Pop Voxx EP - Tracking Complete!

Last evening, completed the last major element of tracking for the six-song Pop Voxx EP. Horns on 'Kisses', 'Romantic Fool' and 'Caribbean Sunrise'. Excellent playing from the guys, and some truly wonderful arrangement by Danny Grewen. All at Nightsound Studios, with producer Chris Wimberley and recording engineer Meghan Puryear. Won't be long now. The EP should be mixed and mastered by the end of the year. With the new Pop Voxx band. Yes. Band. Er. Yet to form it. New band playing a showcase/EP release party early in 2016. Keep your eyes and your ears open!!

Hugh John Simmonds, CBE: April 20, 1948 - November 15, 1988

More so than at any time since I first learned cursive writing (1962), the world we live in is shaped by violent conflict. And whatever impulses may be driving the desire for armed confrontation, its expression is fueled by arms sales.

Which brings me to the annual anniversary of the still unresolved and mysterious death of the man who is the subject of my recently-published book, Maggies’s Hammer, and the dichotomy at the heart of that book and its promotion.

I will this coming Friday conclude two and a half months of initial international radio interviews talking to all and sundry about my book, its subject matter and why it helps ordinary folk and experts alike better to understand just what the heck is going on in the world today.

But, here’s the thing. My primary angle, beyond attempting to find out why my good friend, mentor and Margaret Thatcher’s favorite speechwriter ended up dead in a peaceful woodland glade, thirty miles west of the British Parliament, is to expose the rampant and high-level corruption associated with the arms industry in the UK, and the UK’s special covert military arrangements with the US. And explain how they feed so much of today’s geopolitical agenda. Everything from the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Africa, to last Friday’s appalling tragedy in Paris.

And yet, while I am engaged on what some might see as this noble mission, the man at the heart of my investigations was, in fact, actively seeking to make money from that which I now seek to expose. The first of so many dichotomies that have become acutely visible to me in the course of some 30-40 radio interviews.

I want truth. And yet so many of those to whom I speak engage in lies. That’s what spies do. My aim is simple – find out what happened, so that Hugh’s family may know. Yet too many of my informants play with me, as if I am a part of their game. And I have to try to sort out the chaff from reality. My interviewers genuinely feel for my ambition. Yet, they constantly seek to move my commentary into areas that, frankly, have nothing to do with my book. As a consequence of which, I feel myself ever so gently, on occasion, losing sight of the essential narrative. While worrying that what I see as my primary need (the opening of the relevant government files in the UK) becomes less likely the more I speak on radio programs that might affect my credibility.

Dichotomies abundant.

But, there is one constant which never changes. As awkward and as outré as it might seem in an age of yes she did, no he didn’t, instant ADD social media gratification. In 1989, I held the hands of an eleven year old girl. Whose face was vacant, her eyes haunted. And promised that I would find out why her father had died, without explanation for her. I will fulfill that promise.

And so, today, a few days after the western world engaged in its annual ritual of remembering those who died on our behalf. In military conflicts around the world. Conflicts they and we had no hand in designing. As we attempt to absorb the horror of one of those conflicts acting out in what we had assumed were our safe neighborhoods. As, hopefully, we might once again want to reconsider the importance to our economic way of life of arms sales. And the toxic influence they have on our body politic through associated arms kickbacks. I remember that twenty-seven years ago, on this day, my best friend died in the service of his Prime Minister. A fact which, as we remember so much else, very few will feel constrained to remember. Something I genuinely believe, now that my book has so very kindly been published by Kris Millegan, a man who has yet even to meet me, something I believe may finally change in this coming year.

RIP Hugh. Love to Janet, Karen, Juliet, Tanya and Paul.

Durham Co-op -- Even More ...

Fellow Southern Village Weave worker-owner, Neil Shock, has written a wonderful commentary on the article this week in IndyWeek about the Durham Co-op [below]. Thank you, Neil!

I'm assuming that, when WSM 'leaders' talk about clash, conflict and problems with worker-ownership as a principle (as they do in said article), they mean the times that one or other of those pesky WSM worker-owners has stepped up and reminded said co-op 'leaders' (whether in Orange County or Durham) how it is that co-operation, policy governance and their own policies are actually supposed to work? Cf. Attempts to remove WSM Employee Policy protections? In which case, yay for clashes, conflicts and problems. Which no doubt explains why I've never been asked to give governance classes.

On an aside, I find it interesting that, on the whole, and notwithstanding the fact that WSM is half-owned by its workers, whenever media outlets consult WSM 'leaders,' they seem always to limit themselves to management and Board members.

Anyway. Hush my mouth. Neil's lovely commentary:

" "But Stasio says it's more complicated than that. Based on the consultant's recommendations, he says, the co-op is adopting what is known as "policy governance," delegating management of daily operations to its general manager rather than an overly meddlesome board of directors. Issues will arise if the board micromanages such an organization—and having workers on the board will lead to more interference, he says.

Moreover, workers would face constant calls to recuse themselves over conflicts of interest when votes affect them, Stasio adds. And the store's general manager would also have to oversee employees who could, as part of the board, push to fire her."

I am a worker-owner at Weaver Street Market for the past four years, I have belonged to other co-ops in the past as well as working union jobs, I have had the board explained to me multiple times by multiple people, I have sat in on half a dozen board meetings, I have done some research on policy governance, and I was part of the election committee for the 2014 WSM board elections. So as I reading this all I can think is, "Bro, do you even co-op?"

Rather than being a conflict of interest, this sort of hybrid worker/consumer co-op leads to compromise-- if done correctly. It's fairly commonsense.

The ownership (workers and consumers) want a certain action taken. They elect a board responsible to them *only* and present the board with demands and goals. The board prioritizes these goals based on democratic input and shapes the objectives and parameters within which the co-op attempts to meet the owners' demand-- constrained by bylaws and budget, mostly. Once the board does that they present the goals, the boundaries, and the metric for progress to the General Manager. The GM is responsible to the board to see that we get from point A to point B without stepping out of bounds.

The GM is responsible to the Board. The Board is responsible to the owners. The owners do not directly interfere with the GM. But the owners ultimately hold the power and employ the board and GM. Owners -> Board -> GM.

Now, once the GM has been given their task, they are in charge of operations. The GM is essentially an executive position. That means that they function as a boss toward the workers. Which sounds like an inversion of the relationship above. The GM now holds most of the day-to-day power, including power over the worker-owners, with regards to daily operations. But the GM can only act within the parameters set by the board. Which is why it is crucial to have workers represented on the board-- to prevent conflict in daily operations by agreeing to the parameters of how the GM does their job and to provide recourse if the GM is putting unreasonable demands on workers.

The GM is essentially tasked with keeping the ball rolling towards the goals set by owners while the board is the where the compromises are made.

Also, this is total nonsense:

"Moreover, workers would face constant calls to recuse themselves over conflicts of interest when votes affect them."

Why? Wouldn't consumers be forced into the same situation?

Likewise, this misses the point of policy governance:

"And the store's general manager would also have to oversee employees who could, as part of the board, push to fire her."

Yes and no. The GM is responsible to the board in total, not to workers solely.The GM operates within the boundaries created by the board, which includes compromises made with the consent of worker-ownership. The GM only has to stay within the boundaries to be compliant. If the workers feel that the boundaries allow for the GM to abuse workers then they can go to the board to shift or narrow the boundaries. And active worker-owner representation should prevent the situation from going too off course to begin with. Again, compromise. The GM would likely only be censured or fired for failing to stay within the boundaries set by bylaws, policy, and budget.

On top of all this, worker-ownership incentivizes workers to be responsive to consumers, since profit in the firm is returned to them in their dividend. This tends to be a bit more progressive motivation than, "Do what the GM says or we'll fire you." "

[Not sure how to comply with WSM Employee Policy on this one. Do I add the caveat that only my comments are my opinion? Since Neil's are his. Even though I mention them in my article. And are WSM 'leaders' still making comment? Even though they say they have no comment to make on the comments not attributed to them? Ok. I've got a headache. And I need to go lie down ...]

Durham Co-op -- The Consultants

I have set out elsewhere the advice the Board of Durham Co-op Market (DCM) have attributed to the Weaver Street Market Co-op (WSM) GM, in the DCM Board deliberations which preceded their decision to promulgate a referendum, seeking to abolish worker shares in DCM, which referendum has now been withdrawn pending further discussion.

The consultants the DCM Board have been using have now decided to post their own statement on the discussion thread following the original article on Bull City Rising. Sigh.

Merrily scattering disclaimers all over the place, I decided to enter the fray (again), and offer a gentle rebuttal. To be honest, I've had enough of so-called co-operative consultants peddling a line which, in my personal opinion (only), has absolutely nothing to do with applying co-operative business principles in practice. It might seem harmless. But not when it leads to the sort of episode we have just witnessed with DCM.

CDS statement:

"There are all kinds of cooperatives including consumer-owned, worker-owned, farmer-owned, and multi-stakeholder. We love them all! CDS Consulting Co-op is a shared services cooperative owned by our member consultants. As consultants committed to supporting other cooperators, we often base our recommendations on what we have seen work for other co-ops.

While we are intrigued with multi-stakeholder models, we know of only one example of successful implementation of a worker/consumer hybrid food co-op - Weavers Street Market. Given the rarity of this model, it's not one we have a strong reason to recommend or identify as a best practice.

Starting a new food co-op is a very complicated and challenging endeavor that takes several years to implement. In order to survive, new co-ops require an intense focus on building sales, improving operations, and achieving profitability. We think the more complicated multi-stakeholder model makes it even more challenging and therefore do not advise it at the start up stage. This is a matter more of practicality than of values.

We support the Durham Co-op Market's board decision to take more time to discuss the organizational structure with the co-op's members. If they decide to implement the multi-stakeholder model, we will offer the best consulting support we can to help them move forward with their decision.

Marilyn Scholl, manager
CDS Consulting Co-op"

My gentle response:

"I apologize, but I'm going to introduce a slightly tendentious note. As before, I want to stress the views I'm about to share are personal, and do not represent in any fashion the official line of Weaver Street Market Co-operative - although I might wish that they did. These views are, however, based upon some nine years of advocating for worker rights within WSM, and attempting to make WSM a stronger business by being a better co-op (and if you're in any way interested in what that looks like, maybe take a peek at my blog, linked below).

The representative of CDS says: "In order to survive, new co-ops require an intense focus on building sales, improving operations, and achieving profitability." I'm bound to say this is very much reflective of a fearful attitude prevalent among many in the co-op community. The inference is that we can get around to being a co-op once we're successful as a business.

Look, I'm not stupid. I used to earn six figures a year as a management consultant. I know how to do corporate capitalism. But why is it that so many in our co-op community are so scared of the notion that it is co-operation that enhances the chance of profitability, rather than being an obstacle or an afterthought?

What first attracted me to co-operation was the notion that it represented an alternative business model. Not just an alternative ownership model. But a whole new way of making a business successful.

As I see it, the concept always has been this. You get to the heart of what it is you want to do. You have a group of people who have a common need. Could be groceries. Could be a mushroom farm. Or horse-riding. You set about mutually meeting the need. While removing all the extraneous outside interferences that add cost to the equation: capital that can be speculated; empire-building management; marketing that guesses, as opposed to consumers deciding what they want.

You bring in people dedicated to providing the need, and ask them how they would like to provide the need. Because if you ask, and they are allowed to decide, then they are invested in making sure the how they decided actually works.

Nothing here of that intense focus on remote management techniques, operational excellence, building sales, etc. etc. Just meeting a need, the simplest way possible, by asking consumers and then asking workers. Democracy.

And for the life of me, as simple as the concept appears to be to me, someone steeped in the arcane intricacies of corporate capitalism, I simply do not understand why co-operative consultants seek solace in those arcane intricacies, rather than actually giving economic democracy its best chance.

DCM have taken a moment to rethink their path. I would invite them to use the moment to rethink more than just the voice they give to workers. Actually take a longer moment genuinely to work out why you want to be a co-op at all.

Co-operation. Democracy. Inclusion. Consensus. These are not afterthoughts to the business model that should be DCM - and WSM for that matter, too. They are the very foundation which creates the business model that is the much better alternative to conventional corporate capitalism."

Just to keep things updated, Bull City Rising just posted an account of the DCM Annual Meeting last evening. This is the last time I will be posting from that blog. For no reason other than the fact that I have an EP to complete! I invite you to keep any eye on the blog yourselves.

[As always, I am duty bound by WSM Employee Policy to state that these opinions are mine alone, and do not in any way represent the policy of WSM. Mind you, anyone who is an employee of WSM is subject to the same policy. I can't help but wonder about the manner in which the DCM Board were offered the advice they attribute to WSM; whether any declarations were made about the nature of that advice (personal or WSM policy); and, if the latter, what entity of authority within WSM has ever properly determined a policy which states that WSM may tell other co-op's that worker-ownership is not best practice. I mean, I wonder.]

Durham Co-op -- Stop The Press !!

The referendum to do away with worker shares has been withdrawn, pending further discussion. I would say only this. Do not gloat. This is a victory for no-one other than democracy. Which means that everyone has won.

It takes a deal of courage to stop mid-course, and choose a different path. Well done everyone. And I do mean, everyone. Including the brave folk who spoke up. And the courageous people who listened, heard and acted.

Durham Co-op, Worker-Owners, Bylaws, Continuing ...

The article about Durham Co-operative Market (DCM) seeking to do away with worker-ownership is now up on Bull City Rising (BCR). I am quoted (with no explanation as to who I am -- oops). But, I prefer this part:

"After the Durham Co-op opened, though, the board began honing and reviewing governing documents, including grievance policies. It was after conferring with CDS and Weaver Street general manager Ruffin Slater, that Durham board suggested striking the language about worker shares, subject to a vote of the membership. “They [CDS] said ‘Nobody does this,’” says Frank Stasio, board president.

Stasio says that Slater also advised against a worker-owner component because "it’s very difficult, especially for a start-up.""

Sigh.

Next up. The Annual Meeting itself this coming Sunday (November 8), at 6.00pm, in the DCM store. What I didn't know was that voting has been underway for two weeks already. However, it continues until the Meeting itself, and I believe is permitted at the Meeting as well. We'll see.

In the meantime, BCR has a Facebook Page, and comments are going up on the post there.

[For the sake of complying with WSM Employee Policy, I posted the following comment to both the original BCR article, and to their post on their Facebook Page:

"I am the 'Geoff Gilson' quoted in the article. Although no description is given of me.

I am a worker-owner advocate with Weaver Street Market Co-op. I was approached for my thoughts. And the comments I make are made in a personal capacity only.

It's a difficult thing. I believe that co-op's work best as a bulwark against speculative and corporate capitalism if they are truly democratic, and remain under the control of their community, free from outside interference.

By definition, not being a member of the Durham Market Co-op, and living one town over (in Carrboro), I am 'outside interference.' So, I commented with care.

That said, my experience has given me a universal interest in worker rights. And I felt compelled to say something, however carefully."]

Oops. There's more. I have now discovered an online notice for the DCM Annual Meeting, which notice has the wording of the proposed change to the Articles of Incorporation, and indicates that voting may take place up to and including November 13. So, one can vote at the Annual Meeting this coming Sunday (November 8), and a bit beyond. The Annual Meeting and all voting takes place in the store itself. And yes, I'm up at 5 o'clock in the morning. I've made the point before, and I'll make it again. I don't get to do any of this on anyone's clock but my own.

Durham Co-op - Proposed Changes To Bylaws

I think there is something in the air! I was approached by a local media representative on Thursday (November 5) for my comments upon what appears to be a move by the Board of the new Durham Co-operative Market (DCM) to remove protections for workers from the DCM Bylaws, at their first Annual Meeting, to be held this coming Sunday (November 8), at 6.00pm.

The reason for the approach was the understanding that the Bylaws of DCM were based upon the Bylaws and Board Policies of Weaver Street Market Co-operative (WSM).

I made some enquiries, did some research, wrote a statement, had a conversation with Frank Stasio, the President of the DCM Board, and nationally-renowned host of WUNC's 'State of Things,' and then amended my statement, which was released to the media representative in question, and posted on my Facebook Page and here. The media representative is Lisa Sorg, and the media outlet is Bull City Rising. Both Frank and I will be speaking further but separately with Lisa on Friday morning.

Before I come to my statement, I want to make clear that I completely believe that the Board of DCM believes itself to be acting in the best interests of its workers, and at no point has my interaction with DCM been hostile.

DCM have been completely friendly and welcoming to my input. I am just concerned that, as well-meaning as they believe themselves to be, they are being given bad advice by their consultants. I am wary of anyone who says that worker interests can best be represented by anyone other than workers, be they consumers, management or consultants. Let workers represent themselves, both in operational decision-making and on the Board.

My statement:

"I am a worker-owner advocate of some nine year’s standing with Weaver Street Market Co-operative (WSM), which co-op helped with establishing the Durham Co-op (DCM).

I am told that this coming Sunday (Nov 8), a ‘consumer-owner referendum’ will be put to the DCM Annual Meeting, which referendum is described as removing the notion of worker shares from the DCM Bylaws, thereby apparently removing worker-owner representation from the DCM Board of Directors.

I have been approached in the belief that the governance structure of DCM is modeled on that of WSM, which is what is known as a worker-consumer hybrid co-op, one where the capital is forthcoming from both consumers and workers, and one where, therefore, the rights of both consumers and workers are represented and protected.

CAVEAT

I can find no Bylaws on the DCM website. I can find no reference to any proposed changes to be presented at the Annual Meeting. I can find a list of Directors for DCM, which list does not appear to include any workers from DCM. I can find no reference to there being worker shares.

I am, therefore, making this statement solely on the basis of what has been told to me. I am doing so because I take the notion of worker rights seriously. If there is an attempt to reduce worker rights in any co-op, I would be disappointed, and would want to say something.

So, I may have this all completely wrong. In which case, the only deleterious impact is that I look foolish. And I’ll take that risk!

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

The supreme concept behind co-operation is that it avoids the self-serving pitfalls of corporate capitalism by putting all decision-making democratically in the hands of those the co-op immediately serves. Thus, toxic outside interference (speculators and the like) is reduced to a minimum.

If the locally-based, democratic owners of DCM choose to remove rights of workers this coming Sunday, that is their right. And commentary from me, one town over, is, by definition, ‘outside interference.’

WORKER/CONSUMER HYBRID

I can find no evidence that DCM is a worker/consumer hybrid. Even if it is not, I would recommend the structure to it and to all other co-ops. It is a model which, if properly implemented, can be both profitable and fully protective of the rights of all that are served, including those who do the work necessary to make the entity profitable.

The essential modus is this: consumers decide what it is they want provided to them – without the need for expensive capitalist marketing, which merely spends a lot of time and money guessing. And workers then decide how to provide – without all the soul-destroying and wasteful shenanigans of remote worker-management techniques.

It is no secret that I advocate heavily about WSM. Not least because the senior management of WSM seems neither to understand the component about workers being included in decision-making, nor to want to implement the co-op policy that demands such worker inclusion.

I am told that “the party line in Durham is that it's ‘not a best practice’” [worker shares, that is]. Sigh. Again, I emphasize that I am speaking in the absence of a lot of information.

However, if it is true that there is a proposal which some might characterize as diminishing the rights of workers in a co-op, then that is not something avowedly progressive people would want widely to advertise.

In my WSM co-op, we are in the middle of an exercise to attempt to diminish the rights of workers in our worker-consumer hybrid, by having the Board Policy which protects the right of workers to be included in operational decision-making totally removed.

I have played some small part these past few days in bringing that move to a halt, and getting it reviewed by the WSM Board.

The ‘line’ used in advocating for removal of that worker protection was that “it is not in line with other co-op’s.” A line which appears to be similar to the one being attributed to ‘Durham.’

Both lines are nonsense. The essential point about co-op’s is that those immediately served are protected from interference with the provision of what they want, in the way they want, by democracy.

The lines offered essentially amount to, well, democracy is inconvenient. Of course, democracy is inconvenient. That’s the whole point. It offers the checks and balances to protect against corporate capitalism.

I would go so far as to say this: when you hear a line about ‘in line’ or ‘best practice,’ it is most likely coming from a technocrat and not from a dedicated co-operator

There is absolutely no evidence that the application of democracy interferes with the ability of a co-op to make a profit.

Quite the reverse. Economic democracy enhances the performance of workers, produces dedicated consumers, and prevents any and all profit from being siphoned off by outside elements.

CONVERSATION WITH FRANK STASIO

On Thursday evening, I spoke with Frank Stasio, the President of the DCM Board of Directors. I understand that he will be speaking on Friday morning with the same media representative who approached me.

Briefly, what Frank stated to me was that DCM has been receiving extensive consulting advice about governance, as it has developed operating and governance structures this past year. That the original structure was, indeed, based upon that of WSM, which included worker ownership as a class of ownership separate to consumer-ownership. That the advice of the DCM consultants was that a worker-consumer hybrid is not best practice. That the DCM Board wished to protect worker rights. But that the advice was that this could best be done not by worker input as a separate process, but by the GM making proposals. With the caveat that workers could become general owners, and vote alongside consumers.

My reaction, in tune with the above, is this, subject again to the caveat that I am not an owner of DCM:

1) I think it is important to the concept of co-operation in retail that all stakeholders are included in decision-making. In a manner that best presents the ‘investment’ of the stakeholder in the co-operative. I do not believe that there is anyone better able to represent the interests of workers than workers. Not the Board. Not the GM. I am concerned that subsuming the voice of workers among consumers (who have a different agenda) and to the GM, who is the ultimate boss of all workers, who may not feel free to express their true concerns to their GM, is diluting the voice of workers. I think there should be a separate worker voice in operations and on the Board.

2) I am a little concerned that DCM is removing the protection that exists for worker input without having a plan to replace already in place. I completely believe that the Board of DCM is acting in good faith. I’m just concerned about the hiatus created. Once something is removed, it is difficult to put it back.

3) I would be much happier if I was hearing that the workers of DCM are totally in support of the proposed changes to the DCM Bylaws.

4) I am little moved by consultants who say that democracy is not best practice. And yes, I know that comment is tendentious. It’s what I’m hearing from the consultants in this matter. My opinion!

I am sending this statement to Lisa Sorg (the media representative), Frank Stasio and Leila Wolfram (the DCM GM). I am also posting it on my Facebook and my blog, only because I put all my co-op involvement there. Anyone is perfectly welcome to comment there also!"

Charles, Participation, Self-Management

Got a very nice note from new Weave Worker-Owner Director, Charles Traitor. He confirms he will be speaking at the WSM Board Meeting tomorrow evening (November 4), in support of new language for WSM Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff,' entrenching not erasing WSM employees' rights to be allowed to participate in WSM decision-making; which decision-making must also be transparent.

I am delighted that Charles will be representing worker views so soon and so actively. Thank you, Charles. That said, if any WSM owners, worker or consumer, are available tomorrow evening, please do not leave him on his own. Try to find the time to attend the Board Meeting, to show your support.

And to any WSM Board Members or managers reading this, if no throng turns up (e.g. I will be working), please do not take that as a lack of support. The true indication of support that worker democracy has in our co-op was demonstrated quite clearly in the 62 votes garnered by Charles, and the 33 votes received by Caitlin, in the recent Worker-Owner Director election.

The truly interesting part of Charles' note was the emphasis he puts on the organization and self-management of worker-owners. Charles makes the point that the correct language in policy is important as a reference. But it counts for nothing if there is not that organization and self-management.

I am a tad concerned that we do not become so taken with 'organization and self-management' that we do not apply it where it can work. For myself, I have spent my time over the past nine years focusing on the proper language and its implementation, so that the space exists for workers to take advantage if they so wish. I have not attempted to organize as such. My view is that I can not force folks to do things. I can only show them what is possible.

But you know, I really think that what Charles and I are doing are the flip sides of the same coin. On the one hand, making sure the correct language and opportunity are in place. On the other, organizing folks to take advantage of the opportunities created.

Now, that said, I do think you can expect Charles to be knocking on all of your doors, to ensure that you do now participate. Not just in implementing the language and opportunity that has been forged. But generally, in utilizing worker-ownership in a collective sense, so as to inculcate among workers more of a sense of what is possible in our co-op.

Charles also very kindly closed his note with a quote from Eugene Debs: "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, someone else would lead you out." Grateful for the quote. Even if no-one would ever mistake me for a socialist!

As Charles said: "Good luck to us all - I mean, good organizing" ...

WCHL Commentary: Co-op Employee Democracy

So, my Commentary on the proposed changes to WSM Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff' hit the airwaves on WCHL this past Monday (October 26). Please act (workers and consumers alike), and help your friendly workers at The Weave.

In the meantime, Charles Traitor, the newly-elected WSM Worker-Owner Director, has himself taken to the intra-WSM social media (Slack), and posted his opposition to the proposed changes to 'Treatment of Staff.' Opposition which is much in line with mine and other employees.

I trust that Charles will be allowed to voice that opposition at the WSM Board Meeting on November 4, and that he will have effect. Don't, however, take that for granted. If you are free that evening, please find the time to attend the Board Meeting, and show your support for Charles and those he represents.

Treatment of Staff: Chapel Hill News

As promised, article on page 10A of The Chapel Hill News section of The News&Observer. Little tucked away. But it's there.

Now. As I urged yesterday. Please put a copy up on your breakroom noticeboard. You are entitled. It is your noticeboard too. This is your news. We are still allowed ethical comment. And your fellow workers deserve to know what is happening on their behalf - the good as well as the bad. They deserve to know that voting works, protesting works. In our co-op.

But don't stop there. As the article makes clear, the WSM Board will be reconsidering the Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff' at its Board Meeting on November 4.

Please write (all of you, consumer and worker) to them (board@weaverstreetmarket.coop) and tell them that we workers do not want any changes to that Board Policy. We want to continue to have our rights to be involved in decision-making within WSM (even if that doesn't happen at the moment!), ethically to dissent and to take our grievances to the WSM Board.

If you feel so inclined, go one further. Ask the WSM Board now to demand of the WSM General Manager that he immediately hold a full consultative exercise (just as he did to try to push through the proposed changes to WSM Employee Policy), to allow workers to design the process by which, going forward, we will be involved fully and properly in WSM decision-making, in line with the document produced in 2007.

We won a step. Now, we need to continue down the Yellow Brick Road, all the way to the Emerald City. That would be the sustainable, walkable, bikeable, authentic, locally-grown and organic Emerald City, by the way ...

Treatment Of Staff: Partial Victory For WSM Employees

I do not often toot my own horn - unless it is about my book or Pop Voxx / Geoff Gilson. But you will know that I responded ... um ... aggressively to the proposed changes to the WSM Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff,' notice of which we were given only last Friday, with feedback supposed to be in this coming Monday.

People wonder why I care. Why I go out on a limb. Well. Because I don't like seeing my friends hurting. I am not a brave person. I am terrified every time I take on WSM management. I have bills, too. But, sod it. Friends come first.

So, I posted on Facebook. Tagged the world. Put up a post on OrangePolitics. Recorded a Commentary to go out on WCHL on Monday. Spent two hours yesterday with a local newspaper. Their journalist spoke at length with the WSM General Manager.

Five minutes ago before I left for work this morning. Fifteen minutes before I was due to have a private meeting with the WSM Human Resources Manager. The newspaper in question received a letter from the WSM Board, saying they are withdrawing the changes, and are going to re-consider, due to employee feedback.

You guys responded. And it worked. I hope I played some small part in triggering the employee and consumer feedback. Now. Follow through. Demand the changes to 'Treatment of Staff' are simply binned. Permanently.

Now. This is only the first step. Second step is for the WSM Board to act further. As I set out in the e-mail I sent to them today:

"I have just heard that the WSM Board sent to The Chapel Hill News a letter stating that the Board would be reconsidering the proposed changes to its policy 'Treatment of Staff.'

We have had only a very short period to consider those proposed changes. It has taken me a while fully to grasp their impact. Time, I would add, which has all been off-the-clock. Those proposing the changes are paid when they produce their paperwork. I do it on my own time.

In any event, I now formally request of the WSM Board that they leave the policy 'Treatment of Staff' intact, in its entirety.

Rather I request that they ask the WSM General Manager immediately to hold a consultative exercise with WSM employees to design a process fully and properly to implement the said policy.

I have spent much time over the years discussing with former Board members why the policy that exists does exist. 'Treatment of Staff' was not a whim. It was a carefully-considered response to the special worker-consumer hybrid that is WSM.

It is no good saying the proposed changes are merely bringing WSM into line with other co-ops. Other co-ops are not worker-consumer hybrids.

There is a need to ensure parity between worker and consumer agendas. That is achieved on the Board.

There is also a need to ensure protection for the work conditions and for the return on the very considerable investment ($500) that workers-owners make, within the workplace itself, so as to be sure that managers do not impinge upon those conditions and that return.

Hence 'Treatment of Staff.'

The proposed changes would take away completely the right of workers to be involved in decisions made by managers that affect their workplace. Those changes should not be made. Seeking worker opinion is not sufficient safeguard against management. However irritating that safeguard may be to management.

The proposed changes also remove from Board protection the worker right to dissent ethically (to complain about overbearing management, and therefore to protect work conditions and return on worker investment), and the right to take grievance about breach of Board policy by management to the Board.

It has, quite rightly, been pointed out that the right to dissent ethically and to take grievance about breach of Board policy is contained elsewhere in WSM Employee Policy. But that's the point. That is not Board policy. Protected by the Board.

If 'Treatment of Staff' is altered, the right ethically to dissent will, henceforth, only be guaranteed by the General Manager, not his boss. Bit of a problem if it's the General Manager you're ethically dissenting against.

Same thing with appeal to the Board. It follows that appeal from the General Manager to the Board has to be guaranteed by the Board, not by the General Manager.

So. Bottom line? Unless there is really good reason. Which to date I have not heard. Then please leave the existing 'Treatment of Staff' completely alone.

But. It goes further than that. I have been campaigning for three years now to get the terms of 'Treatment of Staff' which relate to including employees in decision-making fully and properly implemented. Without success.

Please now take this opportunity to stop leaving those terms dormant. In 2007, a consultation exercise was held among workers in WSM to determine which decisions should get covered by those terms. A document was produced. If you ask the General Manager, he will produce it.

What I would wish now, on behalf of all the workers of WSM, is for a new consultation exercise to be held, which would design how we could successfully implement the policy calling for employees to be included in decision-making, in a way that fully meets the terms of the policy, without overbearingly interfering with day-to-day operations.

Therefore, I formally request with this e-mail that the WSM Board do so make request of the WSM General Manager, as expeditiously as possible, but certainly before the end of 2016, that he conduct a full consultation exercise with all WSM employees, to allow them the opportunity to help design a process for fully and properly including them in the making of the decisions outlined in the said 2007 document.

I wish this e-mail to be forwarded to all members of the WSM Board, including the two members just elected.

Yours truly,
Geoff"

Proposed Changes To WSM Board Policy - Treatment Of Staff

In the most recent WSM Worker-Owner Director election, 95 Weaver Street Market Co-operative worker-owners (out of a total of 220) voted to protect and enhance the democratic rights of employees within our co-op.

This past Friday, we WSM employees received in our WSM employee mailboxes a lengthy document from senior WSM management detailing proposed changes to WSM Employee Policy. Including a draconian proposed change to the WSM Board Policy ‘Treatment of Staff.’

Workers of The Weave. If you do nothing else, please read the very specific proposed changes to ‘Treatment of Staff.’ Those changes are the very opposite of what Caitlyn was proposing when she called for more conversation within our co-op. The very antithesis of what Charles wanted, when he campaigned to create more space for workers to be heard within The Weave.

The changes to the existing ‘Treatment of Staff’ policy would take away the policy I’ve been campaigning about these past three years. That would be the one where it states that employees should be included in decision-making which affects their workplace. In its stead, WSM senior management want a weakly-worded clause saying that the WSM General Manager only has to seek our opinion. Not the same.

In addition, that same management, in the same section on ‘Treatment of Staff,’ appear to want to remove the right of employees to appeal to the WSM Board when management is in breach of co-op policy, as I have undertaken on no less than three occasions in the past three years.

Yup. You’re reading this right. After three years of my campaigning on this issue (namely, the co-op policy that demands that WSM management include WSM employees in decision-making), the response of WSM management is now to attempt to have the WSM Board simply erase the policy, and remove the right to complain about it.

We can do something about it. But only together. We can make a difference. We just did. We elected a Worker-Owner Director who says he cares about workers having a voice in The Weave. So, let’s keep up the pressure.

First, speak to your manager. Tell them you totally oppose any changes to the WSM Board Policy ‘Treatment of Staff’ which dilute the right of employees to be included in decision-making. Any changes.

Secondly, write to the WSM Board (board@weaverstreetmarket.coop) and to Ruffin Slater, the WSM General Manager (ruffin@weaverstreetmarket.coop), and tell them the same thing: you do not want any changes to the WSM Board Policy ‘Treatment of Staff’ which diminish the right of WSM workers to be included in decision-making.

Finally, please do me a favor. I have no contact details for Charles Trainer, the recently elected WSM Worker-Owner Director. If you work with him, please, on my behalf, remind him he was elected on a platform for creating space for workers to be heard, and that the proposed changes to WSM Board Policy ‘Treatment of Staff’ represent a curtailment on the space that already exists. Ask him to fight tooth and nail to stop the WSM Board doing this. Ask him please to contact me if he doesn’t understand (geoffgilson@hotmail.com).

Now, if you want to know what I have already written to Ruffin and the WSM Board, have a look below. But. They will not listen to me, if it is me alone. We all need to register our concern. And if you are one who voted for either Caitlyn or Charles, you should be concerned.

We only have until October 26 to complain. One week. Make your voice heard today. Please. While we still can!

E-mail to Ruffin, WSM Management and the WSM Board:

"Dear Ruffin, WSM Management and WSM Board,

I have for almost three years been campaigning to have implemented the section of the WSM Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff' which declares quite clearly that WSM employees should be included in operational decision-making within WSM which affects their workplace. I direct you to my most recent blog post on the subject, here.

I have not sought an extension of the policy, nor even a clarification, but merely its proper implementation. I take the view that, if we are to avoid the perception of double standards in our co-op, where all are equal, then it is incumbent on all employees, managers as well as workers, to comply with all co-op policies equally. There is no given right to managers to ignore those policies they find inconvenient.

There was a consultative exercise in 2007 which determined which decisions within WSM would be covered by the policy in question. What was required was a further consultative exercise to decide how to implement the policy. Such an exercise was interrupted by the Great Recession of 2009.

I have these past three years been pressing senior management within WSM to conduct that consultation exercise. Their response is now evident in the document which was posted in all employee mailboxes on October 16, dealing with proposed changes to WSM Employee Policy, and including draconian changes to the WSM Board Policy, 'Treatment of Staff.'

WSM senior management have decided to recommend to the WSM Board simply to do away with the policy relating to inclusion of employees within decision-making. Frankly, when you change a policy from one requiring inclusion of employees in decision-making to a weakly worded alternative inviting opinion, you have effectively done away with the original policy.

On no less than three occasions, I have filed formal complaint against the senior management of WSM for making important decisions without including employees in the decision-making process. On one occasion, I went as far as appealing to the Board. Which is completely appropriate. The rights under 'Treatment of Staff' are guaranteed by the WSM Board. There should naturally be a right of appeal to the Board.

The proposed changes to the WSM Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff' appear to include a provision that employees will no longer have the right to appeal to the WSM Board perceived breaches of this Board Policy by WSM management.

In case you are in any doubt, I strenuously object to these changes. There are other proposed changes. But these are the two which exercise me the most, along with one other. WSM senior management wish to remove from the existing WSM Board Policy on 'Treatment of Staff' the word "Co-operative." We are a co-operative. why remove reference to that fact?

In compliance with WSM Employee Policy, I will not disseminate the document setting out the proposed changes to WSM Board Policy. But I give notice that, under the WSM Employee Policy allowing for ethical dissent, and bearing in mind that the proposed changes identified above are to Board Policy, and therefore affect all owners, consumer as well as worker, I will be making known widely and publicly my opposition to these proposed Board Policy changes.

WSM management has at its disposal the bi-weekly WSM employee Market Messenger to promulgate its views. Along with the mailbox of each and every employee. I do not have equal access. Communication among workers within WSM has been so reduced that the only way I am able to communicate with my peers is by means of vehicles outside of WSM, including my blog, my Facebook account, local news outlets and local forums.

With this e-mail, I am letting the WSM Human Resources Manager know that I do indeed want a meeting with her to discuss these proposed changes. Perhaps she could liaise with my Department Manager for a suitable time?

I am also asking the WSM Owner Services Co-ordinator please to forward this e-mail to all WSM Board members, including those recently elected. I have no contact details for Charles Traitor, other than by this means. I have comment to direct to him, but it applies to all Board members:

Charles received 62 votes (out of some 220 WSM worker-owners) standing on a platform promising to create the space to allow workers to be heard within our co-op. Another candidate (out of three) stood on a platform calling for more conversation within WSM. A total of some 95 worker-owners calling for more democracy for workers within WSM.

The proposed changes to 'Treatment of Staff' considerably reduce the opportunity for workers to impact decision-making which affects them. And to engage in conversation. These proposed changes would almost halve the space afforded to employees to have their voices heard.

Let's be quite clear. This is not some armchair philosophical musing about utopian ideals. This is the sharp end of co-operative democracy, business model and operational efficiency.

A decision was taken last year to double the size of the buffet hot bar. There was no meaningful discussion with employees, let alone any kind of process to include us in the original decision-making.

As part of being a co-operative, we subscribe to the triple bottom line. The social bottom line is not about our financial contribution to the community. It is about tempering financial decisions with consideration of their social impact. In this case, the impact upon workers.

There was no such consideration. Because those employees who were to be impacted were not included in the decision-making. As a consequence, when decisions were made about staff levels following the doubling of the size of the hot bar, the only criterion considered was sales per labor hour. No discussion about the physical or emotional impact upon employees.

In my ten years with the Southern Village outlet of WSM, I have never heard of any WSM employee requesting a move due to physical or emotional hardship arising from a change in work practices. In the space of three months this past summer, three employees requested a move from the SV kitchen precisely for such reasons, and due to the doubling of the size of the hot bar.

In other words, failure to comply with the policy in question resulted not merely in a loss of democracy to workers, but in deleterious impact upon the smooth running of the kitchen. This is precisely why we have the policy. And now, instead of seeing it properly implemented, the WSM Board are being asked by the WSM General Manager simply to do away with it.

I urge the WSM Board to reject all of the changes being proposed to the existing Board Policy 'Treatment of Staff.' Whatever else those changes are supposed to be achieving, they absolutely should not be diminishing the co-operative and economic rights of WSM employees.

Yours truly,
Geoff"