An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

Michael Bakunin, the 19th century anarchist, identified what he called <i>cooperation</i>—associations for consumption, credit, and production—as distinguished by two opposing currents—one bourgeois and the other socialist.<b>[1]</b> He defines bourgeois cooperation as, “the &#8230; practice of <i>exploiting labor through capital</i>.” Of socialist cooperation, he writes, “&#8230;we know that [cooperation] will prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all human industry, only when it is based on equality, when all capital and every instrument of labor, including the soil, belong to the people by right of collective property.” It's a centuries-old battle: collectivize or privatize. When one considers how Abundance “Cooperative” Market is operated, Bakunin's words seem apropos. <br /> <br /> My assumptions regarding Abundance—and my reasons for wanting to get a job there—came from their espousal of social and environmental consciousness. I saw it in their publication, read it in their marketing materials, and heard about it through their members and staff. Once I secured employment and received their <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/9/employee_handbook_2006.pdf">employee handbook</a><b>[2]</b>, my assumptions seemed confirmed. In the section marked “Staff Consideration Goals” the document talked about how the store would “provide ways for staff to participate in the decisions made in the store regarding policies, operations, and overall function of the store.” It spoke about the need to “recognize everyone's right to organize, associate with each other and bargain collectively.” It also stated that the store would, “take steps to prevent discrimination or harassment and provide a safe method of reporting and dealing with possible issues without fear of retaliation.” This document, coupled with the International Cooperative Alliance's “Statement on the Cooperative Identity,” which expresses values like voluntary and open association, democracy, economic and social participation, independence, and concern for community, as well as the store's mission and <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/9/product_policy.pdf">product policy</a>, seemed to go hand in hand with the kind of operation expressed by Bakunin. The reality though, was opposite the ideal. <br /> <br /> Just so there is no confusion nor any question of my bias, I want you to know that I worked at Abundance “Cooperative” Market, as a cashier, for nearly a year and left disgusted with how it was being run. Since 2007, I've kept up with Abundance, its employees, and their issues. I put cooperative in quotations because, to me, Abundance doesn't reflect the values of cooperation mentioned above. Rather, the values and structures I see at Abundance seem to be steeped in business culture— efficiency, standardization, maximization of profit, hierarchy, competitive wages, conformity, write-ups, dividends, video surveillance, and employee quizzes and surveys. Bakunin's definition of bourgeois cooperation—the practice of exploiting labor through capital—seems apt when considering that the employees at Abundance have no formal voice on the board of directors. Nor do they have decision-making power over the daily functioning of the store or their jobs, and, at least in the past, have been seen as generally expendable as evidenced by high turn-over rates and meager wages. <br /> <br /> Witnessing the reality of the situation at Abundance lead me to question and critically examine some general assumptions about work and the assumed structure of workplaces: Why should the needs of any manager or owner be any more important than the needs of the cashier or stock person? They are both groups of people who need healthcare, food, education, transportation, housing, and leisure. Why is one person's livelihood valued over another person's? Why is it okay to link pay with necessities, that as human beings, we all require? Why do we need managers and owners? Why aren't the ideas of workers taken seriously by management when they are well-positioned at the tasks they do to know what works, what doesn't, and what would make things better? Getting back to subject of this article, why is Abundance operating like any other capitalist enterprise when it ought to be setting an alternative and counter-cultural example? <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.abundance.coop/retailer/store_templates/ret_about_us.asp?storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">Abundance is owned by approximately 1,300 people</a><b>[3]</b> (staff excluded unless they pay the $100 membership fee) with the right—granted by the bylaws of the store—to make change as they see fit. This happens formally through the process of written resolutions, signed onto by other shareholders and customers, and presented to the board of directors—who then have to act on such resolutions. This could arguably be the most important distinction to be made between Abundance and your average grocery store. This one democratic feature isn't watered down in the same way that multinational corporations' shareholder voting systems are; Abundance is uniquely local and uniquely small enough where a dedicated group of individuals could make profound and lasting change. Let me give you an example. <br /> <br /> In October of 2009, Abundance's board of directors announced that it would be able to pay shareholders a dividend, “<a href="http://www.abundance.coop/common/news/store_news.asp?task=store_news&amp;SID_store_news=13&amp;storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">After its third consecutive profitable year, Abundance Cooperative Market, Rochester's only community-owned natural grocery store, is pleased to announce its <b>first ever Patronage Dividend</b></a> [emphasis theirs].”<b>[4]</b> <br /> <br /> To some, dividends sounded great. For years the store had been running in the red. Finally, things were picking up and shareholders would be reimbursed as well as potentially profit off of their investment. To others, myself included, this meant that shareholders were going to share in the profits before employees had a living wage or health insurance. To me, this did not seem cooperative at all. <br /> <br /> On April 10, 2010, former employees, shareholders, customers, and community members <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/feature/display/20004/index.php">interrupted one of Abundance's busiest days of the year to celebrate employees and demand a living wage</a>. In addition to the disruption, a resolution was on hand, for anyone to sign, demanding that Abundance pay its employees a living wage. <br /> <br /> Approximately 15 shareholders that day collectively pooled their dividend checks—which amounted to $368.40—and 15 personal checks were written out in the amount of $24.56 and given to employees making less than a living wage. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage">According to Wikipedia</a>, a living wage “is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for shelter (housing) and incidentals such as clothing and nutrition for a person for an extended period of time or a lifetime. … This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.”<b>[5]</b> <br /> <br /> At the celebration, enough signatures were gathered allowing the <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/5/abundance_res_pub.pdf">living wage resolution</a> to be formally introduced to the board. Nearly a month later, the resolution was heard and a few months after that, it was rejected by the board. <br /> <br /> At the September 12, 2010 annual shareholder meeting, Melissa Marquez, the board president, announced that while the resolution was rejected, the desire to pay living wages was not. The board agreed that a living wage was important and instituted an <i>Executive Limitation</i>. Board member Daryl Odhner explained what an <i>executive limitation</i> was in the <a href="http://www.abundance.coop/PDFDocs/x/XUJ2UVU816W39K0K9KT0QFJ97SWC0T7F.PDF">April/May 2010 Rutabaga Rap</a>: “[it]&#8230;would constrain the GM from 'failing to pay' a LW [sic] to staff.”<b>[6]</b> <br /> <br /> “The store will not operate without paying workers a living wage,” Marquez stated as she explained the decision of the board to the shareholders that September evening. General Manager Jim DeLuca was asked when a living wage would be implemented and at what rate but he had no answers to give. He said it would depend on certain parameters and variables and that living wages might not be implemented until August of 2011—potentially a year after being announced. <br /> <br /> Fast forward to the quarterly staff meeting held on January 20, 2011. At the meeting, a document—<a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/2/abundance_lw_plan.pdf">Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011</a>—was passed around outlining Abundance's plan for the implementation of living wages. According to the document, in order for Abundance to remain economically viable, a stepped approach to paying living wages was initiated.<b>[7]</b> <br /> <br /> The document stated that Abundance purchased<b>[8]</b> the Cooperative Grocers Living Wage package that <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/4/single_person_livable_wage_calc_cginjimdec2010.pdf">took into account different factors to determine the living wage</a> for Rochester, NY. “The model incorporates the HUD fair market rate data for rent, the USDA for food costs and provides for auto, personal care and entertainment, savings, etc.” According to the document, the variables determined that a living wage in Rochester, NY is, “$10.25 per hour for a single person who shares a 2-bedroom apartment and has the liberal USDA amount for food allowances.” <br /> <br /> The plan explained that to be eligible for a living wage, individuals would have to work 35 hours or more per week. According to email correspondence and a face to face meeting with DeLuca and Marquez, 14 staff worked more than 35 hours a week and were eligible for a living wage. Thirteen staff were ineligible. Of the full timers, DeLuca identified that three people were department managers, two were co-managers of the front end department, and one was the general manager position.<b>[9]</b> <br /> <br /> Of the 14 people that are eligible to make a living wage, I removed six positions because they were presumably making at or above a living wage before the policy went into effect, according to the <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/13/payscale_feb_2011.pdf">Payscale Review for January 2011</a>. Of those left, eight employees are eligible for a living wage. Now, lets incorporate that other figure, namely, the 13 employees who are ineligible. If we add the eight and the 13 we get 21 employees total who are, presumably, not middle or upper management. Those 21 employees are working a certain number of hours per week that makes them either eligible or ineligible for a living wage based on the plan. So, if we do the math<b>[10]</b>, only 38% are eligible for a living wage. Or reverse it: outside of middle and upper management, 62% of the workforce is ineligible for a living wage. <br /> <br /> Thirty-eight percent eligibility for living wages is certainly a step in the right direction—as of this time last year 38% did not even exist. I've heard from employees that they have seen a raise in wages but not necessarily a living wage—not yet at least. Getting there isn't guaranteed either; with $30,000 of the $90,000 package already spent on the plan, a living wage wouldn't be viable unless Abundance could “demonstrate net profits exceeding 1% for at least 4 consecutive quarters.”<b>[11]</b> That's the amount of time and profit required to make the general manager feel confident about the living wage plan. <br /> <br /> Not stated within the plan—part of the package nonetheless—is a 4-7% “sliding adjustment” to “accommodate the shrinking differential” between the upper and lower tiers of the staff.<b>[12]</b> I would like to go back to Bakunin and draw a skewed but educational analogy. <br /> <br /> Bakunin wrote, “Let us imagine a thousand persons oppressed and exploited by ten. What if twenty or thirty of them, or more, said to themselves: 'We are tired of being victims; but on the other hand, since it is ridiculous to hope for everyone's well-being, since the prosperity of the few absolutely requires the sacrifices of the many, let us abandon our comrades to their fate and think only of ourselves, let us in turn become wealthy bourgeois exploiters.”<b>[13]</b> <br /> <br /> Now clearly, Bakunin's language is inflammatory and clearly the managers of Abundance are not “wealthy bourgeois exploiters”—nor is it 20 or 30 exploiters over a thousand. But the point seems clear to me, nonetheless. With the “sliding differential,” the living wage plan does not move Abundance closer to a more horizontal and equitable coop—socialist cooperation, in Bakunin's terms—but rather maintains the <i>status quo</i>. <br /> <br /> According to DeLuca, certain individuals within middle and upper management can expect to see that 4-7% wage increase on top of what they were making before; it's a mechanism to maintain the differential in wages.<b>[14]</b> <br /> <br /> Giving monetary incentives because of one's position, in order to maintain the hierarchy, rather than the effort exerted by individuals, is problematic. Everyone puts forth effort in their work but not everyone has the same privilege and access to education, training, and knowledge. Rewarding something so arbitrary seems like rewarding people who were born into nobility or endowed with perfect genes. Sadly, this is the current state of our economic and social world. The amount of effort it takes to “sell” membership to new customers, stand for eight hours a day scanning groceries, cleaning and organizing the floor for customers, stocking shelves and produce, and opening and closing the store, is no less valuable than buying goods and produce, organizing the layout of the store, compiling and editing the Rutabaga Rap, setting work schedules, communicating with the board, buying and selling advertising space, or doing the accounting. All of these tasks need to be done to keep the store functional. An ideal living wage plan is a step toward realizing an operating model where everyone benefits and everyone is valued, not just a minority. <br /> <br /> We should remind ourselves that the management did not create this plan out of the goodness of their hearts or because of a radical shift in their thinking. A board decision, precipitated by shareholder and community member agitation coupled with employee frustration, forced the management to devise and implement change. However, for this living-wage plan to work, everyone must work harder and consumers must consume more. The idea of asking managers to take pay cuts and share responsibilities—in effect to reorganize the store completely—based on the values of the International Cooperative Alliance and worker cooperatives, is illegitimate—according to the higher-ups. The broader question is why. <br /> <br /> So where does this leave us? It certainly leaves me with more questions than answers. It has yet to be seen how effective the new living wage plan will be—although, thankfully, something is finally being done. There is also Bakunin's question: will the coop be actualized into an egalitarian establishment or will it be completely corporatized and privatized with all that that entails? Time, struggle, and commitment to an accountable and democratic culture within Abundance will tell the tale. <br /> <br /> <b>Notes</b>:<br /> <b>[1]</b> Cutler, R. M., ed. 'On Cooperation', from <i>The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871</i>. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1992, p. 151. <br /> <br /> <b>[2]</b> Updated and Revised March 2006 Version 11 of the Abundance Employee Handbook; these statements were also in the 2007 handbook. <br /> <br /> <b>[3]</b> From the “About Us” section on Abundance Cooperative Market's website; (http://www.abundance.coop/retailer/store_templates/ret_about_us.asp?storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93) <br /> <br /> <b>[4]</b> <i>Abundance Cooperative Market Shares the Wealth!</i> Abundance Press Release, October 21, 2009 (http://www.abundance.coop/common/news/store_news.asp?task=store_news&amp;SID_store_news=13&amp;storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93) <br /> <br /> <b>[5]</b> Entry for “Living Wage” on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage); (accessed winter of 2010) <br /> <br /> <b>[6]</b> The Rutabaga Rap, April/May 2010, page 10; (http://www.abundance.coop/PDFDocs/x/XUJ2UVU816W39K0K9KT0QFJ97SWC0T7F.PDF) The Rutabaga Rap is a newsletter put out periodically by Abundance. In it is product information and Abundance news with a recap of board meeting minutes among other pertinent topics. <i>The Rap</i> is free and accessible to the public. The alternative to an <i>executive limitation</i> is an <i>end policy</i>. Under an <i>end policy</i>, according to Odhner, “the GM would be expected to include the payment of LWs [sic] as a long-term goal for the store, and to periodically report on progress toward this goal.” In the article, Odhner posed a question asking if the provision of living wages was why Abundance existed. His research indicated no, but an <i>executive limitation</i> could impose the same mandate of an <i>end policy</i>—formally the store's mission—using different language that wouldn't confuse the general <i>raison d'être</i> of the store. <i>End policy</i> and <i>executive limitation</i> are terms used under <i>Policy Governance</i>—a way of conducting board business that was adapted a few years ago. <br /> <br /> <b>[7]</b> Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011 <br /> <br /> <b>[8]</b> This package was purchased for $85; email from Abundance General Manager Jim DeLuca (1/27/11) <br /> <br /> <b>[9]</b> Emails from Abundance General Manager Jim DeLuca: January 27, 2011, February 3, 2011, March 23, 2011; face to face meeting with DeLuca and Marquez: April 15, 2011. The numbers on the plan are slightly skewed because DeLuca said he did not add his position to the list of eligible and ineligible positions. That's been corrected in this article. <br /> <br /> <b>[10]</b> The math: there are 21 total employees outside of management positions (8 employees are eligible for a living wage, 13 are not); part / total = y; y x 100 = % <br /> <br /> <b>[11]</b> Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011 <br /> <br /> <b>[12]</b> Email from DeLuca (1/27/11) <br /> <br /> <b>[13]</b> Cutler, R. M., ed. 'On Cooperation', from <i>The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871</i>. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1992, p. 152. <br /> <br /> <b>[14]</b> Email from DeLuca (1/27/11)

<p>Michael Bakunin, the 19th century anarchist, identified what he called <i>cooperation</i>—associations for consumption, credit, and production—as distinguished by two opposing currents—one bourgeois and the other socialist.<b>[1]</b> He defines bourgeois cooperation as, “the … practice of <i>exploiting labor through capital</i>.” Of socialist cooperation, he writes, “…we know that [cooperation] will prosper, developing itself fully and freely, embracing all human industry, only when it is based on equality, when all capital and every instrument of labor, including the soil, belong to the people by right of collective property.” It's a centuries-old battle: collectivize or privatize. When one considers how Abundance “Cooperative” Market is operated, Bakunin's words seem apropos. </p> <p> My assumptions regarding Abundance—and my reasons for wanting to get a job there—came from their espousal of social and environmental consciousness. I saw it in their publication, read it in their marketing materials, and heard about it through their members and staff. Once I secured employment and received their <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/9/employee_handbook_2006.pdf">employee handbook</a><b>[2]</b>, my assumptions seemed confirmed. In the section marked “Staff Consideration Goals” the document talked about how the store would “provide ways for staff to participate in the decisions made in the store regarding policies, operations, and overall function of the store.” It spoke about the need to “recognize everyone's right to organize, associate with each other and bargain collectively.” It also stated that the store would, “take steps to prevent discrimination or harassment and provide a safe method of reporting and dealing with possible issues without fear of retaliation.” This document, coupled with the International Cooperative Alliance's “Statement on the Cooperative Identity,” which expresses values like voluntary and open association, democracy, economic and social participation, independence, and concern for community, as well as the store's mission and <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/9/product_policy.pdf">product policy</a>, seemed to go hand in hand with the kind of operation expressed by Bakunin. The reality though, was opposite the ideal. </p> <p> Just so there is no confusion nor any question of my bias, I want you to know that I worked at Abundance “Cooperative” Market, as a cashier, for nearly a year and left disgusted with how it was being run. Since 2007, I've kept up with Abundance, its employees, and their issues. I put cooperative in quotations because, to me, Abundance doesn't reflect the values of cooperation mentioned above. Rather, the values and structures I see at Abundance seem to be steeped in business culture— efficiency, standardization, maximization of profit, hierarchy, competitive wages, conformity, write-ups, dividends, video surveillance, and employee quizzes and surveys. Bakunin's definition of bourgeois cooperation—the practice of exploiting labor through capital—seems apt when considering that the employees at Abundance have no formal voice on the board of directors. Nor do they have decision-making power over the daily functioning of the store or their jobs, and, at least in the past, have been seen as generally expendable as evidenced by high turn-over rates and meager wages. </p> <p> Witnessing the reality of the situation at Abundance lead me to question and critically examine some general assumptions about work and the assumed structure of workplaces: Why should the needs of any manager or owner be any more important than the needs of the cashier or stock person? They are both groups of people who need healthcare, food, education, transportation, housing, and leisure. Why is one person's livelihood valued over another person's? Why is it okay to link pay with necessities, that as human beings, we all require? Why do we need managers and owners? Why aren't the ideas of workers taken seriously by management when they are well-positioned at the tasks they do to know what works, what doesn't, and what would make things better? Getting back to subject of this article, why is Abundance operating like any other capitalist enterprise when it ought to be setting an alternative and counter-cultural example? </p> <p> <a href="http://www.abundance.coop/retailer/store_templates/ret_about_us.asp?storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">Abundance is owned by approximately 1,300 people</a><b>[3]</b> (staff excluded unless they pay the $100 membership fee) with the right—granted by the bylaws of the store—to make change as they see fit. This happens formally through the process of written resolutions, signed onto by other shareholders and customers, and presented to the board of directors—who then have to act on such resolutions. This could arguably be the most important distinction to be made between Abundance and your average grocery store. This one democratic feature isn't watered down in the same way that multinational corporations' shareholder voting systems are; Abundance is uniquely local and uniquely small enough where a dedicated group of individuals could make profound and lasting change. Let me give you an example. </p> <p> In October of 2009, Abundance's board of directors announced that it would be able to pay shareholders a dividend, “<a href="http://www.abundance.coop/common/news/store_news.asp?task=store_news&amp;SID_store_news=13&amp;storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">After its third consecutive profitable year, Abundance Cooperative Market, Rochester's only community-owned natural grocery store, is pleased to announce its <b>first ever Patronage Dividend</b></a> [emphasis theirs].”<b>[4]</b> </p> <p> To some, dividends sounded great. For years the store had been running in the red. Finally, things were picking up and shareholders would be reimbursed as well as potentially profit off of their investment. To others, myself included, this meant that shareholders were going to share in the profits before employees had a living wage or health insurance. To me, this did not seem cooperative at all. </p> <p> On April 10, 2010, former employees, shareholders, customers, and community members <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/feature/display/20004/index.php">interrupted one of Abundance's busiest days of the year to celebrate employees and demand a living wage</a>. In addition to the disruption, a resolution was on hand, for anyone to sign, demanding that Abundance pay its employees a living wage. </p> <p> Approximately 15 shareholders that day collectively pooled their dividend checks—which amounted to $368.40—and 15 personal checks were written out in the amount of $24.56 and given to employees making less than a living wage. </p> <p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage">According to Wikipedia</a>, a living wage “is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for shelter (housing) and incidentals such as clothing and nutrition for a person for an extended period of time or a lifetime. … This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.”<b>[5]</b> </p> <p> At the celebration, enough signatures were gathered allowing the <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/5/abundance_res_pub.pdf">living wage resolution</a> to be formally introduced to the board. Nearly a month later, the resolution was heard and a few months after that, it was rejected by the board. </p> <p> At the September 12, 2010 annual shareholder meeting, Melissa Marquez, the board president, announced that while the resolution was rejected, the desire to pay living wages was not. The board agreed that a living wage was important and instituted an <i>Executive Limitation</i>. Board member Daryl Odhner explained what an <i>executive limitation</i> was in the <a href="http://www.abundance.coop/PDFDocs/x/XUJ2UVU816W39K0K9KT0QFJ97SWC0T7F.PDF">April/May 2010 Rutabaga Rap</a>: “[it]…would constrain the GM from 'failing to pay' a LW [sic] to staff.”<b>[6]</b> </p> <p> “The store will not operate without paying workers a living wage,” Marquez stated as she explained the decision of the board to the shareholders that September evening. General Manager Jim DeLuca was asked when a living wage would be implemented and at what rate but he had no answers to give. He said it would depend on certain parameters and variables and that living wages might not be implemented until August of 2011—potentially a year after being announced. </p> <p> Fast forward to the quarterly staff meeting held on January 20, 2011. At the meeting, a document—<a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/2/abundance_lw_plan.pdf">Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011</a>—was passed around outlining Abundance's plan for the implementation of living wages. According to the document, in order for Abundance to remain economically viable, a stepped approach to paying living wages was initiated.<b>[7]</b> </p> <p> The document stated that Abundance purchased<b>[8]</b> the Cooperative Grocers Living Wage package that <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/4/single_person_livable_wage_calc_cginjimdec2010.pdf">took into account different factors to determine the living wage</a> for Rochester, NY. “The model incorporates the HUD fair market rate data for rent, the USDA for food costs and provides for auto, personal care and entertainment, savings, etc.” According to the document, the variables determined that a living wage in Rochester, NY is, “$10.25 per hour for a single person who shares a 2-bedroom apartment and has the liberal USDA amount for food allowances.” </p> <p> The plan explained that to be eligible for a living wage, individuals would have to work 35 hours or more per week. According to email correspondence and a face to face meeting with DeLuca and Marquez, 14 staff worked more than 35 hours a week and were eligible for a living wage. Thirteen staff were ineligible. Of the full timers, DeLuca identified that three people were department managers, two were co-managers of the front end department, and one was the general manager position.<b>[9]</b> </p> <p> Of the 14 people that are eligible to make a living wage, I removed six positions because they were presumably making at or above a living wage before the policy went into effect, according to the <a href="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/13/payscale_feb_2011.pdf">Payscale Review for January 2011</a>. Of those left, eight employees are eligible for a living wage. Now, lets incorporate that other figure, namely, the 13 employees who are ineligible. If we add the eight and the 13 we get 21 employees total who are, presumably, not middle or upper management. Those 21 employees are working a certain number of hours per week that makes them either eligible or ineligible for a living wage based on the plan. So, if we do the math<b>[10]</b>, only 38% are eligible for a living wage. Or reverse it: outside of middle and upper management, 62% of the workforce is ineligible for a living wage. </p> <p> Thirty-eight percent eligibility for living wages is certainly a step in the right direction—as of this time last year 38% did not even exist. I've heard from employees that they have seen a raise in wages but not necessarily a living wage—not yet at least. Getting there isn't guaranteed either; with $30,000 of the $90,000 package already spent on the plan, a living wage wouldn't be viable unless Abundance could “demonstrate net profits exceeding 1% for at least 4 consecutive quarters.”<b>[11]</b> That's the amount of time and profit required to make the general manager feel confident about the living wage plan. </p> <p> Not stated within the plan—part of the package nonetheless—is a 4-7% “sliding adjustment” to “accommodate the shrinking differential” between the upper and lower tiers of the staff.<b>[12]</b> I would like to go back to Bakunin and draw a skewed but educational analogy. </p> <p> Bakunin wrote, “Let us imagine a thousand persons oppressed and exploited by ten. What if twenty or thirty of them, or more, said to themselves: 'We are tired of being victims; but on the other hand, since it is ridiculous to hope for everyone's well-being, since the prosperity of the few absolutely requires the sacrifices of the many, let us abandon our comrades to their fate and think only of ourselves, let us in turn become wealthy bourgeois exploiters.”<b>[13]</b> </p> <p> Now clearly, Bakunin's language is inflammatory and clearly the managers of Abundance are not “wealthy bourgeois exploiters”—nor is it 20 or 30 exploiters over a thousand. But the point seems clear to me, nonetheless. With the “sliding differential,” the living wage plan does not move Abundance closer to a more horizontal and equitable coop—socialist cooperation, in Bakunin's terms—but rather maintains the <i>status quo</i>. </p> <p> According to DeLuca, certain individuals within middle and upper management can expect to see that 4-7% wage increase on top of what they were making before; it's a mechanism to maintain the differential in wages.<b>[14]</b> </p> <p> Giving monetary incentives because of one's position, in order to maintain the hierarchy, rather than the effort exerted by individuals, is problematic. Everyone puts forth effort in their work but not everyone has the same privilege and access to education, training, and knowledge. Rewarding something so arbitrary seems like rewarding people who were born into nobility or endowed with perfect genes. Sadly, this is the current state of our economic and social world. The amount of effort it takes to “sell” membership to new customers, stand for eight hours a day scanning groceries, cleaning and organizing the floor for customers, stocking shelves and produce, and opening and closing the store, is no less valuable than buying goods and produce, organizing the layout of the store, compiling and editing the Rutabaga Rap, setting work schedules, communicating with the board, buying and selling advertising space, or doing the accounting. All of these tasks need to be done to keep the store functional. An ideal living wage plan is a step toward realizing an operating model where everyone benefits and everyone is valued, not just a minority. </p> <p> We should remind ourselves that the management did not create this plan out of the goodness of their hearts or because of a radical shift in their thinking. A board decision, precipitated by shareholder and community member agitation coupled with employee frustration, forced the management to devise and implement change. However, for this living-wage plan to work, everyone must work harder and consumers must consume more. The idea of asking managers to take pay cuts and share responsibilities—in effect to reorganize the store completely—based on the values of the International Cooperative Alliance and worker cooperatives, is illegitimate—according to the higher-ups. The broader question is why. </p> <p> So where does this leave us? It certainly leaves me with more questions than answers. It has yet to be seen how effective the new living wage plan will be—although, thankfully, something is finally being done. There is also Bakunin's question: will the coop be actualized into an egalitarian establishment or will it be completely corporatized and privatized with all that that entails? Time, struggle, and commitment to an accountable and democratic culture within Abundance will tell the tale. </p> <p> <b>Notes</b>:<br /> <b>[1]</b> Cutler, R. M., ed. 'On Cooperation', from <i>The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871</i>. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1992, p. 151. </p> <p> <b>[2]</b> Updated and Revised March 2006 Version 11 of the Abundance Employee Handbook; these statements were also in the 2007 handbook. </p> <p> <b>[3]</b> From the “About Us” section on Abundance Cooperative Market's website; (<a href="http://www.abundance.coop/retailer/store_templates/ret_about_us.asp?storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">http://www.abundance.coop/retailer/store_templates/ret_about_us.asp?stor...</a>) </p> <p> <b>[4]</b> <i>Abundance Cooperative Market Shares the Wealth!</i> Abundance Press Release, October 21, 2009 (<a href="http://www.abundance.coop/common/news/store_news.asp?task=store_news&amp;SID_store_news=13&amp;storeID=8426C6A755724C92B543A4D770A75E93">http://www.abundance.coop/common/news/store_news.asp?task=store_news&amp;SID...</a>) </p> <p> <b>[5]</b> Entry for “Living Wage” on wikipedia (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage</a>); (accessed winter of 2010) </p> <p> <b>[6]</b> The Rutabaga Rap, April/May 2010, page 10; (<a href="http://www.abundance.coop/PDFDocs/x/XUJ2UVU816W39K0K9KT0QFJ97SWC0T7F.PDF">http://www.abundance.coop/PDFDocs/x/XUJ2UVU816W39K0K9KT0QFJ97SWC0T7F.PDF</a>) The Rutabaga Rap is a newsletter put out periodically by Abundance. In it is product information and Abundance news with a recap of board meeting minutes among other pertinent topics. <i>The Rap</i> is free and accessible to the public. The alternative to an <i>executive limitation</i> is an <i>end policy</i>. Under an <i>end policy</i>, according to Odhner, “the GM would be expected to include the payment of LWs [sic] as a long-term goal for the store, and to periodically report on progress toward this goal.” In the article, Odhner posed a question asking if the provision of living wages was why Abundance existed. His research indicated no, but an <i>executive limitation</i> could impose the same mandate of an <i>end policy</i>—formally the store's mission—using different language that wouldn't confuse the general <i>raison d'être</i> of the store. <i>End policy</i> and <i>executive limitation</i> are terms used under <i>Policy Governance</i>—a way of conducting board business that was adapted a few years ago. </p> <p> <b>[7]</b> Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011 </p> <p> <b>[8]</b> This package was purchased for $85; email from Abundance General Manager Jim DeLuca (1/27/11) </p> <p> <b>[9]</b> Emails from Abundance General Manager Jim DeLuca: January 27, 2011, February 3, 2011, March 23, 2011; face to face meeting with DeLuca and Marquez: April 15, 2011. The numbers on the plan are slightly skewed because DeLuca said he did not add his position to the list of eligible and ineligible positions. That's been corrected in this article. </p> <p> <b>[10]</b> The math: there are 21 total employees outside of management positions (8 employees are eligible for a living wage, 13 are not); part / total = y; y x 100 = % </p> <p> <b>[11]</b> Living Wage Plan DRAFT January 17, 2011 </p> <p> <b>[12]</b> Email from DeLuca (1/27/11) </p> <p> <b>[13]</b> Cutler, R. M., ed. 'On Cooperation', from <i>The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871</i>. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1992, p. 152. </p> <p> <b>[14]</b> Email from DeLuca (1/27/11)</p>

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/6295

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/6295

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan

An Abundance of Values Mired in Corporatization; A Look at the Living Wage Plan