Re: [tlug] Introduction to (Tech) Worker Cooperatives, 09:00AM on Sunday, July 12th JST

[Benjamin Kowarsch <trijezdci@example.com>]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 03:00, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen.fw@example.com> wrote:

Yasuaki Kudo writes:

 > ➢ Not true in worker cooperatives.  Customers and society at large are
 >        excluded from decision-making.
 >
 > This part is probably not true, based on my numerous encounters
 > with actual worker cooperators.   The reason is, the
 > community-focus, fair trade, fair use, etc., are usually at the
 > heart of their “competitiveness” compared to capitalist rivals.
 > That’s their main selling point.   So, many of them actually
 > create, formally or informally, a broader coalition of
 > “multi-stakeholder” business model.

That may be their business model, but of course for-profit companies
try to keep their customers satisfied too!  There are many capitalist
firms whose business models are based in multiple kinds of
stakeholder.  In the US, IBM was an example in the late 1960s and
1970s -- they were very good to their workers (all of them, not just
the execs) and the communities they drew the workers from.  Unions
never got traction.  IBM was rarely sued by their customers, but
frequently by their rivals and the government.

In the banking industry (as well as in many other industries) there has

been much consolidation and that has led to worse and worse service

for locals especially in smaller towns or villages.

In many rural areas, the cooperative banks are the only banks,

while the capitalist banks keep closing branches.

Also consider that cooperative banks fund cooperative businesses

because they understand the business model while your run-off-the-mill

capitalist bank might find a cooperative business too perplexing to be

able to assess the risk and reject loan applications.

Also consider the following scenarios:

Scenario A:

Small town, connected to the railway network though, a business

property rental has come on the market across the train station.

Fred, a local, wants to start a cafe there, has some funding, but

still needs a bank loan, puts in application to local branch of

capitalist bank. The local branch doesn't deal with loan applications,

those have been rationalised away to the next big city 80 km away.

The people there have no clue what the local situation is, nor do

they know Fred and his backers.

Starbucks is a large customer of this capitalist bank. They are also

interested in opening a branch in that same property.

Guess who will be getting the loan and support and who won't.

Scenario B:

Same as A, but in this variant, Fred and his backers go to the 

local cooperative bank. The local coop handle and decide their

loan applications directly. They know all the locals. They also

know the owner of the building. In fact, more likely than not,

the owner of the building will be a member of the local

cooperative bank.

Guess, who will be getting the loan and the contract for the

property in this scenario?

This is the primary competitive advantage of most cooperative

banks in Europe. Being close to the customer.

Meanwhile, capitalist behemoths keep closing branches.

More to the point, consumers and neighbors don't have a vote in
cooperative decisions in your experience, do they?

In my experience, in Germany they do if they want to.

There are many people who become members in a local

cooperative bank not for investment but simply to be able to

get involved in the decision making and vote in the shareholder

meetings.

Likewise, there are many people who become members in a

local housing cooperative not because they are looking for

accommodation, but because they want to support it and

participate in decision making and vote in the shareholder

meetings.

Of course, few people do that for coops that are less influential

like say a taxi cooperative or a cooperative supermarket. But

they could if they wanted to.

 

That is, they
depend on the goodwill of the workers to have consumer interests
considered.

Or they get involved.

There is a thing called the Rochdale Principles. They date back to

the 1840s and are widely accepted cooperative principles worldwide.

Number one on the list is open and voluntary membership, which means

that anybody can join a cooperative if they want to. Democratic control

and some form of profit cap are also on that list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles

In countries where cooperatives are a legal form, the law typically

requires at least a subset of these principles to be implemented,

and open membership is usually amongst the mandatory ones.

If I remember and understand correctly, in the German
"co-determination" model business corporations must have a certain
fraction of labor representatives on their boards, and maybe community
and/or government representatives (the "golden share" IIRC, but that
may be France and a different concept).

It is called Betriebsrat, or in English worker's council.

It is the law in Austria and Germany that any business

with a certain number of employees must establish such a

council and the council gets to take part in the decision making

of the company's board, and the council must approve any lay-offs.

Without approval from the worker's council you cannot fire anybody

unless for criminal conduct, like stealing from the company etc.

In Germany, employees can demand a worker's council if there are at

least five full-time employees who have been employed for at least

six months and the company may not refuse establishment; but any

business with more than 49 (IIRC) employees is obliged to establish

a worker's council. The same principles apply in Austria but the

numbers may be different there. France has a similar thing called

délégués du personnel.

However, this applies to all businesses, it should not be confused

with the mandatory governance model for incorporated cooperatives

that I had mentioned.