op is inclusive. Both are specific requirements of the WSM Mission Statement. In order for WSM not to be in breach of co-op policy, these concerns need to be addressed in action plans that we now formulate consensually.

The WSM Employee Survey -- Total Transparency? [Part Three]

And it gets better. The process that the WSM corporate office have designed for considering the results of the WSM Employee Survey make George W. Bush look like the model of inclusiveness and Muammar Gaddafi, a bleeding-heart, progressive democrat. Sigh ...

A mate from Produce told me a couple of days ago that there will be two one-hour meetings in the Southern Village store next week to read and then provide feedback on the Survey results, just before the results are summarily taken away.

Eventually, I found a small notice to such effect, right above the timeclock. You probably have the same in your Unit. But no missive in my mailbox. No personal announcement in my department. Why do I get the feeling that real discussion is being avoided and suppressed?

I wrote an e-mail to the WSM Human Resources Manager. I got a response. This is all a delicate matter. I have made certain promises, which I set out below. So, I am publishing my two replies to her response, but not her response, because I do not yet have her permission.

Notwithstanding that, I think my replies are self-explanatory. By the by, all of this follows exchanges I had with the WSM General Manager (Ruffin Slater) and a meeting I had with the WSM Human Resources Manager, as a consequence of which I felt I had been assured there would be a meaningful process of full publication, full discussion and full inclusion of worker input in the formulation of Action Plans. Sigh. More fool me. Anyway. Letter 1:

"I am writing to you because you and I met to discuss the process of publishing the Employee Survey results, allowing sensible discussion of them by employees, and then fully including employees in the formation of any consequential Action Plans. I am using this e-mail exchange as the base for this current e-mail since it pertains to answers proffered by Ruffin.

I have heard from fellow workers in both Carrboro and Southern Village that the Employee Survey results will be available next week. Indeed, I have heard that there will be some sort of meeting. Frankly, what I am hearing is a little disturbing, and is not consonant with what you and I discussed, and is certainly not in accord with co-op policy as it relates to openness and inclusion in decision-making. After all, this Survey is the property of all employees, not just a few.

But, rather than deal with rumor, I thought I would ask you:

1) Will I receive a copy of the results, sufficiently in advance of any discussion, that I may be able to make meaningful contribution to any discussion? If not, why not?

2) What are these meetings I am hearing about, how will they work, and what follows?

All the best,
Geoff"

Letter 2:

"Thank you for taking the time to respond so fully. I am not in disagreement with your overall approach, save for a few matters:

1) I use as the premise for my commentary the normal decision-making process in the Employee Handbook. Generally this involves Ruffin, or an equivalent, sending out a position paper and requesting feedback; feedback coming in; and Ruffin or the someone making a decision based on the feedback. This is not very democratic. I've said so before. Ruffin's answer has been that, in financial matters, he has to have the final say. We could argue that one. I have. But not today. In this instance, we have a process that, in its widest sense, is dealing not so much with financial matters as with social. The social impact of the business of the co-op on employees. I would expect to see some movement away from the strict 'Ruffin decides' approach, and more demonstration of democracy. To be honest, there is some movement. But I am still concerned that, at the end of the day, employees feel that concerns they have expressed (and I am pretty certain some were expressed) are going to be addressed. That is a balance thing, and I hope you will keep an open mind as we go along.

2) You have addressed a major concern of mine about this process. Namely, whether I will have enough time to digest the results. Having thought about it a bit, there really is no way of addressing the concerns of those who have made comments other than by keeping results on premises. But I do not like the corollary, which is that this creates a potential inequality of contribution to the formulation of Action Plans. As it stands, on paid time, managers will see the results longer than me and other ordinary employees, and the corporate office will see the results more than managers. This is not equitable. You offer me and others the opportunity to view the results further. But when? How? On whose time? Why does, say, Ruffin get to make contribution to the Action Plans on co-op time, and not me and other ordinary employees?

3) Once again, a process has been designed that has major impact on employees that employees had no hand in designing. Would it have been so difficult to ask, at the beginning of this year, for volunteers to sit on a committee to devise this process alongside the corporate office? All it does is further the notion of 'them' and 'us.'

4) I get the points about confidentiality and sharing one Unit's information with another before the other Unit has seen their own stuff. But we have a real opportunity here for genuine, open conversation and a chance to get us all on the same page. Can we please include in this process, much of which is still unannounced, the opportunity for the whole co-op to see what the rest of the co-op is discussing (I'm not talking the original surveys here, or even the results, but the draft Action Plans), before those Action Plans become set in stone?

5) The process of informing me of what is going to happen next week did not work well. It does not work well when I learn more from a mate standing in line at Red Box than I do from my own co-op's communication structures. You want to know why I have created and use my own pathways of communication? This is why. Sorry. But it's true. I have e-mails from two people asking ME what is going on.

6) There may be typo's in this e-mail. I apologize. I am writing this on my time, before I work. And there is something wrong with that. My work, and that of others, on helping us to become more co-operative goes unpaid and unacknowledged, what, because the corporate office doesn't like it?

7) You asked me not to post the results of the Employee Survey on my blog. I am a man of my word. I will not. I get this may restrict some employees in their commentary. I will also not post your e-mail to me. But I will post my responses. I think it fair other employees know my view on the transparency and inclusiveness of this process.

All the best,
Geoff"

Letter 3:

"I am now on my work break, and I have a few further thoughts.

A) You mention what we discussed. I am bound to say I came away with the impression that the copies of the results of the multiple choice questions (which had been made anonymous and 'safe') were going to be given to each employee. The comments (at that time) occupied about 68 pages. For reasons of cost and confidentiality, comments would be available for employees to read, but not to take away. This would happen well in advance of any meetings to discuss (certainly, not AT the same meetings). There would be in order, department meetings, store meetings and possibly (at long last) a co-op meeting. Discussions would lead to draft Action Plans, which would then make their way through much the same process of wide publication and discussion by meeting format.

I review the exchange with Ruffin and recall my conversation with you. I think I was very plain about wanting a process that was truly open, transparent and inclusive. That allowed the widest opportunity for employees to consider their thoughts and then make contributions that they could compare with others, and see be included in Action Plans. There is no way that a one-hour 'look 'n grab' meeting can possibly be confused with what I was setting out with you, or with Ruffin. I really do believe a better job could have been done of explaining the fact that the process was by no means going to be as inclusive as the one I was looking at, nor the one I think a co-op should engage in, as Board Policy on decision-making demands.

B) Going forward, I am less interested in whether the process has been perfect to date, and more concerned that, from here on in, especially as regards feedback and formulation of Action Plans, there is the greatest possible dissemination of collective feedback and suggestion, and the widest possible meaningful inclusion of personnel in the process and of suggestions in the final Action Plans.

I'll be blunt. For some five years now, senior managers, the corporate office and the Board of WSM have affected the notion that my voiced concerns that employees were unhappy was simply a figment of my imagination. From what I've been told (and it is limited) of the results to the Employee Survey, that notion is about to find vindication. It would have found vindication earlier, in my opinion, if there had been more collegiality of communication within WSM. More meetings, and more of them where employees could listen to each other in the safety of numbers.

This is not about me. The point is, please let us not now miss the opportunity of addressing the very genuine unhappiness of our employees by not having the widest possible collegiality of communication with regards to discussing the Employee Survey results, and then formulating Action Plans. These Survey results are the property of all the employees of WSM, not just a select few.

It would be a shame if the only collegiality of communication were to be found in those pathways of communication that I offer. That's not my job. On this last point, if it helps, when the Elections Task Force met in 2008, we created an unofficial WSM Forum, available to be adopted by WSM, to allow stakeholders to hold open discussions on matters of mutual interest. That Forum remains available to assist in the discussions that are consequential upon publication of the Employee Survey results. If you want.

All the best,
Geoff"

[To pick up on the Forum point, in 2008, a couple of consumer-owners on the WSM Elections Task Force, on which I served, and which re-designed the WSM Board Elections, created a WSM Forum. We all wanted more communication and conversation within our co-op (still do), and we thought a Forum would help. We asked the WSM Board and corporate office to adopt it, and to link it to the WSM web-site. Nada. Yet more sighing.]

Anyway, to the issue in hand. Fellow workers, you have the power to make this Survey work for you. You have the power finally to demand a real voice in the affairs of your co-op.

I) Demand a proper opportunity to digest the Employee Survey results.

II) Demand a proper opportunity to offer considered feedback.

III) Demand a proper opportunity to be fully engaged in the formulation of Action Plans.

If you don't get involved in the demanding, then you have no-one to blame but yourselves when Action Plans are forthcoming which bear no relation to your real and expressed concerns.

A Song of Solidarity (Red, White and Blue)

I became tired of tax-cutters and warmongers claiming to themselves alone the mantle of patriot.

All of we ordinary Americans, who sweat and bleed and toil and care, all of us who keep our country running, while others try to run it down and destroy the safety net, we are the true patriots.

So, I was inspired to write a socially-acceptable patriotic song, for ordinary working Americans. Not an angry, mean-hearted, selfish song. But a warm and generous social anthem for all of us.

The recorded version is on MySpaceMusic here.

Now, I'm no Bruce Springsteen. But the song is not about me. It is about those who are most at risk in our country.

Ignore the singer. Listen to the song. Sing it. Share it. But most of all, spread the word, so that all ordinary Americans may know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in these trying times.

The blog for the song is here.

I set out the lyrics below.

Oh. And why am I posting this song on my Weaver Street Market Co-op blog? Hmm. I think Weavers can work that one out for themselves ... !!

"From the factories to the farmyards

Where we work and till the soil

We keep our country running

With our backbone and our toil


From the mountains of Montana

To the Gulf shore, with its oil

We sweat and grind and break our backs

And risk health beyond call



We're not corporations

Making wealth for the few

We are the whole nation

The Red, White and Blue


We're not about money

We want justice too

It's not just the rich

It's you and me too

We're the Red, White and Blue



It's not a sin to offer

A helping hand to those

Who can not make both ends meet

Through sweat and tears alone


There is no faith nor charity

In claiming liberty

And being mean and selfish

To deny equality



We're not corporations ...



There are those who doubt us

They say it can't be done

What we say, we've said before

And that is, 'Yes We Can!'


We will stand together

With hope and dignity

It's not just the rich

It's you and me too

We're the Red, White and Blue



From the streets of Cairo, Egypt

To the shanties in Darfur

They look to us for democracy

Not arms to make more war


It's not about our dollar bill

But strength and guts and will

The world loves Martin Luther King

And the freedom songs we sing



We're not corporations ...



We're not a split nation

Giving rights to the few

We are One America

The Red, White and Blue


We know without thinking

What we need to do

It's right and it's true

It's you and me too

We're the Red, White and Blue"

2011 Q3 Results: It's Your Co-op, Too ...

I genuinely hoped my days of Weaver advocacy were behind me. My livelihood and reputation were being threatened. But, while I am still with WSM, I will comment when I think comment is called for. And the Q3 results call for comment. I set out below the Note I have posted on OrangePolitics:

"The Third Quarter results for WSM are published. They are not the happiest reading. I will have a little whine. But it will be even-handed. Everyone gets a knock - including me. But mostly I want to make a plea to the WSM community. You. Specifically the 13,000 of you who are WSM consumer-owners. You need to be doing more. It's your co-op, too. Don't leave it to others to save it.

But first, the figures and the whine - and the knock against me. Me? Yeah. Why do I keep trying to keep you folks informed of what is really happening with WSM, while the corporate office continue to paint a picture that is simply not true, and ends up being counter-productive?

Oh. I think I just answered the point. The WSM corporate office would say (have said) I am being disloyal and destructive. How can it be disloyal when we are a community co-op, and one of our values is transparency? And how can it be destructive when all I am doing is sharing the truth, and asking for help for that same community co-op?

You can only truly ask for help when you genuinely admit there is a problem. I'm not interested in saving face. I'm interested in saving our co-op.

Now, the figures and the whine. The sales increase for Q3 was as I forecast -- 8%. Which sounds good, until you set it against the goal for the year (established by the corporate office) of 15%.

Leaving aside why the goal of 15% was established -- for which we have still not received a sensible answer -- what happens if we don't make it? And we won't. It would require that we increase sales each and every week in Q4 by 34%. In the past two weeks, we increased sales by 7% and then 5%. If not making the 15% goal is not important, then why was it established -- with huge deleterious effect on us workers; working harder and harder for less and less?

The more disturbing news is that, after we workers bust butt for nine months to increase sales for reasons we do not know, realizing an increase we are told is $1.6 million for the year to date (yay for us, and our contribution to our community co-op!), we are told this will improve profit by only $15,000. And that a dividend is still not guaranteed.

So, what was it all for? Do the corporate office -- do you -- have any idea of the dampening effect such news has on the spirit of the workforce in your co-op?

Business 101. You do NOT set unattainable goals. Not explain them. Stand idly by why good workers see their efforts fail. And then offer them nothing but platitudes. You kill the drive. You kill sales. You kill the company.

The Mission Statement of WSM promises workers a fulfilling work experience. Your co-op is in breach of that provision of the Mission Statement. This should bother you.

The WSM corporate office, and the Board that rubber stamps it, have many questions to answer. Fortunately, we workers will have an opportunity to ask those questions.

I am told that next week the results of the WSM Employee Survey will be published and shared with all workers. We have been promised the opportunity to digest those results in a meaningful way. We have been promised the opportunity to have meaningful discussions about the results. And we have been promised meaningful opportunity to be involved in the Action Plans we have been promised will be devised to correct the matters raised in the Employee Survey.

If the WSM corporate office keep their promises, then, for the first time since I have been involved with WSM, workers will actually have a real voice in the direction of our co-op.

And I suspect, if we are given the opportunity, it will be a substantial and effective voice. My anecdotal feedback from fellow workers is that the main points they made were: (1) They want more understanding of goals, how they are set, and why (cf. 15% sales increase, and the crippling debt of $8 million); and (2) They want worker-ownership (the cost of which is $500, compared to about $175 for consumer-ownership) to be cheaper, so that they can vote in Board Elections (yes, your workers have to pay to vote).

If the WSM corporate office are serious about allowing changes to reflect the concerns of us workers, then we workers should shortly be able to create a situation where workers will be more involved in the big decision-making in the co-op we half-own.

But don't leave it up to us. It is your co-op, too. There are 13,000 consumer-owners. About 100 of you turn up to Annual Meetings. About 500 of you voted in the last Board Elections. This is not involvement. You can not complain about your co-op when you do not participate. Try spending as much time on your co-op as you do on Facebook, and see what happens.

Is it worth it? Sure. We may not be the perfect co-op. But we are still a co-op. We blazed a trail for organic food in the locality. We offer a platform for local farmers to sell their produce, in a consistent fashion, which helps those farmers plan ahead. Even now, WSM is helping a sister co-op open in Burlington. There is much about WSM of which we can be proud. There is much to support. And where it is not perfect, you should get involved, and change it!

And the most important thing you should be doing at the moment? Shopping more at The Weave. If each consumer-owner spent $10 more in Q4. Not a week. Not a month. Just once. $10 more -- once. We would double the profit to date for this financial year.

A co-op is like a love affair. It has it ups. It has its downs. It has happy moments. And troubled ones. And it has at least one of the partners always saying, we could be doing better! Most importantly, like a love affair, a co-op needs work. If you don't work at it, it dies. WSM is too good -- even now -- to let it die. It's up to you. It's your co-op, too ..."

[PERSONAL NOTE: I divested my worker-ownership a couple of months ago after I was told that the WSM corporate office were monitoring and targeting me. I am not making this up. This is what I was told. I have a life and a reputation outside of WSM. And I have my health. I will not allow some misguided fools in the WSM corporate office to take those away from me. The only way to get them off my back was to divest, and to announce that I was looking elsewhere for serious advocacy work. Which, I deeply regret to say, I am. But while I am still here, I will not remain silent in the face of idiocy which is ruining our co-op.]

The WSM Employee Survey -- Total Transparency? [Part Two]

Although no longer a worker-owner at The Weave, I am still (for the time being) an employee. As such, I finally received an answer to my letter to WSM's General Manager, which letter had asked some questions to verify the credibility of the employee survey, and the independence of the consultant allegedly conducting it:

"Hi Geoff,

1. The consultant is James McKenzie MHR Inc. As was explained in each survey session, the surveys were sent directly to the consultant. The consultant will send us back complete data by business unit, department, job group, and tenure. No one at WSM will actually see the completed surveys themselves. I’ll ask Deborah to touch base with you next week since she is the one that hired the consultant.

2. Approximately $2,500 plus time spent by employees to take the survey.

3. Yes, the results to all questions will be shared with employees.

4. As explained above, no one at WSM will actually see or possess the completed surveys, so this is not possible. We are committed to honoring our promise of confidentiality which is compromised if people at WSM who may be familiar with an individual’s handwriting can see the surveys themselves. Throughout the process we will be mindful of protecting confidentiality and ensuring that employee’s responses are only shared in a responsible fashion internally within WSM.

Thanks,
Ruffin"

Not bad. For a start. My response:

"Thank you for this, Ruffin.

I understand the point about anyone at WSM seeing the completed surveys. I think the idea that was put to me was a good one, in principle. But, like you, I can see no way around the identification of handwriting issue.

I look forward to hearing further from Deborah. The problem I have is that I Google James MacKenzie MHR Inc., and I can find nothing. Providing employees with contact information or headed notepaper, so that we can verify the independence of the survey process for ourselves, would sure help us in discussing the results.

On which subject, I would have thought the simplest thing, to bring this line of questioning to a close, would be for this consultant simply to publish his results on his own headed notepaper. Perhaps Deborah could confirm that this will be happening?

All the best,
Geoff"

And later, the very same day, further from Deborah, WSM's Human Resources Manager. I can't find holes. I wrote and thanked her, of course. Nothing if not courteous, that's me.

Now. Is it just me, or is there a certain irony that I seem to achieve more when not a worker-owner? Hmm. Right. We'll wait to see what is published, and how:

"Hi Geoff - I will make sure that his results include his information. He likes to customize things for the client and use their logos, but I'll ask him to do that. Deborah"

And then my brain cells began to work overtime:

"Hey Deborah,

Overnight, a further thought occurred, looking once again at Ruffin's answers to (1) and (3).

Will there be one report, broken down by business unit, department, job group, and tenure? Or will there be a collection of different reports, specific to each department, whatever?

In other words, does "the results to all questions will be shared with employees" mean that all employees will see the whole results to each of the questions?

My thought is this. I know what folks in my department and store think. What I want to know - and I do not think I am alone - is what the rest of the co-op is thinking too. Indeed, we need to know that if we are to be able sensibly to offer thoughts for the action plans pertaining to the co-op as a whole.

All the best,
Geoff"

Nice and useful response to this too:

"Hi Geoff, Yes, there will be tabulated results for the whole co-op that will be shared with everyone. Deborah"

The Weave, Cesar Chavez, April 4 and You

We are all busy. We all have too many things to do. And most of us really hate confrontation. But when is it wrong to walk away? How many of us confuse turning the cheek with turning our back?

I was a youngster, born and raised in England of American parents, when, not yet a teenager, my uber-liberal mother explained to me about Cesar Chavez, and why we were not buying Californian fruit from Cliff down at the greengrocer's in the High Street (today would be Cesar's Birthday).

"I know it's just a bunch of grapes. But it's the point we're making. We tell Cliff why we're doing it. It doesn't matter if no-one else knows or understands. We know. We understand. There are people who need others to speak for them, because they are too scared to speak for themselves."

I think she thought I was too young to understand. I wasn't. I understood. I've never forgotten. I'm not very tall. I weigh next to nothing. I have no idea how to throw a punch. I get scared every time I have to look someone in the eye and say "no."

But I get more upset when I see what happens to my friends and my neighbors when I, or someone else, doesn't come forward and say "no," when they can't.

April 4 is the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. He was due the next day to speak to a rally of Memphis sanitation workers to commend them on their strike action, and to urge them to continue with their fight to build a better American Dream for themselves.

I don't know if MLK was scared. But he paid with his life.

One of his quotes that resonates with me the most is this: "Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way."

MLK continued forward, scared or no. Cesar Chavez continued forward, scared or no. Last evening the Republican Ohio state legislature passed a bill limiting the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in Ohio. Already, petitions of recall are being circulated. Ohio is continuing forward, scared or no.

On April 4, ordinary workers all across America will be gathering, marching, singing and protesting in support of workers' rights. Scared or no, they are continuing forward. Now, I mention singing so that I can plug my song.

I got tired of tax-cutters and war-mongers claiming to themselves alone the mantle of 'patriot.' It is ordinary American workers, we who keep our companies, our co-op's and our country running. We who fight every day for our company, our co-op and our country to be better. It is we who are the real 'patriots.'

So. I wrote an upbeat song, extolling the patriotic virtues of ordinary American workers. Um. Listen, sing and share. Spread the word. Join the FB Page. Right. Plug over.

Just recently, I announced that I had divested my worker-ownership with Weaver Street Market Co-operative, and would no longer advocate. My job was being threatened in retaliation - and I need to pay my bills!

Even though MLK haunts my dreams, I can't turn back. I am actively looking for alternative employment, preferably in advocacy. However, in the meantime, I can't stand alone, and allow tyrants to place me in financial jeopardy. That said, I can offer a few pointers, and hope that other Weavers will now join together and take a stand.

We workers were told last Fall that we needed to achieve a 15% sales increase this financial year to be able to receive our first dividend in four years. Indeed, I was told by our General Manager that we needed to increase sales by 10% just to break even. That is what the General Manager told me.

We were told a month or so ago that we had made only a 9% sales increase in the first two quarters. But, we were further told, not to worry, the WSM corporate office was pretty sure we'd bounce back in the third quarter.

I have been faithfully keeping a copy of every single weekly co-op wide sales increase posted since then. We will be lucky to post an 8% sales increase for the third quarter. We are heading in the wrong direction.

And why? Because we workers need to find all this extra money, sweat to make it, bust ass to get to 15% ($3.75 million), so that we can pay roughly $2 million a year to out-of-state banks, each year for the next five years, in order to pay off the $8 million debt we incurred on our now-failed expansion plans.

Why, I keep asking, why can we not now look at alternative options of clearing this $8 million debt, before the banks move in and clear it for us? When is it going to become clear to the WSM corporate office that they have asked as much of us workers as we workers can give?

Well. Maybe, you say, maybe the Employee Survey that all WSM workers completed a few weeks ago, maybe that will wake up those in the WSM corporate office? Certainly, I was told that the bulk of workers in the WSM Southern Village store had a few choice things to say in that Survey.

Hmm. That's if we workers actually get to see what we said.

About a month ago, I wrote to the General Manager asking for contact details of the allegedly independent consultant who was conducting and would be collating the Survey.

You see, I got suspicious when I noticed that the Survey itself was not printed on an independent consultant's headed notepaper, but on WSM paper. Now, I may not know a lot. But I do know that consultants never miss an opportunity to let the world know who they are and what they do.

I have had no response to my e-mail to the GM. I have now chased him. Transparency and accountability are policies of the co-op to which even the GM must adhere. Non-compliance should be met with the same disciplinary action as non-compliance by an ordinary worker with any other co-op policy.

My concern is that if there is no opportunity for we workers independently to verify that there is an independent consultant, and, for example, the results of the Survey turn out to be published on WSM paper, then how will we know we are seeing the real Survey results?

So. Do I post this? Or do I run away? Sod it! It's not as if my life is being threatened. So, I tell you what. I'll meet you half-way. I'll post it here. I'll put it on my blog. But no more. It's time for others to step up too.

Martin Luther King again: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."