How Co-operatives Can Work - Even In Tough Economic Times

Well. I lost my rag again last week. Nothing new there.

I care passionately about The Weave. And so dislike it that we are now in a huge financial pickle, simply because a few misguided souls forgot what 'co-operation' is supposed to be (er...a verb...that works both ways), and decided on their own to start building an empire, which is now costing us $1 million a year in debt interest.

And that, as a consequence, we workers are now footing the bill, by constantly having to work harder for less. Without the courtesy of explanation, apology or the opportunity (guaranteed to all workers in our Co-op Policy) to be involved in the dialogue that determines why we should be working harder for less - and what we could be doing to remove the burden of that $1 million a year debt interest charge...

Anyway, I lost my rag. And in the middle of losing it, I realized that I might well be talking to myself. That a lot of my fellow workers might be saying, er Geoff, we're in a recession, we are where we are with debt, we suck it up.

And it further occurred to me (without being patronizing) that I was taking it for granted that all my fellow workers knew that co-operation, when it is allowed to work properly, actually overcomes the problems of recession. In other words, we don't need to be doing all that we are doing, in the way we are doing it. It can be better than this.

Duh. So, I took a moment to post a comment on Facebook (some time around midnight) to set out how co-operation is supposed to work, and how, if allowed to work in The Weave, it could still save The Weave, all of our jobs, and all of the benefits of expansion.

And then, I thought, well, why don't you share these thoughts elsewhere? So, here they are:

"The thing that makes me angriest of all is that I'm constantly made out to be negative, when, in fact, I'm the one most positive and optimistic about what we could achieve at The Weave, if only we were fully to embrace what being a co-operative is truly about.

Traditional capitalism uses all manner of marketing gimmickry artificially to inflate demand among a public it never meets and which constantly changes to serve only the creation of financial profit.

Co-operative capitalism is supposed to exist primarily to serve the needs of its identifiable consumer-owners. And it is supposed to stay small, so that there is a greater chance it may always know what those needs are through regular contact and meetings.

If the needs of the consumer-owners change (for example in a recession, or when a new store opens in our market), and we are meeting with them on a regular basis, then we can more easily adapt to those changed needs.

As for profit, well yes, we like to give our consumer-owners a dividend when we can. But their real profit is the joy of being in a grocery co-operative, where they can buy what they've asked for, and where they are treated as human beings, not cyphers.

And it is that latter 'profit' which keeps them coming back. And it is that loyalty which makes co-operative capitalism potentially more successful and sustainable than blind competitive capitalism.

Traditional capitalism uses all manner of financial incentive and reactive disciplinary action to goad workers, with which it never associates, to achieve goals that are imposed on those workers without discussion. It is not a sustainable relationship, and it is one that naturally leads to high turnover.

A worker co-operative (WSM is a worker-consumer co-operative) sets goals through collegial dialogue with its workers, who are then much more invested in implementing the results of the discussion, and need no artificial carrot or stick to urge them to achieve goals they have had a hand in creating.

It is that collegiality, rather than artificial, expensive and time-consuming reactive trickery, that creates worker loyalty and improved productivity, and, in turn, a sustainable relationship between co-op and worker.

This is not some utopian, finger tambourine-clanging, marijuana-inspired nonsense-speak. It is the very business paradigm that makes other co-operatives successful all over the US. It is the paradigm that used to make The Weave successful - through two other recessions. And it is the paradigm that could work again.

All we have to do is: (1) Get the attention of the Board and corporate office, who have lost their way, and tumbled down the rabbit's hole into a Wonderland of Empire-Building and No-No Capitalism (which is where my screaming on a regular basis comes in); (2) Take steps to become a co-operative association of smaller, stand-alone co-op units; thus (3) Laying the foundation for each of the new units to practice true local, responsive, respectful co-operation within themselves, and then with each other.

It ain't a pipe dream. It can happen. It's why I'm still here, banging away on my computer at midnight on a Saturday evening..."

Now, and once again, hand in hand with introducing real co-operation into our co-op, we need at the same time to take steps to get rid of the debt millstone that hampers all that we are trying to do.

Just as soon as we get rid of that debt, and begin to practice truly authentic co-operation in our co-op, with our customers and between all of our staff, then we will become - and remain - a better co-op and, with it, a stronger business.

[By the way, the "V for Vendetta" mask stands (in my usage) for "V for Verb," as in 'co-operation is a verb - that works both ways.']

Why WSM Owes A Huge ($1 Million A Year) Debt To Its Workers

The Co-operative Grocer this month [http://tinyurl.com/ycwmxkk] confirms that Weaver Street Market Co-operative has had to be bailed out by the national co-operative movement to prevent bankruptcy, following its ill-fated expansion program – an expansion program which has left The Weave with $10 million in long-term debt and an ongoing annual debt interest charge of $1 million.

Before making suggestions as to how to deal with that crippling $1 million a year debt interest charge, let me first address the article itself, and the unfortunate fact that those responsible for it seemed to be more engrossed with patting themselves on the back for a job well done, rather than paying thanks to the folks who are actually saving the co-op – namely, its workers.

As a consequence of that omission, I wrote a short letter to Dave Gutknecht, the Editor of Co-operative Grocer, and he has very kindly agreed to publish it in the next (May-June) issue:

“Dear Dave,

I commend the Co-operative Grocer for its coverage of the troubles flowing from the significant expansion being undertaken by Weaver Street Market, and the response of the wider co-operative movement to the consequential financial problems.

It takes a rare individual, like our General Manager, to allow such public airing of the difficulties associated with a project in which he has invested so much of his time and authority.

And, of course, I am one of many workers in our rather unique worker-consumer grocery co-operative who remains deeply grateful to all those in the national co-operative movement who have so selflessly agreed to fill the breach in our finances.

Yet, I was disappointed by what I felt was insufficient reference in your article to the fact that the imbalance in our accounts (created by expansion) has been overcome not only by the short-term generosity of other co-operatives, but also by the hard work and magnanimous self-sacrifice of every worker in WSM.

It is no secret that our workers have had serious misgivings about the expansion program, both during its conception and its implementation, not least the timing, the scope and now, the sustainability of the long-term debt ($10 million).

Yet, each and every worker has responded magnificently and selflessly, both to the drop in sales resulting from the disruption to consumers, and to the weight of the debt service charge ($1 million).

We have accepted reductions in the hours for which we are paid. We have foregone pay raises. We have gone without a worker-owner dividend for two years now. And we have been the ones on the front line with customers explaining all the changes to those exasperated consumers.

It is not just the Food House which caused the labor savings you quote in your article. It is the contribution of every ordinary worker on the sales floor, in the production departments and in the corporate office, all of whom have been working harder for less these past two years in order to keep our co-operative afloat.

The underlying theme of co-operation is democracy. I do not think I am out of place suggesting that the exercise of democracy in your co-operative journalism might have seen you interview an ordinary worker or two in our co-operative, rather than just the most senior management, in order to get the fullest picture of the effort underway to restore balance to WSM’s financial outlook.

Yours in co-operation,
Geoff Gilson”

Of course, WSM wouldn’t need to owe a debt of gratitude to its workers for all their sacrifices, nor be asking them to make even more improvements in sales and productivity (as, indeed, it continues to do – http://tinyurl.com/yh8ouet or http://tinyurl.com/yj6ga43), were it not for WSM’s huge debt of $10 million (resulting from WSM’s ambitious expansion program) and the continuing annual debt interest charge of $1 million.

Does WSM’s Debt Really Matter?

Yes.

1) It puts a 5% Silent Tax on every sale that we make. If it was important enough that we remove the consumer discounts in 2009 because they added 5% to every sale, then it should be just as important to remove the 5% Silent Tax [http://tinyurl.com/yhsyjpw and http://tinyurl.com/ylo2ynj].

5% Silent Tax? Yes. We have a turnover of about $25 million. The annual debt interest charge is $1 million. That works out at about 4-5% on each and every sale that we make.

2) By having to pay out $1 million in debt interest each and every year, that is $1 million WSM does not have to improve food quality; renovate the stores (which is why the corporate office and the Board are now planning to borrow yet more money to upgrade the Carrboro store); restore worker hours; nor give workers pay raises and their long overdue dividends.

3) We workers are having to work ever harder, without any sort of financial incentive, or even the opportunity to query the demands being made of us (as is required by our co-op’s Mission Statement and Decision-Making Process). And this is not because of the recession. Nor because of competition from the likes of Trader Joe’s. But simply because we continue to have to pay that $1 million in debt interest each and every year.

There is only so much that WSM can realistically continue to demand. Workers are performing at their top productivity right now. We are as stressed as we can be. What more can we possibly do? Sure as heck, we can’t go on finding another $1 million in extra sales and productivity – every single year. I mean, you can only smile so wide.

The only realistic way to go on improving sales and productivity is to increase investment in product provision and quality and customer service. But WSM has tragically limited itself in what it can do in that regard, precisely because it has to use $1 million a year to go on paying that interest on the debt. It is a vicious, unsustainable and ever-decreasing circle. It would be a Monty Python sketch – if it wasn’t so serious.

4) Finally, there is not one penny of that $1 million annual debt interest payment that stays in our local economy. By continuing to maintain our current level of debt – with out-of-town banks – we are literally bleeding $1 million a year out of our local economy.

What Can We Do About The $1 Million Annual Debt Interest Charge?

Look. I will continue to do all that I can to be as productive as I can. I love my co-op and do not want it to fail. But if I am to go on improving my productivity in the face of almost impossible odds, then isn’t it time that the corporate office and the Board of Directors (that is supposed to monitor that office) did their part to improve their own productivity? Which means doing all they can to get rid of that $1 million a year in bank interest?

At the WSM Annual Meeting two years ago, I predicted that our annual interest charge would rise to $1.5 million a year by 2013, at the latest [http://tinyurl.com/yze9xju and http://tinyurl.com/ylqp6nl]. I suggested to that Meeting of WSM’s owners that we set up an Owners’ Task Force to conduct a thorough risk assessment of all of the long-term debt, and make recommendations as to how to reduce it, without losing the benefits of and the jobs at the Food House and the new Hillsborough store.

The Annual Meeting supported my suggestion. But the following Board meeting refused to set up the Task Force, saying that it was not necessary. Leaving us with the debt unchanged, and we workers (on our own) having to find ways to pay that $1 million a year of debt interest.

And also – let’s get this very clear – and also, leaving the Food House and the Hillsborough store at risk. If WSM defaults on its loans (as this article says we almost did in 2008), then the Food House and the Hillsborough store (and their jobs) will be the first to go.

Now, it may well be that the corporate office and the Board of Directors are undertaking steps, even as I write this note, massively to reduce WSM’s debt and its burden on we workers. But if there is such a plan, they aren’t telling us. And we have a right to know.

Since we are not being told about any such plan to reduce the $10 million in long-term debt, I think it safe to assume that, for whatever reasons, there isn’t such a plan. Which brings us back to square one – there needs to be one.

Anyone who understands business knows that you cannot get every decision right the whole time. But, what you do when you realize that circumstances have changed is to review and adapt.

I’m not saying that the original rationale for the Food House and the Hillsborough store was right or wrong. What I’m wondering is this: can we any longer sustain the financial consequences of that original rationale (i.e. the $ 10 million long-term debt), without making major changes to the underlying game-plan?

Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t. But, doesn’t it make sense that we at least undertake a thorough and open review of the game-plan, to see how best we can reduce the debt, while saving what we can of the benefits of and the jobs at the Food House and the Hillsborough store?

And then letting the WHOLE co-op (owners, consumers and workers together) make the decisions that are necessary to give effect to the changes to the game-plan?

Indeed, looking to the future, doesn’t it make sense that the owners and workers of WSM demand of the Board of Directors that they introduce the systems and structures necessary to allow owners and workers to control all strategic decision-making from now on (as promised by the ICA Co-operative Values to which we subscribe and which we enunciate on the front page of every one of our store newsletters), so that we never again find ourselves having to go cap in hand to the national co-operative movement to bail us out? [http://tinyurl.com/yhbp76o and http://tinyurl.com/mnbp2y]

In the meantime, WSM cannot go on as it is. We cannot go on borrowing to pay our existing $10 million debt and $1 million annual debt interest charge. Nor getting bailed out by the national co-operative community. Nor making impossible demands of our workers. And sure as night follows day, we cannot borrow any more money.

Sooner, rather than later, we are going to have to change our game-plan and reduce that debt. Before the banks who own that debt do the changing for us.

Proud To Be A Weaver Street Worker

I remain the eternal optimist. I wouldn’t still be here, busting butt and advocating my ass off if I wasn’t.

I believe that we can achieve anything in our co-op with the right people, the right attitude and the right decisions being made.

But I also believe that ‘co-operative’ is a verb: to co-operate. And co-operation in a co-op should work both ways.

If we workers are to become ever more productive, then it is time that WSM’s corporate office and Board of Directors worked just as hard at improving their productivity. Reviewing the co-op’s game-plan – and including owners and workers in that review. And then reducing the debt.

If we were to free ourselves from our debt, and take the necessary steps to place owners and workers in control of the strategic decision-making within our co-op, then I believe we would overcome our difficulties (on our own!); we’d become a stronger business and a better co-op as a result – AND we’d be a happier place all round!

Remember, it is happy workers who make for happy customers…

Who Moved My Opening Hours?

Blimey. I wonder if the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers (the every first co-op, founded in England in 1844) had it as difficult as we do at Weaver Street Market Co-operative?

The latest wheeze is that our corporate office have announced that they (not us, the workers in our worker-consumer co-operative), they will be evaluating whether or not to extend our opening hours to 10.00pm.

Ours by the way, not theirs. I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing the oil lamps burning in the corporate office until 10.00pm every evening.

So. I'm driven to write another letter to our General Manager (who I'm gathering is the 'we' in most of these 'we' strategic decisions...):

"Dear Ruffin,

I have read with interest your latest Financial Update. The very first thing that strikes me is your continued use of the pronoun 'we.' 'We' are evaluating, 'we' will be looking, 'we' have started. Who is exactly is 'we,' and when in this worker-consumer co-operative does it become 'us'?

Last week, I dug out all of my paperwork relating to orientation, signing up to be a worker-owner, worker decision-making process and the like. Leaving aside all the heavy discussion about what is a co-operative, and how it is supposed to work, what is clear from this paperwork is that workers and worker-owners were and are promised meaningful involvement in strategic decisions affecting the direction of our co-op.

I can think of no more 'strategic' a decision than whether or not we open until 10.00p.m. Or what shape the new design of the Carrboro store should take.

Quite aside from what was promised, it is Business 101 that, if you want more from your workforce (as you are asking), then you have to offer an incentive.

Traditional capitalism does so in the form of financial incentive. In a co-operative, the incentive is supposed to be the opportunity to be involved in collegial strategic decision-making. Where is that collegiality when the 'we' is 'you'?

Simple question. Why don't you simply submit the notion of opening until 10.00pm to a vote of the whole workforce? If your answer is that we don't understand all the issues or figures, then provide us with that information.

In a worker-consumer co-operative, strategic decisions of this magnitude should be implemented only with the active and recorded consent of those who are affected.

At the end of the day, 'co-operative' is a verb: to co-operate. And that co-operation should work both ways. You want our co-operation. Isn't it right that you should ask for it? So that 'we' truly is 'us'?

All the best,
Geoff"

Who Stole My Co-operative Identity?

Oh dear. The corporate office of Weaver Street Market Co-operative, where I am a worker-owner activist, has once again decided that the source of all authority within our co-op is not our owners and workers, but...well...the corporate office. And so, I write another letter...
"Dear Board and General Manager [of WSM],

The latest (March 2010) edition of our [WSM] store newsletter purports to offer a definition of 'co-op' (next paragraph) that is not the standard ICA definition (http://www.weaverstreetmarket.coop/images/stories/6.jpg):

"A jointly-owned enterprise engaging in the production or distribution of goods or the supplying of services, operated by its members [owners] for their mutual benefit..."

As far as I am aware, we still subscribe to the ICA definition (next paragraph), as well as the ICA definition of co-operative values (which we publish on the front page of all of our store newsletters) and its various statements on co-op identity:

"An autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise."

If, as a democratic co-op, we wish to change that definition, then the proper place to do that is within the policy-making process of our co-op, as imperfect as that may be, and not behind closed doors in the corporate office/operations/marketing department.

I would be grateful if you would confirm that, in future, when we seek to define any aspect of our co-op's policy activity in official organs of our co-op, we will do so within the context of that which has been agreed by our policy-making process.

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

1) This is not the first time that the corporate office or its marketing department have strayed from their strict responsibility for operational matters into areas of policy and strategy.

Last year, for example, a corporate office person described themselves in a magazine article as Director of Public Relations, and then sought to define the relationship between owners [members] and the co-op as 'we listen to 'em; if we like it, we do it; if not, we don't.' I can't find this approach to membership relations anywhere in our Ends nor in Board Policy. It was the corporate office making co-op policy on the hoof. For which it has no authority.

Again, when I served on the WSM Elections Task Force, we were presented with what purported to be official co-op policy on electioneering for Board Elections. Only to discover upon further questioning (mine) that the document was written by the marketing department, and had no official sanction whatsoever.

2) The definition offered at the beginning of the article in this month's (March) store newsletter could just as easily describe the structure of Wal-Mart. We are not a co-op because we are operated by members. Indeed, half of those who operate the store aren't members at all. We are a co-op because our members are the source of all authority within our company. Our members democratically control the decision-making within our co-op. At least, they are supposed to.

Our co-operative identity resides not in operations (who are the hired help - and I include myself) but in our membership and its democratic control of our enterprise. I do not believe it accidental that the definition in this month's store newsletter uses the word 'operated,' while excluding any mention of democratic control by members.

3) If this is merely a casual and personal definition offered without official sanction, then, with respect, it has no place in an official organ of our co-op. Will I be offered the same opportunity next month to offer my 'casual and personal definition'?

Perhaps, once again, the most disturbing feature for me is that I have to write this formal e-mail rather than being able to raise the point quietly in a co-op discussion group or owner meeting.

Why? Because the corporate office have closed down each and every avenue available to workers and owners to engage in meaningful discussion within our co-op and to feed into the policy-making apparatus.

This is sad, and I will continue to advocate for a revival of the sort of worker and owner involvement in our co-op which is promised to workers when they join this co-op, and which is then promised to them again when they become workers-owners.

All the best,
Geoff"

Who Moved My Board Directors?

It's really sad when even your local co-op Board Directors feel they have to act like politicians, and engage in spin and misdirection, rather than straight talk and transparency.

But apparently that is the case with Weaver Street Market Co-operative, where I am an active worker-owner.

In our latest monthly store newsletter, our Board Directors have devoted to themselves a whole page, in which they boast that they are directly accountable to workers and owners, and intimately interact with them to understand their values and vision.

This will come as some surprise to those of us who have seen this self-same Board, in the past three years, engage in a massive re-structuring of our co-op ($12 million expansion; completely re-written By-laws; Discounts to Dividends) - all without consulting workers or owners in any appreciable fashion.

For those of us who have paid attention to the workings of our allegedly accountable Board these past few years, it is perfectly clear that the Board regards itself as accountable only to itself and to the corporate office, from which it regularly takes its lead.

So it is that I find myself once again writing to the Board to ask them why they don't expend more effort actually complying with our Mission Statement and the co-operative values to which we are all supposed to adhere, and less time producing marketing literature that pretends that we do:

"Dear Dave [unelected Board Chair] and Board,

I applaud the fact that the February Store Newsletter contains information about the Board of Directors. However, the manner in which it is presented is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

I understand you want greater linkage and interaction with your owners and workers. So do we all. But, you do not achieve that simply by saying it's what you do (when you don't), nor by pretending that there is linkage.

1) Perhaps in the next Store Newsletter you would care to expand on precisely how the Board achieves its stated responsibility of "interacting with the owners - to understand their values and vision."

By not allowing them to vote on anything, nor present motions at Annual Meetings? By not allowing them to put items on the agenda of Board meetings? Through discussion groups? Through an online forum? Through the now non-existent Worker-Owner Program? How exactly?

2) Perhaps that Newsletter could also expand on precisely how the Board "is directly accountable to the consumer and worker owners for the activities and accomplishments of the co-operative."

The Board never meets with those consumer and worker-owners. Save for the Annual Meeting. Which worker-owners are not released to attend. Where there is little by way of accountability through voting on the Annual Report, say.

Accountability is not a euphemism for window-dressing. It means the Board presenting itself on a regular basis to its owners for acceptance or rejection of what it is doing.

And as I have already pointed out, Fairbairn (upon whom the Board seems to be placing such reliance this year) makes it clear that acceptance or rejection (if it is to be defined properly as accountability, linkage or interaction) needs to be ongoing, not just the once-a-year vote on a couple of Board members.

3) I am disappointed at the sleight of hand that seeks to present appointed members of the Board on an equal footing with those who stood in election.

Perhaps in future when you describe the Board members, you could indicate which are on the Board by way of election and which by way of appointment?

The Board Chair sits on the Board not because he represents Consumer-Owners, but because he was appointed.

The General Manager sits on the Board not because he represents Worker-Owners, but because he is General Manager.

It is offensive to those who take the opportunity to vote and who feel, with good cause, that there is a lack of democratic representation and accountability in our co-operative.

You do not make up for that deficiency with clever marketing. You make up for it by properly understanding co-operative values, Carver and Fairbairn, and then implementing what they stand for.

I look forward to a better understanding of Fairbairn as the year progresses, greater real linkage with your owners and workers, and a tad less of the political spin.

All the best,
Geoff"

Who Moved My Worker-Owner Money?

[Ruffin Slater, GM of Weaver Street Market Co-operative, has just written to me to tell me that he and the Board have decided to suspend loans to Worker-Owners against their W/O Capital/Dividend Accounts, the monies which belong to those Worker-Owners and are held for them in trust by WSM. This was my response.]

"Hey Ruffin,

Thank you for your response to my query as to why a decision had been taken to suspend loans to Worker-Owners using as collateral their Worker-Owner Vested Capital/Dividend Accounts, and also for forwarding my initial comments to the Board. Since you have done that, I thought I would take a moment to offer this further viewpoint.

I have no doubt that you (and the Board) make decisions (including this one) that are within the remit of the structure that you have so carefully put together these past few years. My concern is, as it has been these past three years, whether that structure and the decisions which flow are in the best interests of our co-operative, its members and its workers, and whether they are, to that end, consonant with our Ends, Carver, co-operative values and Fairbairn.

I mention the latter only because the Board have attached his document to the December 2009 Minutes, I am assuming because you and the Board believe our co-operative should operate according to his thesis.

I'm sure you know that document backwards, but let me remind you what it says about structure and relationships:

The key to a co-operative is the relationships that it cultivates and embodies. The most important of these may be the relationships between the co-operative and its members; however, relationships among the members, and among or between employees and other stakeholder groups, may also be important. Of course, any business depends on relationships with its customers, employees, investors, and so on. The difference in a co-operative is the closeness and multidimensionality of the relationships with members: part of the governance structure as well as the focus of operations...The relationship with members is what creates the co-operative difference: it is a source of distinctive possibilities. They are customers as well as owners. A co-operative is defined by, and draws strength from, its relationships.

Over the past few years, you and the Board have created a structure which essentially cuts out members and workers from the decision-making process. How exactly does this foster the relationships which Fairbairn says truly define us as a co-operative?

No worker or member may propose a motion at an Annual Meeting. No votes are taken. A Special Meeting of members can only be called with 30% of 13,000 members agreeing. A quorum must be 40% of 13,000.

No member may put an item for discussion on a Board agenda. Queries are met with technical brush offs. The only way to be a part of any decision-making process is to stand for the Board. Upon election, one discovers that three out of seven of the Board are appointed, and the Board Chair is unelected.

Executive sessions are the norm. Decisions are taken outside of Board meetings, and are not Minuted. Not one of the documents referred to in the Minutes is attached. And request for such documentation is now met with refusal.

The Board has abrogated to itself the right to make and change the By-laws. I have been involved in the governance of organizations (non-profit, for profit and governmental) since I was 16. In all that time, I have never come across an organization with members that does not insist that the right to make and change By-laws resides with the membership. It's like saying that the President has the discretion to change the US Constitution on his own.

By-laws protect members. They define the relationship between members and the Board, and they ensure the accountability of the Board to the membership (and in our case, also to its workers). You and the Board have created a situation where the Board is now only accountable to itself. How does this square with the co-operative value which states that the source of all authority in our co-op is its members?

In this latter regard, I would remind you that every store newsletter proudly proclaims to potential members that we abide by all those ICA-defined co-operative values. And that proclamation is itself used as the basis for inviting folks to become new members of our co-op.

The Board, having made itself itself the uncontestable source of all authority in our co-op, then devised a whole set of complicated Board Policies which essentially hands that authority over to you and the corporate office, lock, stock and barrel.

Lest you suggest that Fairbairn's reference to agency means that the Board can declare that it is the sole agency that can most efficiently determine what is in the best interests of the co-op, its members and its workers, let me remind you of the exchange I had with Brett Fairbairn before we began our work with the WSM Elections Task Force. I quote some of his remarks concerning Board Elections:

Naturally elections come into all this, since they connect the members to the board. But a director election is usually about people and competencies, and may not be a great forum for discussions of strategic directions. I think looking for ways to stage discussions, participation, and input apart from director elections is a good thing for all co-ops to do. I often wonder whether what most members really want is (a) to have "someone" do the director's job competently for them (not necessarily a burning desire to participate on this front) but (b) for the co-op to "listen" to their ideas and concerns when they have them.

Brett was very clear that the election of the Board is not the be all and end all of members' and workers' exercise of their authority. It is only the beginning. Election serves to choose those people who are then tasked as agents with the remit to foster ongoing relationships with members and workers by maintaining a continuing conversation with them to determine what are their needs and interests. There is precious little by way of ongoing conversation in our co-op.

More than that, you and the Board have engaged in these past few years in a radical re-structuring of our co-op. Expansion. Revised By-laws. Discounts to Dividends. Where was the Board's mandate to undertake these dramatic changes? Where does the mandate exist to continue with the changes discussed in the November and December Minutes?

You do not get that mandate from CDS. Nor from NCGA. And, Brett is very clear, you do not get it from election alone. Particularly when not one Board candidate sought a mandate for such radical change in any election address that I saw. That mandate comes from the public and recordable support of members and workers; support which should be sought before the decisions are made.

Why bother to seek that support? Is it really necessary for a co-op and its Board regularly to be appraised of the needs of its members and workers? ICA defines a co-operative thus:

A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.

How can the Board know what are the needs and aspirations of its members and workers unless it asks them, on a regular basis? And 'asking' is not a Suggestions Box, a feedback form or an occasional customer survey. It is a forum of discussion, where members and workers may engage with those making decisions on their behalf. And it is allowing those members and workers to vote. That is what is meant by members being the source of all authority. Your new By-laws to the contrary contain an extraordinary provision that expressly states that owners may only vote in elections.

With your workforce especially, all of the pathways that used to exist for workers to show their support for the co-op and share what are their needs and aspirations have now been shut down. No Worker-Owner program. No forums. We have not had a Full Meeting of the Co-op's Employees in two years, and the last store meetings were held in May of last year.

Again, the only chance workers have for contributing to the relationship that should exist between them and their co-op is to stand for the Board. To do that, you first have to part with $500. Upon standing, you discover that the electorate includes managers (who already had their chance to contribute in their manager meetings or in corporate office discussions), and that a process that is dominated by corporate office influence may now be subject to further questionable practices in determining the outcome.

And while we're on this subject, let me share my amusement upon reading that the Board have now determined (if they did not control enough already) that they feel they should ensure the "suitability" of Board candidates going forward. I would love you some time to share with me precisely whom they thought was unsuitable before now.

Is it any wonder that workers do not trust the processes that are supposed to govern and manage them, only with their consent? Their money was given to you in trust. You and the Board have decided in dark places and behind combination locks to dispose of their money without reference to them. There may be structure in that process; but no relationship.

Your workers have given magnificently in this past year. It is those workers on the sales floor and in the production departments who are the ones who have truly saved this co-op. A Christmas Party, while nice, is nowhere near enough recompense. What they deserve is your trust, and that of the Board.

They deserve that you trust them enough also to know what is best for their co-op. They deserve your trust in enrolling them in decision-making. And they deserve that you allow them to trust you to make decisions that involve them, that are open and that serve their needs, not some fanciful vision or dream of brand development or expansion.

You and the Board have made decisions regarding money that was given to you by members and workers on trust. They didn't read the small print. There is no reason why they should. They trusted you to act in their best interests and in accordance with co-operative values of openness and honesty. Yet, you made those decisions without reference to them, to determine what were their needs and interests.

While the structure you have created allows you to do that, it is not right, it is not in keeping with co-operative values, and it serves only to destroy the relationship between members, workers and the co-op which Fairbairn stresses is the essence of co-operation.

Your workers want the co-op to succeed every bit as much as you do. They have stoically accepted that they receive no dividend, no pay raise and that their hours have been cut, as they work harder for less. They (and I) need to find whatever ways they can to survive in order to help the co-op to survive. Taking out loans against our money in our Worker-Owner accounts is a part of that survival process. The co-op needs to serve our needs, so that we may serve the co-op's needs. That is the essence of co-operation. It is a verb: to co-operate.

And let's clear up one point. The original $500 is capital. The other money in our Worker-Owner accounts is the accumulation of retained dividends. That is our money. You hold it on trust in our accounts. It is not capital. You have no right to use it. And you certainly have no co-operative right to use it without reference to its owners.

Brett again:

Why do members invest capital, time, and loyalty in their relationship with a co-operative? Because they trust that doing so will be in their own interest as well as the interest of other members...Co-operatives earn this trust when members perceive them to be dedicated to serving the members’ needs, not the needs of the organization or of any other group.

Members support co-ops because they trust that doing so will be in their own interest as well as the interest of other members...The discussion of linkage, above, related to why and how the co-op is devoted to meeting member needs. The second part of trust, however, is that the co-op must not only promote member well-being: it must also be ... seen clearly, repeatedly, and over time to be making members better off.

You and the Board have an opportunity this year to renew the relationship between the co-op, its members and its workers, along the lines suggested by Fairbairn, so that we may be fully ready to join in the celebration of 2012 being the UN International Year of Co-operatives.

I hope that you will not miss this opportunity. In particular, I hope you begin the process of renewing the relationship by allowing members and workers to be the primary source of that renewal, and not some outside consultant, nor you, the Board and the corporate office acting essentially alone.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would let me know just as soon as you have decided that I may take out a loan against my Worker-Owner Account.

All the best,
Geoff"

Ballot Box Tampering

An allegation has been made that at least one Ballot Box was tampered with during the WSM Election Process, the tampering apparently committed by someone from WSM's corporate office and/or senior management.

This allegation was made after I sent my e-mail to the WSM Elections Oversight Committee and to the WSM Board with suggestions for improving the WSM Election Process, to render it free from interference from the WSM corporate office - following post.

The allegation is serious enough that it could now give rise to questions about the validity of the WSM Election Process and the result. However, the Board of WSM is refusing to investigate the allegation properly.

As soon as the allegation came to light, it was reported to the WSM Elections Oversight Committee and also to the Board of WSM. Clause XIII.2 of the WSM Elections Manual clearly states that a disputed result must be investigated by the Board.

To date, no steps have been taken to undertake an investigation of the allegation in a manner which protects the person making the allegation, disciplines the perpetrator(s) and clears all those who might otherwise be associated with the irregular activities of one or a few.

Even sadder than the allegation itself and the refusal of the Board to investigate is the fact that this incident is set against a backdrop of irregularities and miscues over the past three Board Elections.

Indeed, the WSM Elections Task Force was set up after the Board Election of 2007 to draft the Elections Manual which was supposed to avoid any such misbehavior in the future.

What is even more disturbing is the suggestion that this incident may not be isolated. There is already considerable evidence that the 2009 Election in particular was dominated by the influence of the corporate office in other ways.

When the annual Election of a Worker Director to the Board of WSM is the only avenue left to WSM's workers to find expression in their worker co-op, because all the other pathways have been shut down by the corporate office, it is essential to meaningful worker input that the Election is kept free from any and all interference by the corporate office and senior management.

All of us at Weaver Street Market Co-operative are proud of the fact that we don't just sell groceries; we also sell a product called 'co-operation.' And we try our hardest to ensure that the quality of our co-operative product is as high as the quality of our grocery product.

Every single WSM store newsletter sets out on the first page those co-operative values to which we are all supposed to adhere if we are to have the highest quality co-operative product.

Those values include honesty, openness, and fair and democratic elections. If we do nothing when our democratic process and those values are subverted, then we fail in our duty to provide the highest quality co-operative product.

Free and Fair Worker Director Elections?

[What follows is an e-mail sent by me to the WSM Elections Oversight Committee and the Board of WSM for follow-up review of the elections process for Board Directors in 2009. I make suggestions as to how to overcome the continuing perception among workers in WSM that the elections for Worker Director are dominated by the corporate office.]

"Dear Mickey, Election Committee, et al,

First, and once again, congratulations to Curt [Brinkmeyer] and Rickie [White] for their success. Commiserations to you, Robert [Short]. Be consoled in this view: we belong to an even more exclusive club than the Board - those who have stood for the noble cause more than once, and lost!

You will note that I have not and will not be making any formal challenge to the results. I say that so that the views that follow will not be confused with looking at the past. I'm looking to the future, particularly with respect to the Worker-Owner Elections, to continue the mandate begun with the WSM Elections Task Force [of 2008, which was established at my instigation], namely to find ways to run the Elections in a fashion which appears totally fair to owners, so that they are encouraged to participate.

In that light, it is disappointing to note that, even though the number of Worker-Owners increased over a year ago, the number of Worker-Owner voters decreased. I do not think that incidental. And I have some suggestions.

Those suggestions may be seen as controversial, which is my point in making them after the deadline for challenging of the count by candidates.

Since the Election has been over, more than a handful of workers have approached me, especially from Carrboro, wondering why so few Worker-Owners voted, and expressing surprise.

And here, Curt, forgive me, but it is pertinent to the genuine perception by many workers of the Worker-Owner election process, many have also expressed amazement at the vote received by you.

The answer can be made less personal by reviewing winning figures in the past three Worker-Owner Elections:

Lori (2007) - 31
Jacob (2008) - 40
Curt (2009) - 34

Whenever I introduce names, there are some who think I am merely engaging in sour grapes, and avoid looking beyond that at the truth of what is felt by many among our workforce - and which prevents more of them voting, as they have also told me - and that is that there is no point in voting in a process that has been taken over by WSM's corporate office.

I'm not going to get involved in a polemic on that subject. I'm simply going to make a list of suggestions to help make future elections seem more independent, fair and accessible.

1) It is common practice in many large corporations not to allow staff from the corporate office to run for the Board. The view is taken that the primary role of the Board is to monitor the corporate office, and there is perceived to be a conflict of interest.

The point could be raised, then how do workers in the corporate office achieve representation on the Board? My answer would be through their Department Head, the General Manager.

I was encouraged to raise this point when others learned of the two nominations this time. I declined, on the basis that a successful challenge would leave only one candidate.

But I think that this is an issue which should be addressed by someone. A measure of disgruntlement, even disbelief, has been expressed to me at such a candidature this past election.

2) There is a strong sense in the co-op that there is a paucity of full information provided to workers - especially a breadth of information, beyond merely that which comes of out of the corporate office.

At the same time, there is a feeling that there is next to no opportunity to discuss that information in a meaningful context. Almost all of the avenues which used to be open to workers to discuss co-op matters have been shut down: open forums; Worker-Owner Program; full meetings of co-op workers; etc.

An informed workforce is an engaged workforce, whether that engagement is in work itself or in the wider affairs of the co-op, including voting.

Time and again in this past election, workers have said to me, I simply didn't know that. And I will be blunt. They didn't know it because it was not in the interests of the corporate office for them to know it.

The corporate office has a difficult job to do. But we cannot be a properly informed and engaged workforce if it is the sole font of information in our co-op.

It may not be the job of the Elections Committee, but I would like someone in this co-op to think seriously this coming year about improving communication to and from our workforce.

If it costs money, I have a budget neutral suggestion: cancel the Mystery Shopper Program and devote the funds saved to that communication.

If you want to get more focus and departmental contribution from your workers, try getting them engaged with communication, discussion and involvement, rather than forcing it out of them with outside folks, with no co-operative sensibility, spying on them.

As a first step, why not hand the whole Market Messenger over to an editorial committee of workers from all the units, under the editorship of, say, Elizabeth Friend, who is a reporter for WCHL, and writes for the store newspaper, and make it a bona fide workplace newspaper, to which the corporate office would have access, but over which it would not have exclusive control?

3) Following on from (2), in February of this year, I made formal request to the Board and to the General Manager for the usual Full Meeting of Co-op Workers to be held during the Elections, and to allow candidates to address the meeting and answer questions.

If we are serious about improving the engagement of our workers, and if we are realistic about that process, it is a nonsense to think that candidate tables, held during breaks, are going to do it. We must bring the elections to the workers, not ask the workers to give up their own time to hunt for the elections.

The Board finally handed my request to the General Manager, who wrote to me and told me he would be responding to me. He never did. In fact, none of the regularly scheduled store meetings or Full Meetings was held during the election process.

More than one worker has stated to me that they felt that the corporate office were simply taking the opportunity of avoiding allowing a non-corporate candidate speak to the workforce, to offer a point of view that was different to that of the corporate office.

I don't think that anyone in this co-op is that puerile. But it doesn't help that that is the sort of attitude floating around, causing such disillusionment among our workers, and disaffection with the voting process.

I would like to suggest that the Elections Committee recommend that the normal Full Meeting of Co-op Workers, which has always been held in August, next year be held after the close of nominations, and that candidates be allowed to address that meeting, and to answer questions, as a part of the formal elections process.

4) I know how hard it is to get Worker-Owners to volunteer. I say the reasoning is circular. So little opportunity is now afforded to workers fully and meaningfully to be engaged in the decisions that affect them that they no longer think there is any point in volunteering for anything.

That said, hopefully by opening up communications, discussion and the elections process itself, we will encourage a greater willingness to engage.

In the meantime, the Elections Task Force identified a concern that the Worker-Owner elections process be seen to be fully independent of the corporate office.

That independence was to be overseen and guaranteed by the ongoing Elections Committee. I know absolutely that every individual member of the EC has worked diligently on this process. But the fact remains that the overall composition of the EC was not seen as conducive to guaranteeing the independence of the W/O elections process. We need to work on that.

There should be only one Board Liaison. Their job is to ensure that the work of the EC does not conflict with Board Policy. No more.

This year we had the current Board Chair and last year's Board Chair both serving on the EC. Again, I'm going to be blunt about perception among workers.

The current Board Chair was not elected. Yet he was seen to be helping oversee the elections process. Last year's Board Chair was my opponent in 2008. Yet he was seen to be overseeing an election in which I was again a candidate.

Finally, we must do better at finding a Worker-Owner representative who is truly independent of the corporate office. In this past election, the W/O representative on the EC was the co-op's Human Resources Manager.

5) As I understood it, a primary remit of the EC was to ensure that there was never any perception of conflict between the independence of the W/O elections process and the corporate office.

Yet, with respect, time and again during this past process, there was a blurring of division between the EC and the corporate office.

I'd ask a question of the EC to be told that they did not know, the answer resided with someone from the corporate office.

If the explanation is that someone from the corporate office was also a member of the EC, then we should try to avoid that in future. Otherwise, we have the very conflict the EC was partially set up to avoid.

We should also not have a situation where a W/O candidate finds themselves asking difficult questions of an EC member who happens to be the person ultimately responsible for hiring and firing them (the Human Resources Manager). I can handle it. But what does this say for a new W/O looking at standing for the Board for the first time?

Also, last year, an independent e-mail address was established for candidates to correspond with the EC independent of the corporate office. Yet, again, I found myself, more than once, as a W/O candidate, having to correspond on difficult matters with an e-mail address of the corporate office, and with someone who was one of my electorate. That is not avoiding conflict of interest.

6) Specifically, two years ago, there were suggestions that ballot boxes had been opened during the voting process by someone senior from the corporate office.

The Elections Manual has a clause which states that the keys to the ballot boxes should be in the control of the EC. I understand from last year's EC Chair that that rule was interpreted as meaning that the keys should at all times during the voting process be in the care of the EC Chair, who should not be a W/O.

I do not believe that to be the case in this past Election. I believe keys were, for a time at least, in the hands of someone from the corporate office. That should be avoided in the future.

7) I would like to suggest that the Market Messenger, when announcing the election results, includes information on the total number of W/O's per unit, and the total number of votes cast, by unit. Not for each candidate. Just the total.

And can we please stop calling the corporate office ‘the Food House’? It is disingenuous at best, and dissemblance at worst.

The Food House is that part of the complex where they make food. The corporate office is a separate unit which houses the administrative/corporate staff. Our telephone lists make the distinction. Let's please keep them separate.

8) Which brings me to the point that was raised almost at the beginning. How is it that three election winners in a row, who seem to have nothing in common, who are known to different parts of our workforce in totally different degrees, achieve almost the same voting result?

With no disrespect to the individuals concerned - and this is something widely known among our workforce, it is mentioned regularly to me, and it stops many W/O's voting - there is a bloc vote, made up of corporate office staff and senior managers, which always votes for the status quo.

We could have an interesting discussion about the seeming absurdity of a situation where managers and corporate staff vote in the same elections as workers - and indeed that discussion was begun in the Task Force, but was never allowed to conclude.

It follows as night follows day that workers perceive that corporate staff already 'voted' on the direction of the co-op, since they crafted that direction in the corporate office (hence the admonition against corporate staff standing for Boards of Directors).

It also follows that workers perceive that senior managers have voted on the co-op's direction in their many manager meetings.

Workers wonder why the Worker Director election is not a process that allows them to elect a representative who can truly represent their only opportunity to have meaningful input on the direction of their co-op. They wonder why they have to contend with a bloc vote of managers and corporate staff - and it disillusions them.

Now, I put forward the idea of all workers having the vote. That got shot down by the manager and corporate office bloc vote.

Ok. But Curt and I discussed another idea. What say we create an equality of ownership status between consumer and worker, and one that makes it more equitable for workers?

Why not say all owners pay a flat fee of $100 to become an owner? Consumer or worker.

No multi-members per household confusion. One ownership; one fee; one vote. If you have 16 people in a house; then it's 16 fees, 16 ownerships, 16 votes.

And $100 becomes much more reasonable for workers.

That's it. I appreciate there may be some who say I'm simply trying to re-run the election. That's a matter for you. I'm not. There's no more I can say on that.

But the fact remains that there are many who have spoken to me, just since this election, who have said they did not vote because what they saw was an elections process dominated by the corporate office, and a pre-determined outcome.

Corporate office candidate; corporate-dominated EC; corporate-dominated communication; corporate-denied opportunity to quiz candidates; and a corporate bloc vote determining the outcome.

Now I know that every single Board member and every single member of the EC is dedicated to ensuring the fairest elections process possible. And that's why I remain confident that you will all consider these suggestions in that same spirit, and that you will want to ensure that, next year, workers do not perceive their election in that light.

I wish you all the best,
Geoff"

Why Your Vote Didn't Make A Difference

There are 98 Worker-Owners in Weaver Street Market Co-operative. Here are the approximate numbers for each unit, with the number of people who voted in the first bracket, and the percentage turnout by unit in the second bracket:

Southern Village Store - 10 (7) (70%)

Hillsborough Store - 12 (7) (58.33%)

Food House/Corporate Office - 45 (29) (64.40%)

Carrboro Store/Panzanella - 31 (13) (41.93%)

Curt Brinkmeyer won the Election, and my congratulations go to him. He will have a difficult year ahead of him, and he deserves all our support. The votes were:

Curt - 34

Geoff - 17

Last year, a total of 62 worker-Owners voted. This year, a total of 56 voted.

I will always be grateful for those who voted for me. Seventeen votes is still a substantial statement in a corporate-dominated elections system. We should all be proud of the expression we gave to those without their own voice.

Why Your Vote Will Make A Difference

There is a clear choice this year in the Election for a Worker Director to the Board of Weaver Street Market Co-operative.

You have a Candidate from the Corporate Office (Finance) who says we are on the right path; we just need to improve communication from the top down, so that we're selling the message better.

And you have another Candidate from the Shopfloor who says we can and should make changes to the path, so that we can reduce the debt, reduce the demands being made of workers, and so we can improve communication from the bottom up, to ensure we're consulting better with our workers and owners.

Ok, you say. But isn't it the case that the Election is already decided? That the block vote of the Corporate Office and Senior Managers (some 30-40 votes) will swamp the Shopfloor Candidate?

No. There are 98 Worker-Owners. More than enough to make a difference. But you gotta vote to make that difference! If not for yourself, then for the person working next to you, who may not be able to pay the $500 to become a Worker-Owner and get a vote.

Ok. That's the short version. Is it all wishful thinking? No. And now I'll give you the longer version, to tell you why.

Your Vote Will Make A Difference To The Co-op

All workers, whether in the stores, in Panzanella, in the Food House, or in the Corporate Office itself, have bust ass this past year to get us back into an operating profit. We have all made huge personal financial sacrifices.

But that operating profit has been wiped out by an interest payment on our long-term debt ($10 million) of some $640,000. Many of us wonder how long we can survive going on paying that sort of interest.

There is an answer. There are many creative ways of restructuring our co-op and/or refinancing the debt, which will not cost jobs, but which will massively reduce the annual interest payments.

Last year, the Annual Meeting of Weaver Owners agreed to my suggestion that we set up a Task Force of UNPAID financial experts from among our owners to map out such a restructuring/refinancing plan. The Board then decided not to set up that Task Force, but to hire expensive outside consultants, and then to remove the Consumer-Owner Discount instead.

Changing from Discounts to Dividends will not of itself make any appreciable difference to our long-term debt of $10 million. We still need to restructure and/or refinance. And if I am elected to the Board, I will insist that we set up that Task Force.

Once we start reducing the debt and the interest payments, we can stop making all of the crippling demands on our workforce that have done so much to bring disharmony to our daily lives.

I know we're all grateful just to have a job. But it's been real tough on some of us. There are folks even in the Corporate Office on only 20 hours a week. Some of us are having problems paying our rent. And it's heart-rending to watch fellow workers tear at each other, just to compete for the few extra hours available, or to find someone to cover their break.

We will not fill the hole in our overall finances by making more demands of our workers and managers. There is no more to give. We will only fill that hole by removing the major cause - the interest on our debt.

When that is removed, we will also create space to allow us to improve the quality of the food that we produce. Let's not kid ourselves. Workers, consumers, producers of the food itself - we all know that the quality of our food is not what it was 18 months ago.

And that is not the fault of those making and distributing the food, or those of us selling it in the stores and in Panzanella. The fault is that we are so short of money that we can not pay enough, hire enough or give ourselves the proper tools we need to improve food quality.

Just imagine what we could have done with food quality in this past year if we had spent that $640,000 on food, and not on debt interest.

So, why aren't the folks who are running the whole show, the people on the Board, the people in the Corporate Office and the Senior Managers, addressing all of this?

Because they are one small group of people, who have only so many ideas and solutions.

Look. They're doing their best. We all are. But don't you think they could be doing so much better if they had systems and processes to add to those ideas, to increase the number of options available to them, to give them direct input from all of their 'inhouse' experts, who work in their stores, in their restaurant, in their Food House, and who are their customers?

I want to serve on the Board not to be a 'yes' man, nor to be a 'no' man. I want to be the guy who asks the needed questions. Who tests the thinking. Who offers a different way of looking at things. Who adds to what is already going on.

I have put forward all sorts of ideas on this blog and on the WSM Elections Task Force in 2008 as to how we can improve input from our workers and owners and consumers. An online forum. Discussion groups. More department meetings - which get to vote as well as to discuss. These are just some of those ideas.

Some of you took the time to attend the Candidate Tables in each of the units, when both Candidates had a chance to communicate with workers. The same sort of Tables were held for consumers.

I want to see these sorts of Tables being held year round, so that workers and consumers have a regular opportunity to quiz their Directors and tell them what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong.

I want a co-op where we all know what is going on. Where we once again have Full Meetings of the workers in the co-op, so that we can all compare notes. Where we are able to spend an hour directly quizzing the General Manager and the Corporate Office.

I want us all to have a vote in the Worker Director Elections, and I want each and every one of us to feel that we have a voice that is heard and is taken into account - in our departments, in our stores and in our co-op.

That's how we ensure that we are truly all of us in this together. That's how we ensure that we are all genuinely moving in the same direction. That's how we ensure that we are all making the same sacrifices, equally, and that we are all indeed equal in this worker co-op of ours.

Alright, you say. So, we can still make a difference to the direction of our co-op. We can make it better and stronger. But. That requires a particular outcome in this current Director Election. Can we make that outcome occur? Yes.

Your Vote Will Make A Difference In This Election

There's not a whole bunch more I can say on this one. In the last Election, 42 of you voted for Jacob (mainly Corporate and Senior Managers), and 20 of you voted for me (mostly Shopfloor Workers).

30 of you didn't vote.

Look. I irritate some people. There. I've said it! I know that. But, here's the deal. What irritates you more? Me, or the path we're on?

There are two questions that face you this year:-

1) Do you feel we need someone on the Board who asks tough questions, and who offers alternative ideas?

2) Do you think that person is more likely to be someone who works in the heart of the Corporate Office, or me - even if I do irritate you?

You may not like those questions. You may not like me posing them. You may say it is the very thing that irritates you. All of that may be true. But, so too are the questions. I didn't create the circumstances that made those questions the ones that need to be answered.

And when you've answered them, I think you will agree that there is a clear choice between the two Candidates this year, and that not voting is not really an option. Too much is at stake.

If you're thinking of not voting at all because you don't like either Candidate, you will automatically let in the Corporate Office Candidate by default. You can't change the numbers on that.

So, please vote. And I'll work harder at not being irritating!

If you're still not sure who to vote for, why not talk with those of your co-workers who can not afford the $500 to become a Worker-Owner voter, and see what they have to say?

But whatever you do, please vote! It's too important this year not to.

If you're reading this post, and you're a worker who is not a Worker-Owner, but you know of a Worker-Owner who has not yet voted, then please have a word with them. Be supportive, and explain how important this Election is to all in our co-op.

I am an incurable optimist. I believe passionately that we can turn this situation around. That we can become a better business and a stronger co-op. One where we are once again financially sustainable, progressive and supportive of our workers.

Please join me in that belief. Please take the opportunity to cast your vote (before November 1, this coming Sunday, at 9.00pm). And please vote for a path that makes us all once again genuinely co-operative with each other.

[Weaver Street Board Elections 2009] "Donde Esta Mi Voto?"

What follows is the Spanish version of my election message to all workers in the Weaver Street Market Co-operative regarding my candidacy in the Worker Director Election 2009:

"Todos y cada uno de nosotros en Weaver Street Market y Panzanella hemos hecho diferentes sacrificios este año pasado por nuestra cooperativa. Esto significa que todos y cada uno de nosotros hemos ganado el derecho a ser escuchados en nuestra cooperativa por las personas que toman las grandes decisiones – esas personas que nos pidieron hacer estos sacrificios.

Por qué? Bueno, en parte porque se supone que las cooperativas deben ser democráticas. Pero también porque tiene un buen sentido de negocios.

Todos queremos mejorar la calidad y las ventas para que podamos volver a tener las ganancias. Y quién conoce mejor a nuestros clientes y los procesos internos que nosotros? - los trabajadores quienes estamos al frente del control de calidad y del servicio al cliente.

Desafortunadamente, una y otra vez, este año pasado, las personas tomando las grandes decisiones han decidido no preguntarnos, a los trabajadores – los expertos de la casa. En cambio, ellos decidieron gastar miles y miles de nuestros dólares preguntándole a consultores externos y costosos.

Miles y miles de nuestros dólares, los cuales no pudieron ser disponibles para pagar nuestros dividendos, nuestros sueldos regulares, y nuestros incrementos de sueldo. De hecho, sí nosotros hubiéramos utilizado un consultor menos, hubiéramos podido ahorrar dinero suficiente para dar a todos y cada uno de nosotros, los trabajadores, un incremento de sueldo de 50 centavos por hora.

La única oportunidad que nos han dejado, a nosotros los trabajadores, de afectar el resultado de las grandes decisiones de nuestra cooperativa de trabajadores es en la Elección Anual para Director de los Trabajadores en la Junta de Directores de la Cooperativa de Weaver Street Market. Esta Elección es ahora mismo.

Desafortunadamente solo nosotros los trabajadores que podemos pagar $500 dólares para llegar a ser un dueño-trabajador tiene el derecho a votar. Tiene el derecho a ser escuchado en nuestra cooperativa democrática de trabajadores. Es esto justo?

Especialmente en un año donde ha sido difícil para muchos de nosotros encontrar $500 dólares. En un año donde muchos de nosotros hemos tenido que sacrificar tanto como el 10% de nuestro sueldo, y más aún, cualquier incremento de sueldo.

Yo quiero que todos nosotros, los trabajadores, tengamos el derecho cada año de votar por nuestro Director de Trabajadores. No solamente los Dueños-Trabajadores. Yo quiero que todos nosotros, los trabajadores, tengamos el derecho a ser escuchados en nuestra cooperativa de trabajadores. Y quiero que todos nosotros, los trabajadores, tengamos el derecho a estar involucrados en la toma de las grandes decisiones que afectan nuestro futuro.

Yo he pasado toda mi vida ayudando a darle poder a otras personas como un líder social y un organizador comunitario. Fui presentador de una programa de radio progresivo en nuestra radio local, WCOM 103.5 FM, y ayudé en el Comité de Desarrollo de ésta misma.

Así mismo, ayudé con la campaña de la última Elección Presidencial de los Estados Unidos, y en el período de transición despué de la Elección, representando a un programa nacional de alivio de hambre (FOCUS on Poverty) que fue desarrollado en asociación con mi programa de radio.

El año pasado, Fuí miembro del Comité de Elecciones de nuestra cooperativa, cuando saqué adelante un número de propuestas designadas a dar a todos los trabajadores y dueños más control democrático sobre las grandes decisiones que están siendo determinadas en nuestra cooperativa.

Yo creo apasionadamente en que sí los trabajadores y dueños-trabajadores tuvieran un representante en la Junta de Directores que fuera dedicado a asegurar que todos nosotros (no solo ellos) tuviéramos el voto decisivo en todos los asuntos importantes con los que nos estamos enfrentando, entoncés nosotros sobreviviremos todos estos tiempos difíciles y llegaremos a ser un mejor negocio y una mejor cooperativa como consecuencia.

Ustedes pueden encontrar mas información de como llegar a tener un mejor negocio y cooperativa en la página http://www.weaverstreetgeoff.blogspot.com o en mis páginas de Facebook y MySpace. Así, ustedes también pueden conocer un poquito más acerca de mí – más allá de saber que soy el tipo Americano-Inglés que trabaja en la barra de Comidas Calientes en Southern Village.

Tengan en cuenta, que esta Elección es no realmente acerca de los candidatos. Es acerca de ustedes. Conociendo y aprendiendo un poco más lo que ustedes piensan y lo que quieren. Sí no tengo una oportunidad de verlos antes, por favor no duden en compartir conmigo sus ideas o comentarios a mi email: geoffgilson@hotmail.com."

[Weaver Street Board Elections 2009] "Where Is My Vote?"

What follows is the English version of my election message to all workers in the Weaver Street Market Co-operative regarding my candidacy in the Worker Director Election 2009:

"Each and every one of us workers in Weaver Street Market and Panzanella has made sacrifices this past year for our co-op. This means that each and every one of us workers has earned the right to be heard in our co-op by those making the big decisions – those who have asked us to make the sacrifices.

Why? Well, partly because co-operatives are supposed to be democratic. But also because it makes good business sense.

We all want to improve quality and sales so that we can get back into profit. And who knows our customers and our processes better than we workers who are on the front lines of quality control and customer service?

However, time and again this past year, those making the big decisions have decided not to ask us workers – the in-house experts. Instead they have chosen to spend thousands and thousands of our dollars asking over-priced outside consultants.

Thousands and thousands of our dollars, which were then not available to pay our dividends, our regular pay, or our pay raises. In fact, if we had used one less consultant, we would have saved enough money to give each and every one of us workers a 50-cent per hour pay raise.

The one opportunity left to us workers truly to affect the outcome of the big decisions in our worker co-op is in the Annual Election of a Worker Director to the Board of Directors of Weaver Street Market Co-operative. This Election now.

Yet only those of us workers who can afford to pay $500 to become a worker-owner get the right to vote. Get the right to be heard in our democratic worker co-op. Is that right?

Especially in a year when it’s been difficult for some of us workers to find $500. In a year when most of us have had to sacrifice as much as 10% of our pay, along with any pay raise.

I want all of us workers to have the right each year to vote for our Worker Director. Not just worker-owners. I want all of us workers to have the right to be heard in our worker co-op. And I want all of us workers to have the right to be involved in making the big decisions that are affecting our future.

I have spent a lifetime helping to empower people as a social advocate and community builder. I hosted a progressive talk show on our local community radio, WCOM 103.5 FM, and helped out on its Development Committee.

I campaigned during the last US Presidential Election, and in the transition period afterwards, on behalf of a national poverty relief program (FOCUS on Poverty) that was developed in association with my radio show.

I was a member of our co-op’s Elections Task Force last year, when I put forward a number of proposals designed to give all workers and owners more democratic control over the big decisions that are being made in our co-op.

I believe passionately that if workers and owners have on the Board of Directors an advocate who is dedicated to ensuring that we (and not they) have the deciding vote on all the important issues facing us, then we will survive these troubled times and we will become a better business and a better co-operative as a consequence.

You can find out more about our becoming a better business and co-operative on http://www.weaverstreetgeoff.blogspot.com or on my Facebook and MySpace pages. You can also learn a bit more about me – beyond knowing I’m the English-American bloke that works on the Hot Bar in Southern Village.

Mind you, this Election is not really about the candidates. It’s about you. Finding out what you think, what you want. If I don’t get a chance to see you first, please feel free to share with me by dropping me a line at: geoffgilson@hotmail.com."