Six Co-operative Goals for WSM in 2012 ...

WSM corporate office management will be announcing six goals for 2012 at worker Unit Meetings next week. I will be pleasantly surprised (not to mention bowled over with joy) if those goals look anything like this:

1) Authentic Triple Bottom Line Profit

* With a potential double-dip to the Great Recession just around the corner, keep financial profitability simple. No grand plans or expansive goals. Open the doors. Sell consumers what they have asked us to sell them. In a way workers have agreed. Make a profit. Go home.

* It is no good announcing that WSM has made a financial profit when that profit has only been achieved by overworking, underpaying, over-stressing and under-equipping workers. That is called exploitation. It's how WalMart is able to announce a profit. It's not something of which any one of us should feel proud.

* Remember that our Triple Bottom Line includes social and environmental profitability, as well as financial profitability.

* We are not achieving environmental profitability when we continue to use non-recyclable plastic bags for transporting food (which we announced was a temporary measure three years ago), or when we convert our delivery trucks away from being bio-diesel.

* The social bottom line is not how much money we return to the community. It is the social impact of our business on our owners, our consumers, our workers and our community. To put it simply, whether or not we piss 'em off with the way we do business. At the moment, we piss 'em off. We are not making a social profit, and have not for several years now.


2) Authentic Debt Reduction Program

* Restructuring and recapitalizing the co-op's long-term debt of some $8 million, to transform it such that it no longer drains funds away from investing in the resources necessary to provide fulfilling shopping and work experiences.

* We will never be able to give workers the tools they need (staff, equipment, proper pay increases, etc.) to provide customers with a fulfilling shopping experience, as long as each year we throw away $2 million out of our $25 million turnover due to our long-term debt.

* Currently, WSM exports some $2 million a year in interest and capital repayments to banks outside of our community because of that crippling long-term debt.

* This is the only reason WSM corporate office management, year after year, produces goals that place an intolerable burden upon our owners, our consumers and our workers, and which have nothing to do with providing for their common needs (which, by international definition, should be the sole ambition of any co-operative).


3) Authentic Communication and Accountability

* Structures, systems and processes should be introduced that allow for genuine communication within Departments, Units and the Co-op as a whole.

* That communication should be two-way. We get to tell management and the corporate office what we think, and they have to listen and take what we say into account. Otherwise, 'improved communication' just means another opportunity for management to poke us in the back, and tell us to keep our hands busy.

* Communication is useless without accountability. And that accountability, in a democratic co-op, based on the principle of equality, should also be two-way and absolute. We are responsible to our managers and to Ruffin. They should also be accountable to us.

* At last year's Unit Meetings, we were told that our efforts to increase sales by 15% would be supported by the WSM corporate office and Food House implementing category management improvements to our prepared foods. That has not happened. How do we workers hold the corporate office and Food House management accountable?

* We were told that, as and when we increased sales, staff levels would be increased. That has not happened in my Department. Whom do I hold accountable, and how?

* If a part of communication and accountability is to regularize job descriptions, then the co-op as a whole should be deciding the job descriptions, not just a self-appointed few; those job descriptions should cover every position, up to and including the General Manager; and all job descriptions should include a requirement to comply with WSM's Mission Statement and the Triple Bottom Line.


4) Authentic Shopping Experience

* Our consumers should determine what we sell. In that way, we could do away with all the expensive, consumerist marketing gimmickry, which serves only to encourage our consumers to buy what they would not otherwise want to buy. That's what conventional capitalist/consumerist grocery stores do, not co-operatives.

* We could then re-assign marketing staff away from the current marketing gimmickry, and have them focus instead on processes to discover the genuine common needs of our consumers, by way of an online forum, revived newsletter, consumer discussion groups, and the like.

* If consumers are choosing what we sell, and workers are deciding how we sell, and consumers are discussing all of this in consumer discussion groups, then there is no need to waste any more money on the reactive, unprofessional and counter-productive Mystery Shopper Program. There is way too much of a culture of secrecy and mystery in this co-op, which is supposed to subscribe to co-operative principles of openness and transparency.


5) Authentic Work Experience

* WSM's Mission Statement requires that workers have a fulfilling work experience.

* It should be made a specific requirement that every manager's job description include reference to this fact, and that every manager be reviewed each year as much on their success in ensuring a fulfilling work experience as in achieving financial goals.

* With our crippling long-term debt taken out of the financial equation, there would be enough funds (which we workers generate by the way) to increase staff, renew equipment, pay proper merit pay increases, and the like, all of which would allow us workers to provide customers with the shopping experience they want, and which we want to give them - in an environment of mutual respect and dignity. That's how you improve all three levels of profitability. Not by poking us in the back.


6) Authentic Decision-Making and Democracy

* Why were the six goals to be presented to us by WSM's corporate office management determined by a self-selected few, and not by the co-op as a whole? A co-op is supposed to work on principles of equality and democracy. Where was the equality and democracy in this decision-making process? Indeed, where is the equality and democracy in any of WSM's decision-making processes?

* Leaving aside principle, it is common business good sense that, if consumers, owners and workers are involved in making the major decisions in our co-op, they will all be more invested in achieving their successful implementation.

* The only opportunity available to workers to participate in wider policy-making in our co-op and to vote in Board Elections is through the purchase of worker-ownership. Ruffin told me last Autumn there was no good reason for keeping the cost of worker-ownership at $500. 36% of the co-op's workers said the reason they would not become worker-owners was due to the cost. Why can we not IMMEDIATELY reduce the cost of worker-ownership to, say, $200? It is plain wrong that only a few get to share in the rewards of the labor of us all.


We are not acting as a co-op if, at the end of a year, we have achieved some goal set by a self-appointed few behind a combination lock, but we don't feel good about ourselves.

What sets co-operatives apart from conventional corporate/consumerist businesses is not just what we do, but how we do it.

The answer to that viewpoint has too often been, 'Well, we're not a social statement.' Actually, provided we are not making a financial loss, that is exactly what we are.

I am told, if I feel that way, perhaps I should work elsewhere. Actually, if those who tell me that do not like working according to co-operative ideals, it is time for them to be working somewhere else.

Sorry. But it is time to take back our co-op.

I remain ever hopeful that the six goals that WSM corporate office management will be announcing next week will work towards these ends, and will consequently look something like the six set out above.

I remain hopeful, but I think we may be in for another fight ...

Consumerism is Dead; Long Live our Co-op ... ??

The past few weeks have been a body blow to irrational consumerism in the US. My fear is that my local food co-op, far from being a part of the alternative solution, continues to be a part of the problem.

In the US as a whole, fiscal irresponsibility, beginning in the Eighties, and fueled by successive administrations in the Nineties and then the Noughts, led to cheap money. Which created an unsustainable housing bubble. Which, through dicky mortgages and tacky marketing caused a consumer spending boom. Which put us all in debt we could not afford.

The economy finally hiccuped (2007/2008). Interest rates tweaked. Mortgages went unpaid. Enter foreclosures. Banks tanking. Getting bailed out. Putting governments even further into debt. Leading to the government debt crisis in the US and Europe (2011). And our hope we have all learned our lesson.

Meanwhile, Weaver Street Market Co-operative, happily skipping along as a two-unit and restaurant co-op, genuinely serving the expressed common needs of its stakeholders, as good co-op’s are supposed to do (cf. ICA definition of co-op) suddenly decided, in 2007, it wanted to abandon co-op principles, take advantage of the cheap money, and, without properly consulting its stakeholders (naughty; cf. ICA co-op principles of democracy and openness), expand to three units, a restaurant and a Food House, and become a traditional, consumerist, chain store.

As with everyone else, the Great Recession came along. And WSM found itself $10 million in debt (on turnover of about $20 million at that time), with sales going in the wrong direction.

Did those we have consented to manage our community co-op do the right thing (again, cf. ICA principles of transparency, democracy and accountability), fess up, and try to find a consensual solution to the problem?

No. They battened down the hatches. Closed down communication. Tossed any remaining co-operative principles overboard. And determined to hack their way out of debt by using rampantly consumerist marketing to encourage our customers to buy products that WSM wanted them to buy, not those for which our stakeholders had a genuine common need.

Meanwhile, workers, all pretence of consensual decision-making long since gone, have been used as fodder to produce as much money by way of sales as possible. Hence the demand from WSM corporate office management during the 2010 round of Unit Meetings to increase sales in 2011 by 15%.

A co-op is a voluntary association of stakeholders. Come together to provide for their common needs. There was no demonstrable need expressed by our consumer stakeholders to increase sales to them by 15%. There was no demonstrable desire expressed by our worker stakeholders to increase their workload by 15%.

No. The need being serviced was that expressed by a self-appointed few (in contravention of the co-op principle of equality) in the WSM corporate office to rescue, through rampant consumerism alone, the failed plan of expansion, which was itself driven by irrational consumerism, in the first place.

What to do?

Demand in our worker Unit Meetings, to be held later this month, and at the Annual Meeting of Owners, that WSM disregard the discredited consumerist plans of WSM corporate office management, and adopt a truly co-operative three-part plan for 2012 and beyond, to return our co-op to authentic and sustainable profitability - financial, social and environmental:

1) Take the long-term debt (now, $7 million?) out of the equation. Set up, as I first suggested at the Annual Meeting of Owners in 2008, a Review Committee of Owners, to investigate the finances of WSM, top to bottom, and suggest options for eliminating the long-term debt as soon as possible.

So that we workers are no longer working harder and harder, for less; going without realistic merit pay increases; and constantly being poked in the back to look busy; just because we workers are being forced to find $2 million a year to pay off WSM corporate office management's mistakes.

2) Return to the co-operative principles to which we subscribe, and make our co-op one that provides ONLY for the common needs of its stakeholders. NOT for the need of some irrational, unsustainable and unprofitable vision kept secret by WSM corporate office management, behind a combination lock in Hillsborough.

We made a sensible step in that direction a few years ago, when we replaced the 5% consumer discount (consumerism, if ever I saw it), with a dividend. In other words, making the return to stakeholders dependent on the real performance of the co-op.

So far, so good. I supported this move. I believed (and still do) that, properly implemented, it would help to induce real loyalty (and thus, sustainable buying power) among our consumer-owners, as opposed to the here-today/gone-tomorrow ADD one finds amongst most sale-only customers. I was just unhappy that we were introducing it without the consent of stakeholders (cf. democracy and accountability).

I was also unhappy that, contrary to assurances from our General Manager, we did not implement the second stage of the move from discounts to dividends.

You see the discounts-to-dividend move is not one that WSM invented. It is a concept that is being introduced, with great success, in food co-op's all over the US.

The reason it is having huge success encouraging greater loyalty among owners of other food co-op's is that those other co-op's are sticking to the gameplan, and are introducing the second stage of the concept.

Stage one is to remove the discounts, and say to owners: in future, your return on investment will be dependent on the performance of the co-op; you don't just get your return upfront, as a discount.

Stage two is then to say to owners: since we are making your return on investment dependent on our performance; we will give you democratic control over our performance.

Other co-op's, those which are experiencing success in increased owner loyalty and buying performance, are those that have take real steps to introduce stage two: improved democratic control by owners.

It is this second part which has not been introduced into WSM – yet.

If we want the move from discounts to dividends to lead to greater owner loyalty and to improved buying performance among our owners, then we need to implement measures to give them authentic democratic control over the performance of our co-op and its corporate office management.

This is not just some wishy-washy, utopian, democratic ideal. It is how we in WSM ensure improved sales through improved owner loyalty. It puts our stakeholders back in charge of determining what are the common needs to be serviced in our co-op, and of deciding how those needs will be addressed. And it is the only antidote to the collapse of consumerism in our society, and what all now recognize is the oncoming double-dip of the Great Recession.

I have suggested that the newly-appointed Owner Services Co-ordinator be given a remit to set up an interactive forum on the WSM web-site; to hold regular Consumer-Owner Discussion Groups; and to re-establish the Owner newsletter.

All ways of ensuring that what we sell and how we sell are determined by hands-on co-operative interaction with stakeholders, and not by impersonal, reactive, expensive, consumerist marketing gimmicks.

And a start to taking power in our co-op away from the self-selected few in the corporate office, and putting it back into the hands of our stakeholders, so that they (and not corporate office management) control the performance of our democratic co-op.

Now the 2011 WSM Consumer Survey was a start to inter-acting with our consumer-owners. But actually a pretty piss-poor start. It boiled down to one question: do you want us to be fiscally responsible again? But. It was a start .

Which neatly brings me to a suggestion as to how to pay for this newfound interest in our stakeholders.

If we believed that replacing discounts with dividends would be more financially responsible and more co-operative, and would be more likely to foster genuine and sustainable loyalty among our stakeholders, then why not take that belief to its natural conclusion?

And do away with ALL remaining discounts, owner specials and the like?

Quite aside from the principle, in one fell move we would sweep away the cottage industry we have created in the marketing department producing endless signs, labels, merchandising reports, et al.

When there was a simple 5% discount, we needed none of this extra marketing effort. But introducing all these never-ending specials and sale items (quite aside from being a rather tacky demonstration of a consumerist dependence on forcing people, through gimmick, to buy what they don’t really want) requires huge amounts of labor to organize.

If we did away with all the specials and all the associated labor, we would free up the marketing department to focus on liaising with stakeholders to determine what are their common needs, and how they would like them addressed.

Which allows me to segue conveniently to discussing another essential group of stakeholders in our co-op: its workers.

3) When WSM corporate office management panicked at the size of our debt and the onset of the Great Recession, in addition to sweeping away any pretence of providing for the common needs of our customer stakeholders, and resorting instead to tricking them into buying more and more stuff with consumerist marketing, corporate office management also decided pretty much to stop asking us workers how we would like our work experience to be fulfilling (cf. WSM Mission Statement requirement), and instead determined they would adopt the Wal-Mart approach and simply tell us what to do.

And what they wanted and want us to do is sell, sell, sell. Forget the Triple Bottom Line. Forget that we are supposed to have an environmental bottom line and a social bottom line (which is NOT how much money we put back into the community; it is the social manner in which we engage in business; the impact of our business activity on our workers and consumers, in a social context). Just focus on the financial bottom line.

Mind you, while corporate office management have been demanding we work harder and harder to pay off their debt, and without asking us if this is what we want to do, they have refused to introduce any sort of sensible incentive.

You don’t have to be an MBA to know that eventually, workers stop wanting to be productive within that sort of equation. And that was the message from the 2011 Employee Survey. Well, it was if you bothered to read the 72 pages of closely-typed criticism of the leadership and direction of WSM, submitted by workers across our co-op. Rather than just the one question which asked if we liked working at WSM.

Workers said they felt over-worked, over-stressed, underpaid, under-appreciated, excluded, under-equipped and unhappy. Unhappy primarily because they felt WSM was no longer acting like a co-op.

WSM corporate office management produced something of an Action Plan by way of response. I have said elsewhere that, if that Action Plan is genuine, it is a good start.

But to be genuine, it needs to allow for proper expression of grievances by workers. It needs to allow for managers and the corporate office to be held accountable to workers (who are their equal) for the decisions they make. And we workers need to be more involved in the making of those decisions.

We should have been involved in the process that led last year to the decision to increase sales in 2011 by 15%. And if further demands of made of us workers at the upcoming Unit Meetings, I will say, quite forcefully, that those demands should not become binding until we workers have given them our approval.

No more imposition. A lot more asking. And a deal less poking in the back, and ‘hey, look busy fella.’ Every time I now see a message on a board asking what we workers are doing to make our customers’ shopping experience more awesome, I’m going to be tempted to post my own message asking managers what they are doing to make their workers’ work experience more awesome.

Both are equal requirements of the WSM Mission Statement.

I made some specific suggestions in my other Note about workers as stakeholders. The most important are these: hold more meetings; make decisions of those meetings binding; give workers access to the Market Messenger; and reduce the cost of Worker-Ownership.

Worker-Ownership is the only process by which workers, at the moment, may be able to share in the rewards of their labor. It is also the only means by which they can obtain meaningful input to WSM policy-making. It is wrong, simply wrong, that we should have to pay $500 to buy access to that incentive and to a vote.

There is one side issue that is worth mentioning. Far from learning from its mistakes over expanding WSM to meet its consumerist-driven desires, rather than stakeholder-requested needs, the corporate office management have drawn up a Capital Plan, for further capital spending.

This Plan has been drawn up without any input from stakeholders, and it will absorb worker-produced earnings and profit which could otherwise be used to reward workers with meaningful merit pay increases and a better workplace environment, both of which would encourage workers to assist our consumer stakeholders in having that awesome shopping experience.

The most effective way of improving the shopping experience is by making workers happy through a more fulfilling work experience.

So. There you have it. Why don’t we as a co-op learn from our own mistakes, and from the body-blow that has been delivered across our nation to irrational consumerism?

Why don’t we now turn our back on the out-of-place consumerism which has seeped into our co-op, and replace it instead with a wholehearted return to authentic cooperative principles?

It’s not just good co-operation. It’s good business, too.

Looting in London; Looting in my Co-op ... ??

I am in a place of contradiction and confusion at the moment. But strangely, I see parallels between world events and happenings in my local food co-op. Especially as far as the looting in London is concerned.

I want to condemn the looting in London. But how is it so different from the Arab Spring? I want to say the rioters aren't protesting for democratic expression. But do I know that? I want to say, of course, it's not the same; the looters are wearing fancy clothes and driving smart cars. But, does having consumerist trinkets preclude the possibility that they are outraged because they feel excluded from the process that determines their destiny?

I go through a thousand tortuous thoughts in my head. I review all the bad decisions, personal and governmental, that led to this crisis of confidence in the UK. I consider the crippling debt (again both personal and governmental), the austerity measures introduced to cope with the debt, the sense of impotence that surrounds the whole debate, leading to the rioting and the looting. And then. Oops. Freeze.

Until a light bulb suddenly turns on in my head. Isn't the answer: (1) To take debt out of the equation; and then (2) Return power to the people, so that they may no longer be burdened with decisions by people who know nothing of them? They make the decisions for themselves.

Funny thing is, at least as I see it, this is exactly what the LibCon Coalition Government in the UK is trying to do, however ineffectually others may think they are achieving it.

They have gripped governmental debt by the horns, and undertaken to reduce it, as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have set out programs attempting to devolve power, so that collective decision-making is made as close to local communities as possible.

Of perhaps the most interest to me is the Government's open advocacy of co-operatives, to provide services both private and public.

The ethos is that remote entities, be they multi-national companies, over-large unions or layer after layer of out-of-touch government, they have all failed the people, because they simply do not know what 'the people' want. And besides, people aren't cyphers. They have different needs, from one community to another.

The definition of a co-op is a voluntary association of individuals who have come together to provide for their common needs. If folks come together to provide common health or education or food services, and, according to the principles of co-operative equality, democracy and openness, they do so on an equal and consensual basis, then what is provided is what those same people want, and it is provided in the way they want.

There can be no 'bad' decisions. Because the people are making the decisions for themselves. Yet, if mistakes are made, and openness and accountability are fully present, then the people can consensually decide to put right the mistakes.

Which brings me merrily to my own food co-op, Weaver Street Market Co-operative (WSM), here in North Carolina. Where happiness is not abundant, precisely because a self-appointed few have taken power away from the people, given it to themselves, decided to make decisions that are not consonant with the common needs of the stakeholders in the co-op, and have since sought to cover up their mistakes, only making matters horrendously worse.

In about 2007, this self-appointed few decided it would be a joyous adventure to cast aside principles of community, locality, prudence and consensus, and determined instead that they would like whole-heartedly to join with the consumerist-capitalist mainstream, and become a chain store.

Without properly consulting with stakeholders, they created plans for a new store in a town some ten miles away, and a new Food House (in the same town) to service everyone.

They then took the check book, went on a spending spree (hey, this was 2007; money was still cheap!), and the next thing we stakeholders knew, our co-op was $10 million in debt, on a turnover of $20 million, at the beginning of the worst recession since the Depression.

There has been much gnashing of teething and biblical wailing (not least from me) since then. Consumers and workers have been ridden roughshod in a vain attempt to rescue the unrescuable, to remain committed to the corporate office management gameplan, and simply to pay off the debt on the backs of those same consumers and workers.

I could go on at length. I have done. On this co-op blog. But, when I try today, I merely short-circuit. Again.

But then, another light bulb turns on in my head. Why not apply the same solution as with the UK? (1) Remove debt from the equation; and (2) Give power back to the stakeholders?

First, do what I suggested several years ago, when we all realized we were in for a sh**-storm, what with our annual interest repayments on the total debt being anywhere up to $1 million.

Set up a Review Committee of WSM Owners (with specialist knowledge) to review WSM's finances and its debt, and find a way to get rid of the debt without relying on measures that simply bring more and more pain to the stakeholders (consumers, owners and workers). Pain that has been visited on them year after year, and without their consent.

Then, allow our co-op to give power back to its stakeholders - its consumers, its owners and its workers.

Let consumers once more be the ones who decide what their co-operative will sell and how. Whether there will be a discount or a dividend. Through consumer discussion groups. An online forum. And a Board of Directors which is fully elected. Not one where three out of the seven Directors are essentially appointed by the WSM corporate office management.

Let workers decide for themselves, and in consultation with consumers, how they will provide for the common needs of the consumers, and in a way that is consonant with co-operative principles of dignity, and WSM's own Mission Statement that eschews exploitation and requires that workers have a fulfilling work experience.

No more would we need to waste vast amounts of consumerist-marketing time and money trying to get consumers to buy what the self-appointed few want them to buy. That is the traditional consumerist model, and its death knell was pretty much sounded in the past few weeks. The need for such marketing would be replaced by WSM simply providing what its consumers have told it they want it to sell.

No more would managers need constantly to poke their workers in the back, encouraging them to keep their hands busy. Setting targets. Setting goals. Imposing from above.

If workers knew what their customers wanted by way of service provision, through discussion and interactive feedback. If workers were asked, not told. If they were allowed meetings to make consensual decisions. If they ... no, we ... were permitted to be a part of the existing policy-making process, by reducing the cost of worker-ownership from its existing unaffordable $500. Then, we workers would be the ones making the decisions. We workers would be the ones responsible for the consequences. And we workers would be much more likely to be invested in implementing those decisions successfully and happily, and providing to consumers the food and the service consensually agreed between consumers and workers.

This is the very essence of co-operation.

I understand mistakes. I understand bad decisions. None of us are immune. Least of all me. I understand the desire not to admit. To cover up. To 'see it through.' I would be one with the WSM corporate office management, if their attempts to 'see it through' were proving successful.

But the fact is that, over the past few years, consumers, owners and workers have become increasingly disenchanted, the principles of co-operation have been left further and further behind, and the only success the corporate office can claim is the same sort of success that traditional capitalist corporations boast when their profitability and increased share value is attained only at the expense of downsizing and placing impossible burden on their consumers and workers.

Is that really the sort of claim we at WSM want to be able to make in our Annual Report 2011?

It is not too late. Indeed, the need for a change of course is vital in view of the fact that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Great Recession never ended; it merely went into hibernation.

It is now imperative that we find a sensible way to rescue WSM from its heavy debt burden, freeing our co-op to renew its commitment to the vibrant principles of co-operation, through a return of power to its stakeholders.

We have nothing to fear but the ability of the person buying from us, or the person working next to us, to control their own destiny in their own co-op. Is that really such a frightening possibility? After all, if it is good enough for the British Government, is there any reason why it shouldn't be good enough for us in Weaver Street Market Co-operative ... ??

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.