Worker-Owner Dividend 2014

Did you know that it is Weaver Street Market Co-operative Employee Policy that all WSM staff should be involved in the decision to set the size each year of the worker-owner dividend?

This was decided in 2007 after a full employee consultation exercise was held to establish which decisions within WSM should be subject to the official co-op policy that all employees be included in the making of important decisions.

You didn't know because WSM management have swept this policy under the carpet each year, and left it to the General Manager to set the size of the worker-owner dividend. With the WSM Board of Directors then rubber-stamping his decision.

Not this year. I have already written to the WSM GM (seeing as today is the end of the 2014 financial year) to ask him when and how the process will be established to include all staff in the setting of the 2014 worker-owner dividend.

Now. You might say. Big deal. You might say. There's a profit. Divide it in two. Half to consumer-owners. Half to worker-owners. There's the worker-owner dividend.

Not so fast. There is no such thing as 'a profit.' What is 'profit' is open to definition. And if this policy is to mean anything, it means that staff should be involved in the decisions setting the profit. Because it is the setting of the size of the profit which actually sets the size of the worker-owner dividend.

Now, you can't 'set' how much we sold and how much that cost. That's fixed. Ditto with rents, leases, bank interest, salaries already paid and the like.

But after that, essentially any expenditure which is optional is, in fact, profit. That includes things like how much we repay on long-term debt. How much we set aside for capital projects for next year. And so on.

Bloody hell. I hear you say. Those are huge decisions. We've never been included in those decisions. We'd need all sorts of detailed information to which we've never been privy before.

Exactly. And WSM management have been in breach of WSM co-op policy since 2007 by not including all WSM staff in all of those decisions, and by not furnishing us with all that information BEFORE those decisions were made.

And I do mean ALL staff. Not just worker-owners. That is what the policy states. ALL staff. And it's not just some boring rhetoric. Some of the decisions about setting profit include really important matters like, how much money do we want to set aside for salary increases (for all staff), perhaps in preference to that money being set aside for the worker-owner dividend? Some staff might take the view that some part of the 'profit' should be shared by all those who make it, not just worker-owners - which is precisely why the policy says it is ALL staff who make these decisions.

So. I will be looking forward to Ruffin's early response to my initial letter. This is potentially one of the most important democratic co-op processes in which staff have ever been invited to participate. And I repeat, not to include us in the setting of the size of the profit and then the setting of the size of the worker-owner dividend would put all management in breach of co-op policy, and render them open to discipline.

You can play your part by asking your unit management what they are doing right now to ensure that this process this year includes you. Remember, democracy isn't something that someone else does for you. It is what you do for you.

Occupy 3.0, Pop Vox and Me ...

An article from Chapelboro:

http://chapelboro.com/news/news-around-time/occupy-chapel-hill-still-alive-less-solidified/

Occupy Chapel Hill, General Assembly - June 26

There will be a General Assembly of Occupy Chapel Hill, to be held on Thursday, June 26, beginning at 6.30pm, on the Peace and Justice Plaza, in front of the old Post Office, on Franklin Street. All are invited to attend.

Now, just getting a few things clear. There is no leadership of OCH per se. So, I am using this post initially to inform all-comers of a discussion that has been taking place on the OCH Listserv about what to do with some remaining funds in the possession of OCH. I pass on this information with no authority as such. Merely as someone who was and remains interested in the work and activities of OCH.

I have some views of my own on the GA next week. But I come to those later. And I stress they are my opinions alone. In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that the Listserv discussion has looked at a number of options with regards to the remaining funds. And out of that discussion arose a desire to formalize any decision with a GA. Along with thoughts about comparing notes on what's been going on these past two years. With one or two suggestions about a possible future.

Right, that's the formal, non-tendentious stuff. Now to some of my thoughts.

It's summer. It's hot. And sunny. What better time to hold an outdoor OCH GA? I mean, last time around, it was the depths of winter - for the most part.

For sure, we want to make the formal decision about funds. But we've moved a lot since 2012. Is there any kind of future for OCH and Occupy generally?

The furious activity of 2012 has abated. The encampments gone. We have, most of us, found new or old outlets for our advocacy. But did Occupy/OCH offer something different? Could it still?

Occupy is the 99%. That covers a lot of political viewpoints. What on earth could bind so many different opinions - in any kind of meaningful way, which did not allow one group to impose an agenda on other participants?

Well, dealing with the latter first, the answer is to ensure that all proceedings are conducted with strict adherence to principles of consensus - in both letter and spirit.

As to the former - what could bind us? I would say that all of those I saw engaged in OCH found common ground in our disappointment with soul-sucking, impersonal, money-and-me-is-all corporate capitalism. And our desire to explore community-based alternative economic and social activities.

Plural.

There is no way a body encompassing the 99% is going to consense on a single agenda. And I think (being as non-controversial as possible) it was misplaced passion overcoming common sense that last time around made some think that was possible.

So. Why not consider a model where we each of us pursue our chosen agendas for alternative economic and social community models in our own groupings - be it Croatan Earth First, Carrboro Commune, the Democratic Party, Occupy Heatlh and Wellness, Solidarity Economy, Weaver Street Market Co-operative, wherever.

And then we have OCH as a clearinghouse for information and a discussion platform to compare notes and provide each other with support?

We don't need to meet twice a week. Maybe once a month would suffice. And then, in the course of our interactions, if there is a local, regional or national matter where we all, gently, voluntarily, above-board, find common cause, then, consensually, we can choose to work together in that regard.

Well. Those are my thoughts. And mine alone. Well, so far ...

Now again. GA of OCH next Thursday, June 26, 6.30pm, Peace and Justice Plaza, Chapel Hill. All are welcome. Come and meet old friends. Make new ones. Chat. Socialize. Politicize. Discuss. Laugh, weep, cry. Whatever you choose to do. That is the beauty of Occupy, after all. It is ours to design as we see fit. Consensually ...

Board Nomination 2014

I will NOT be submitting my name in candidature for the election of a Worker-Owner Board Director of Weaver Street Market Co-operative this year (close of nominations are this evening).

The good news is that there WILL be a candidate standing for more democracy in our co-op and greater inclusion of all workers in the making of the decisions that design the character of our co-op and which forge our own individual destinies in the co-op which is half-owned by its workers.

I did not take this decision lightly. And so, I will not be casual about my explanation.

Standing for the Board of Directors of WSM has, for me, never been about me. Not about my learning something, just for me, simply by being on the Board. Not about educating myself. Not about padding my resume.

For me, standing for the Board has been about wanting to create the space where all the voices of all the workers in our co-op can be heard. About creating the space for a democratic conversation in which all workers can participate. About helping to create a workplace where we all feel respected and honored and safe and happy.

I have stood four times for the Board. I am happy to stand again. So that we do not have what we have had for the past couple of years, which is uncontested elections. But if there is someone else who wants to stand. Who believes in democracy as I do. Then, as I keep saying, this is not about me, and I will not stand in their way.

But why, I hear you say. Why don’t you both stand? And that is where idealism meets up with ugly truth.

The ugly truth, as much as some may wish to deny it. The ugly truth is that, several years ago, senior management in our co-op decided they did not want loose employee cannons on ‘their’ Board. So, they began a practice of recruiting employee candidates who were … and I sincerely apologize to those recruited candidates who have simply been hoodwinked … who were not going to cause trouble on the Board.

And senior management have succeeded in that regard. Every year since 2007. Even when I stood those four times. Why? Numbers.

I won’t bore you with the calculations in detail. But the fact has been that, until recently, with the high cost of worker-ownership, only about half the workers in our co-op have been able to afford to pay to vote … I mean, to buy worker-ownership.

Of that half, about half were managers, who dutifully voted for their recruited candidate. And of those left, as hard as some of us worked, we could not find enough votes to overcome the management bloc vote of about 45 votes.

Until now.

Seven years ago, I and others began campaigning to make it easier to become a worker-owner. To have the right to vote for representation on the Board. With little immediate success. In 2009, in frustration, I stood on the single platform of saying that all workers should simply be given the vote. That year, management recruited a candidate who promised to make it easier to become a worker-owner. And he won.

During the following three years, that promise was simply shunted to one side. But I would not let it go. I continued with my campaign. And finally, in 2012, enough members of the Board saw the sense of my argument that we simply cannot have two classes of worker in a co-op (those who can afford to vote, and those who cannot) that they voted to spread the cost of paying for worker-ownership over five years rather than just one.

As a consequence, in 2013, worker-ownership almost doubled. There are now enough votes to overcome the management bloc vote. Provided. Provided it is a straight run-off between a candidate of management and a candidate of the workers. There aren’t enough votes to entertain two or more democracy candidates.

Sorry to be so practical about it. But facts are facts. I didn’t create the facts. I just recognize them.

After the call for candidates in this current election cycle, it became clear to me that there was a hugely qualified candidate, who wanted truly to represent all workers on the Board, who believed in our co-op being more democratic, and who would work hard to ensure that workers were more involved in the making of important decisions within our co-op.

One more time. This has never been about me. And so, since he has never stood for the Board before, I have offered not to submit my name in nomination. So that we will not divide the worker vote. So that we will have the best chance possible finally to have on our Board someone who truly represents all of the workers.

This does not mean that my campaigning for more democracy will stop. Far from it. With the chance that, at last, there might be an ear on our Board that is sympathetic to the notion of more democracy in our co-op, I will campaign as hard as ever I have.

Moreover, if I sense in the future that there is to be a worker-owner election which might go uncontested, or one in which there is not a democracy candidate, I will be ready to submit my name in nomination again.

But, for this year, I am happy to say that I will gladly be voting for Byron Wall.

Now. Just because the numbers have changed does not mean he is a shoo-in. You still have to vote too. And if you are not a worker-owner yet, become one now. You will then be eligible to vote in this year’s election. And Byron needs all the votes he can get.

When I became a worker-owner, I was told that there was a conversation in our co-op, which determined how our co-op behaved, and that I was entitled to be a part of that conversation.

I have been looking for that conversation ever since. Without success.

This year, with you and me acting together, in the best interests of all the workers in our co-op, we may finally be able to elect to the Board someone who will ensure we have a voice in a conversation which no longer will take place behind closed doors.

I’m excited.

Hello World, from Pop Vox and Nightsound ...

#PopVox will be appearing at #WeavestockII. But that will pretty much be my only live performance for a while.

I am working with the wonderful team from #NightsoundStudios to record some of the songs you have heard, danced to and shouted at (and some not), all to a sound and beat in my head, which I'm hoping may be the Gangnam/Pharrell William's hit sound of 2015 and beyond.

Or the Franklin D. Roosevelt Senior Citizens' Center, Panama Beach, Florida shuffleboard background muzak. We'll see. Meanwhile, here is the team, hard at it ...

It's official. Grainy. But official ...

D-Day and my Father

My father will be 90 this year. 70 years ago, he flew B-29 bombers for the USAF. In the Pacific arena. Not in the D-Day operation.

I grew up with pictures scattered throughout my home of my father in uniform. Of my mother and he marrying in Okinawa after the war was over.

It is only today that I have grasped how old he was then. Or rather, how young.

Have a good look at those around you who are in their twenties. How confident. How frail. How strong. How uncertain. How full of hope they are for fullness in a life that stretches endlessly before them.

I describe myself as a sort of pacifist. But I am haunted by the fear that my self-description may merely be an excuse for cowardice.

What I do know is that the world is full of leaders who are not pacifist. And that I am afforded the luxury of wallowing in my inner turmoil only because others are prepared to take my place on the front line.

And I know that those others are our children. For it is always the young we send to fight the wars of the old.

Today marks the last major anniversary of D-Day when survivors will be able to gather in numbers to remember those of their friends who were not so lucky.

I remember with them. And I thank them. The living. And the dead. And most especially those who have suffered reduced lives these past 70 years due to injuries they received on our behalf.

It is the sacrifice they made as much as the protests we engage in which help to ensure that we minimize the possibility of further violence in the future.

My father and I have chosen to go our separate ways. Too many differences. We will not re-bond before he dies. But the parting was civilized.

I do not know where he will be today. But my thoughts are with him. Memories of better times. Memories of those pictures. Memories of a delicate young man in uniform.

Whatever he is doing, I think of him today with thanks. And with pride.

Weavestock II - In the WSM 'Market Messenger' ...

Do NOT throw away your WSM employee Market Messenger this week. And DO remember to read it.

The first invitation for WSM employees to perform along with their mates at Weavestock II will be in this week's Market Messenger (which for those of you who don't pay too much attention (!) is the newsletter you get along with your paycheck this Thursday).

If for some reason you miss it, and you think you'd like to do something at Weavestock II (doesn't have to be music; it can be any performance art), then drop a line to Steve Carter (Weavestock Head Honcho - steve.c@weaverstreetmarket.coop) or Linda Fullwood (WSM Events Organizer - linda@weaverstreetmarket.coop) to let them know that you are interested, what you will be doing, and what are your performing requirements (special sound needs, equipment, dancing sea lions, etc).

I believe the tentative planning is for Weavestock II to be held at the end of July. Depending on how many people respond, it will be either a Thursday evening, or a Sunday, on the Carrboro Weave lawn.

Tell all your mates. I'm excited ... !!

Proposal to Board: Owner Discussion Groups

So. I attended a Board Meeting of Weaver Street Market Co-operative this past Wednesday. The first I have attended since the Vision 2020 meetings last year.

I was struck by the comment from the Board Chair (worker-owner Curt Brinkmeyer, who works in the WSM admin office finance dept) that the WSM Board was constantly looking at ways of getting WSM workers and owners more engaged in the workings of our co-op. But that they (the Board) couldn't work out for the life of them why their ideas never found fruition.

Um. You're the Board. Be the Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Just tell the General Manager to make it so. No? Hmm. You guessed it. Time for a letter to the Board:

"Dear WSM Board,

Please regard this as a formal e-mail to the WSM Board, and please present it to a Board Meeting.

I am writing because I was genuinely confused at this past week's WSM Board Meeting by the response of the WSM Board Chair to my suggestion that the Board needed to find more ways to get owners and workers involved in the workings of our co-op.

You will remember he said that the Board considers this the whole time. But that there seems to be a disconnect between the Board considering it, and something happening.

I am genuinely confused because I don't understand why you don't just make it happen. You are the Board of WSM. The supreme authority in our co-op, in that you get your authority from the owners, who are supposed democratically to control all of the activities within the co-op. Just instruct the General Manager to give effect to your suggestions.

Ok. That was the short version. Let's have a look at the longer version:

I have been attending WSM Board Meetings on and off for about eight years now, not least when I was a serving member of the WSM Elections Board Task Force, back in 2008. Finding ways to create proper communication with and involvement by owners has always been a topic of conversation.

As indeed it should be. The primary role of the Board, in my opinion, is to give substance to the ICA definition of a co-op, namely that it is a business entity whose activities are democratically controlled by its owners.

You can't be democratically controlled by owners unless owners are given regular opportunity to exercise that control through engagement beyond the annual election of a Board Director.

The secondary remit of the Elections Task Force was itself to examine ways of getting owners more involved in the workings of our co-op. Indeed, we made several suggestions as to how this could be accomplished. Yet none found fruition.

This lack of follow through seemed to find echo in the response to my suggestion about including owners, both worker and consumer, in the decisions to be taken with regards to changing our sales strategy.

Ruffin made a very compelling presentation at the Board Meeting in question (Wednesday, May 14) about sales trends within the natural foods retail industry. And ways in which WSM could improve its sales.

Two of the most important matters canvassed were focusing our attention on a smaller selection of fare, and addressing the pricing of our goods generally.

With regards to the former, Ruffin made the point that it would be increasingly more difficult to compete with the likes of Trader Joe's and Whole Foods on generic grocery items, since we all pretty much now get those items from the same distributor, namely UNFI.

The suggestion was that we consolidate the range of items we have for sale, and focus our attention on those items that we could offer more competitively than others.

There were some comments about our pricing. But I think for the most part even Ruffin was a little stumped as to how to deal with consumers and owners who complain about our higher prices.

I took and take the view that this possible new approach to sales strategy offers the perfect moment to do what we have singularly failed to do up until now - truly get our owners and workers engaged in the workings of and decision-making within our co-op, as our own co-op policy demands.

Who better than our consumers know what it is they want to buy? Who better than our shopfloor workers know what sells in the units?

We could spend (and we have spent, in various venues) hours debating the best vehicle for getting owners and workers engaged - Board Committees, task forces, advisory groups, whatever.

Why don't you just cut through all of that, and create two fully-supported discussion groups, one for consumer-owners, one for worker-owners?

By fully-supported I mean make them official. Hire rooms for them to meet. Provide them with staff support. Publish their discussion minutes on our web-site - as we did with the Elections Task Force.

You have room in the your Board budget. You reported at the last Board Meeting that you have $39,000 left, in this fiscal year alone.

Set up the discussion groups. Begin with discussing the new sales approach. And then, with a little guidance perhaps from a Board Liaison, let them go where they go. Allow them not only to report their minutes online, but have the Board Liaison report recommendations back directly to the Board.

Maybe, they could have joint meetings? Maybe they could recommend the setting up of specific Board Committees? Like the one I suggested last year for monitoring progress with WSM's Vision 2020?

There would be so many benefits.

First, the Board and the General Manager would have direct input from those who know best what could be done with designing and implementing a new sales approach. Not least by choosing, item by item, which to keep and which should go.

Secondly, you would have a group of owners invested in communicating about the new sales approach (not least prices), since they would have been a part of its creation.

Thirdly, you would be meeting the requirement that this co-op and its activities be democratically controlled by its owners. Owners and workers would be directly involved in the designing of new co-op strategy and its implementation. As they should be. All the time.

Finally, you would be offering owners opportunities to make a contribution to their co-op.

One of the other issues raised at the last Board Meeting (again, not least by me) was that the only opportunities afforded owners to be involved are the Board itself, or the Elections Committee and the Community Grants Committee.

What if owners want to be involved in other areas of co-op activity? What if they don't want to make the leap to the Board in their first step? If you begin with these discussion groups, not only are we offering an easier, less intimidating first step, we are also providing a generic discussion vehicle which can itself design other ways for owners and workers to become involved. It becomes self-generating.

Our Board Chair wondered about the disconnect between an idea and its implementation. My solution (or at least a first step) is for the Board to do the implementing itself, directly. Who is going to stop you?

All the best,
Geoff"

The Hunt for a Foreword ...

My horoscope this week said I could both have my cake and eat it. And it was right.

I thought my good news was done when I found a publisher for my book (The Hunt for Margaret Thatcher's Assassin).

But oh no. There's more. A respected Minister in the current UK LibCon Coalition Government (no names yet!) is now corresponding with me about providing a message of support for the book.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ...

Ok. I tried really hard to do my impersonation of visionary thinker, gazing into distance thoughtfully, nodding in sage wisdom at some snippet of intellectual epiphany suddenly descending.

I failed. I am, in fact, running around my work breakroom, doing the happy-clappy dance, interspersed with the Jim Carrey hip-thrust of victory, all the while screaming like a six-year old girl.

I have a long way to go before they let me on The Tonight Show ...

The Hunt for Margaret Thatcher's Assassin

After some twenty-six years of intense blood, sweat and tears, and who knows how many letters of rejection, this morning I changed my resume from 'writer' to 'author.' I have a publisher.

The gentleman's name is Kris Millegan. He is a wonderful soul, who has made it his mission to publish books the world's governments would rather the people did not see. And he plays washtub bass in a touring roots band in his spare time. What's not to like?

Kris trades under the imprint 'TrineDay,' and my book's current title (for those of you who don't already know!) is "The Hunt for Margaret Thatcher's Assassin."

I will have oodles of opportunity to thank the many good people who made this possible. But I'm going to single out now my sister, Maggi Gilson, who never stopped believing, and David Wayne, who became my one-man promo machine these past few years, and introduced me to Kris. Thank you, with words unspoken, because none of them suffice.

Right. Well, I'm tickled stupid. I'm going to go compose a song. With a dance that involves a quill pen, some cha-cha moves and a dozen helium balloons ...

Dividend At The Weave - 2014

I don't think I have ever, ever found myself writing two posts about Weaver Street Market Co-operative on the same day. But I made a mistake. I know, I know. Made you choke on your muesli and prunes. But that is where the good news ends.

I do all this worker-owner advocating within WSM, trying to get management and the WSM Board to comply with co-op policy, and involve owners and workers in decision-making, I do all of this on my own time. And the post earlier today I wrote on a half-hour work break. And I missed a whole wedge of info tucked away in some 3rd Quarter figures.

It starts with three figures. Our profit to date, after three Quarters, is only $47,324, compared to $509,119 for last year. Well, that's two figures to start with. But it brings me to one of the points I missed earlier.

We have been told with much fanfare over the past few weeks that our sales are doing fabulously well. Hmm. So, why is our profit so bad? For the reason I've been trying to make with equal fanfare over the same period of time. Sales matter for squat if you're deeply discounting product. It's profit that matters, not sales.

But let's leave that point on one side for a moment. Where the heck has a whole $500,000 in profit gone to? The answer to that is found in the third figure. Our asset value has increased by $541,975.

How come? Well, because we can add the cost of the Carrboro Refit (including its overrun) to our asset position. And the cost of the Refit (to date) is some $983,000. And leaving aside some depreciation and the cost of closing Panzanella, we are left with that net increase in asset value of $541,975.

Well, that's good isn't it? Not really. You see it is no co-incidence that it almost matches the amount by which our profit is down. You see, we are told that the capital fund only paid for about $600,000 of the Carrboro Refit. The overrun came from ... guess where? ... yup, our operations budget. In other words, our profit.

So. Er. Who cares? I care. And you should too. Our worker-owner annual dividend comes from the profit. Do you want me to say that again?

However good our 4th Quarter may be, it won't be better than last year, and we will be heading into that 4th Quarter with $500,000 less for our dividend than we had last year.

Senior management carefully omitted to tell us that in this week's 'Market Messenger.' And I missed it first time round.

But. It gets worse. You see management are all happy-clappy about the huge sales being generated by WOW (some $400,000 - $500,000 to date). But remember, even though we have that sales cash in hand, we have yet to pay for the stuff we sold.

Think about that carefully. If our profit margin is about 40%, we still have bills to come of about $300,000. Which raises questions as to whether or not we are technically even making a profit.

Which brings me to the next missed point. Well, misinterpreted point. The table suggesting we were increasing profit with WOW. Leaving aside all of the above, I checked the table again. It doesn't say Profit Improvement (my bad). It very clearly says Margin Improvement.

Sigh. There is no way any sales event ever invented caused an improvement in Margin. It's impossible.

I'm going to be generous, and assume it was a mistake. But it goes to the general tenor of the manner in which we are being made aware of matters important to us.

So. Again. Who cares? Hmm. Time and again, I have had people (usually managers) ... er ... take me to task for being negative. Look, they say, senior management know what they are doing, they make good decisions, they make us a profit, and they pay us a big dividend. Who cares about democracy and conversation?

Well. Leaving aside the fact that it is we workers who make the co-op's profit. Leaving aside the fact that co-op policy demands that we workers be involved in major decision-making, including the setting of our dividend. Leaving all that on one side, what if senior management are making bad decisions? Which cause our profit to fall? Which affects our dividend? Would you want a conversation then? Would you be glad someone is fighting to ensure that conversation is taking place? Hmm ... ??