*Anarcissie* <anarcissie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1186399528.121626.304710@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Aug 5, 2:50 pm, "brique" <briquen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Dan Clore <cl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> > news:5hl2j0F3l64qnU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > > brique wrote:
> > > > *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > >news:1186116498.790523.234240@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> On Aug 3, 12:26 am, "brique" <briquen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >>> Dan Clore <cl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>>> "Given the new ground that ROC-NY is trying to cover -- the
creation
> > > > of
> > > >>>> a worker cooperative-type restaurant -- it's hardly surprising
that
> > > >>>> there's conflict among the members of the co-op as this very
> > difficult
> > > >>>> model begins to take shape," Carroll said. "It's unfortunate
that
> > > >>>> litigation has to be the consequence of these unresolved
conflicts,
> > > >>>> because of the promise of what it's about . . . carving out a
new
> > > >>>> definition of who's an employer -- an employer who is an owner
but
> > > > also
> > > >>>> a worker, and there's a little bit of chaos inherent," he said.
> > > >>> Maybe they should have done a bit of research. In the UK the
> > Industrial
> > > >>> Common Owner****p Movement has several decades of experience in
this
> > > > field,
> > > >>> along with model constitutions, rules, etc. all of which have
been
put
> > > > into
> > > >>> practice with varying degrees of business success. And if anyone
is
> > > > worried
> > > >>> about such awful socialist liberalism..... the legislation was
passed
> > > > under
> > > >>> Thatchers rule, the sponsoring MP being none other than Norman
> > > > Tebbit.......
> >
> > > >> Americans are pretty carefully kept from knowing anything
> > > >> about anything but traditional authoritarian capitalist business
> > > >> models by both the schools and the media. You can see this
> > > >> on Usenet, where over the years dozens of people have
> > > >> informed me that there are no viable, functioning communes
> > > >> or coops. That may be changing now that anyone can look
> > > >> them up on the Internet, but it's changing pretty slowly.
> > > >> Consequently every cooperative effort starts from square 1,
> > > >> if not square zero.
> >
> > > > True, the best way to stop people looking for an alternative is to
first
> > > > convince them that none exist....
> >
> > > And there are two main ways of doing that: (1) simply ignore the
> > > alternative, as the mainstream media, schools, etc., generally do,
so
> > > that people never hear about it in the first place; (2) misrepresent
the
> > > alternative, so that people will believe untrue, negative things
about
> > > it, and therefore consider it too unattractive to be a real
alternative
> > > -- as we see here on Usenet, where efforts to form workers
cooperatives
> > > like the above misrepresented as attempts at totalitarian
state-communism.
> >
> > My experience of worker-co-ops ( formed under the ICOM rules I
mentioned
> > above) was that a surprising number of the participants ended up
behaving
> > like any 'normal' management structure. Oddly, or perhaps not, this
did
> > reflect the social background of the group, with those from
middle-class
> > backgrounds seemingly more willing to adopt labour division and
> > specialisation, guess who considered themselves best suited to
> > 'co-ordination' and 'office' duties, whilst those from working class
> > backgrounds found themselves often ignored when discussing finances,
future
> > plans, etc. Also noticable was a fairly strict, and over several
years,
> > growing, shopfloor/office demarcation, on one occasion enforced by
> > complaints about 'grubby shoes' messing up the new office carpeting
leading
> > to an effective ban on shopfloor workers even entering them.
> > The regular 'managment meetings' revealed a surprising number of
stitch-ups,
> > policies already discussed and decided upon by the 'office' side,
presented
> > as pretty much done and dusted to the shopfloor side. This probably
> > reflected the ease they had in discussing matters and access to the
relevant
> > information, etc whilst the shopfloor was so noisy ( it was a
printroom)
> > lip-reading was the norm for communication.
> > Far from leading to 'mass-murdering socialist totalitarianism' my view
was
> > that the impetus was towards behaving like any run of-the-mill
business,
it
> > was just the shareholder structure that was unusual.
> > Is this inevitable? No, but it did seem to be the 'easiest' course for
some,
> > merely adopting the same strategies for workplace advancement and
> > power-games and applying them in that work environment.
>
> Some cooperative organizations go to considerable trouble
> to elicit input from the whole group of participants. It seems
> necessary to go out of one's way to avoid the emergence of
> habitual domination by a minority who happen to be talented
> that way. I often think of that when people tell me about
> "democracy".
>
That is the theory, for sure. But, same as in 'democracy' your input
depends
on the data you recieve to make your decision and thus your input. There
also exists the same tendency amongst some to value certain inputs higher
than others whilst paying lip-service to equality. And, not least of all,
the tendency to know what is best for others, regardless of their
'inputs'......
As I said, I spoke from my personal experience in two such enterprises.
Conversations with others who worked in similar ventures here have not
contradicted that view to any great extent.
|
