This was a paper written during my MPhil Development Studies Course and first published in 2007. The full paper can be found below but you can also find it online as a Word Document or as a pdf.
Please also see the paper Power in Utopia? Analysis of two UK workersâ co-operatives through Steven Lukesâ three-dimensional lens which is the sister paper to this one. With my friend Rebecca Napier-Moore we interviewed workers together for our different papers
(Image source: Ian Cameron)
Are workersâ co-operatives schools of democracy? A case study of two UK workersâ co-operatives
Key Quotes
â[T]he individual worker must be regarded not simply as a âhand,â a decreasingly important adjunct to the industrial machine, but as a man among men, with rights and responsibilities, with a human soul and a desire for self-expression, self-government and personal freedom.â â G.D.H. Cole
âAs it happens, there are no columns in standard double-entry book-keeping to keep track of satisfaction and demoralization. There is no credit entry for feelings of self-worth and confidence, no debit column for feelings of uselessness and worthlessness. There are no monthly, quarterly, or even annual statements of pride and no closing statement of bankruptcy when the worker finally comes to feel that after all he couldnât do anything else, and doesnât deserve anything betterâ â Barbara Garson
âTo build cooperativism is not to do the opposite of capitalism, as if this system did not have any useful features⌠Cooperativism must surpass it, and for this purpose must assimilate its methods and dynamism.â â Father Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta Madariaga
âWe own it lock, stock, and barrelâŚIâm not working for that turkey in the office; heâs working for me. And when I go into that office and want some information, I demand it and get it!â â Worker in American Plywood Workersâ Cooperatives (cited in Greenberg 1986)
âWe hire the manager. Running the mill is up to him. If we donât like the way heâs running it, we can fire his butt.â â Worker in American Plywood Workersâ Cooperatives (cited in Greenberg 1986)
Introduction
There has been a recent resurgence of workersâ co-operatives, especially in Argentina (The Take 2004) and Venezuela (Five Factories 2006, Bowman et al. 2006), and interest in the subject has become widespread yet again after many such attempts during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as in Britain (Cole 1944, Greer 1955, Coates 2001), in Spain during the Spanish Revolution (Dolgoff 1974) and afterwards with the emergence of the Mondragon Co-operatives (Lux 1990: Chapter 10, Nairn 1984, Huet 2001) and with Workers Councils in Yugoslavia (Pateman 1970) as well as many others. In this paper, I briefly introduce the concept of workersâ co-operatives and the principles that guide them before attempting to ascertain whether, and to what extent, workersâ co-operatives are training grounds for democracy. Specifically, do workersâ co-operatives develop communal values and democratic capabilities as well as influencing the amount that workers participate in politics outside the workplace? By taking part in the democratic process in the workplace, do workers, as Bacrach et al. suggest, âacquire enough of a sense of political efficacy to prompt their taking an active part in local and national politicsâ? (Bachrach et al. 1992: 32)
Much emphasis has been put on âempowered participatory governanceâ, âdeepening democracyâ (Fung et al. 2003, Gaventa 2006), âinclusive citizenshipâ (Kabeer 2005) and âcreating, supporting, and strengthening civil societyâ (Carothers 1999, Howell et al. 2001) in the recent development and governance literature; however, if citizens are not socialised into democratic norms and practices in their day-to-day lives and workplaces, one must ask to what extent they will participate within existing governance systems or help to create more participatory systems themselves? There is surprisingly little focus on the workplace and its impact on democratic norms within recent development literature. In other fields, many theorists (1) believe that the work place provides the all-important arena for the educative effect of participation, for it is in work place that most citizens spend a large amount of their life. Outside the citizensâ relationship with government, the worker is involved to the greatest extent in relationships of superiority and subordination in the work place. Within that literature (see, for example, Pateman 1970), democratic participation in the workplace is often seen to be crucial to help workers transcend mere private interest and to expand their sympathies to include others as well as developing political competence and know how. For example, workersâ co-operatives are frequently seen to help develop financial management skills (e.g. working with budgets), skills related to meetings (facilitating, minute taking, working to agenda, consensus or voting methods), community organisation skills (working with and supporting local communities), knowledge about political systems that affect the workplace and co-operatives more generally, the self-confidence or ability to give opinions or assert rights, the ability to speak in public, the ability to work towards a common goal, as well as many other skills.
I have expanded upon the theory surrounding these questions, and have explored, through semi-structured interviews with people who work in workers co-operatives in the UK, to what extent these claims are true in practice. I have chosen, through case studies, to compare two workersâ co-operatives in the UK (Brixton Cycles and Magpie Recycling) not only for logistical purposes but also to try and keep as many external factors as constant as possible, such as the prevailing political context, to ensure that any comparison between them is consistent. This paper is also an attempt to look at how the modern day co-operative movement has survived since it initially began here with the ideas and practices of Robert Owen, Dr. William King and the Rochdale Pioneers as well as many others (Cole 1944, Zeuli et al. 2004). (2)
While there has been much work comparing the efficiency and profitability of workersâ co-operatives over non-co-operatives (3), relatively little work has been attempted on the questions of how citizensâ economic identities and activities affect their political identities and activities. This is partly due to the difficulty of ascertaining the effects of working in a workersâ co-operative on broader systems of democracy. However, after building on existing work (Pateman 1970, Greenberg 1986, Bachrach et al. 1992), an initial attempt has been achieved to extend the discussion to the UK. While this paper provides analysis of two case studies, it can not claim to provide final, definitive conclusions on this question due to the limitations of the research, but it is rather an interim study that is intended as an invitation to more thorough research on this important but neglected topic.
The paper begins by explaining what constitutes a workersâ co-operative, before moving on to the participatory democracy literature, specifically concentrating on those theorists who claim that workersâ co-operatives develop communal values and democratic capabilities which can then transcend into other spheres of activity, before looking at two case studies of workersâ co-operative in the UK in an attempt to test how much these claims hold up in practice.
What are workersâ co-operatives?
The Statement on the Cooperative Identity, agreed upon within the framework of the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), and incorporated in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendation 193/2002 (ILO 2003) on the Promotion of Cooperatives, defines a co-operative as:
âan 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.â (ICA 1995) (4)
There is a wide variety of different types of cooperatives, including worker, marketing, consumer, social, building, housing and banking cooperatives. As noted by Ivan Emelianoff, âthe diversity of cooperatives is kaleidoscopic and their variability is literally infiniteâ (cited in Zeuli et al. 2004: 1). Co-operatives exist in probably most â if not all â work sectors, including farming, retail, financial, funeral-care, utilities and transport. Indeed, according to the International Cooperative Alliance, over 800 million people are members of co-operatives around the world, which provide over 100 million jobs (ICA 2006). (5)
For the purposes of this paper, I focus solely on workersâ cooperatives in the UK, given the significant differences between them and conventional businesses as outlined below and in Annex 2. The number of people working within workersâ co-operatives are much smaller. In December 2005 it was estimated that there were approximately 390 worker owned and controlled co-operatives in the United Kingdom, 92 of which have started up since January 2003 and with a total of around 1,548 members (Co-operatives UK 2005) (6). Unlike in Spain or Italy, they play a much smaller part in the overall economy (Ammirato 1996: 31). (7)
There are many definitions as to what qualifies as a workersâ co-operative. For example, the International Organisation of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producersâ Cooperatives (CICOPA) gives an 8-page definition in their World Declaration on Workersâ Cooperatives, which was approved by the ICA General Assembly in September 2005. For the purpose of brevity I only reproduce the section on the basic characteristics of workersâ co-operatives (8):
- They have the objective of creating and maintaining sustainable jobs and generating wealth, in order to improve the quality of life of the worker-members, dignify human work, allow workersâ democratic self-management and promote community and local development.
- The free and voluntary membership of their members, in order to contribute with their personal work and economic resources, is conditioned by the existence of workplaces.
- As a general rule, work shall be carried out by the members. This implies that the majority of the workers in a given worker cooperative enterprise are members and vice versa.
- The worker-membersâ relation with their cooperative shall be considered as different to that of conventional wage-based labour and to that of autonomous individual work.
- Their internal regulation is formally defined by regimes that are democratically agreed upon and accepted by the worker-members.
- They shall be autonomous and independent, before the State and third parties, in their labour relations and management, and in the usage and management of the means of production. (CICOPA 2005) (9)
Many workersâ co-operatives also follow the Rochdale Principles and values, which are a set of core principles for the operation of cooperatives. They were first set out by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers in Rochdale, England, in 1844 and have formed the basis for the principles on which co-operatives around the world operate to this day. These principles were last updated in 1995 by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) and are reproduced in Annex 1.(10)
Ultimately, there is no universally accepted definition of a workersâ co-operative. However, for the purposes of this paper, they can be considered to be businesses that make a product, or offer a service, to sell for profit where the workers are members or worker-owners. They work in the business, govern it and manage it. Unlike with conventional firms, ownership and decision-making power of a worker cooperative should be vested solely with the worker-owners on an equal basis and ultimate authority rests with the worker-owners as a whole. Moreover, worker-owners control the resources of the cooperative and the work process (e.g. wages, hours of work). As mentioned above, the majority â if not all â of the workers in a given worker cooperative enterprise should be worker-owners, although some casual or wage workers may be employed with whom profits and decision making are not necessarily shared equally. Workers also often undergo a trial or screening period (such as three or six months) before being allowed to have full voting powers (11). Participation is based on one vote per owner, regardless of the amount of shares or equity owned by each owner. Voting rights are not tied to investment or patronage in the workersâ co-operative, and only worker-owners can vote on decisions that affect them.
As noted by theorists and practitioners alike, the importance of capital should be subordinated to labour in workersâ co-operatives. Indeed, Adams et al. see workersâ cooperatives as âlabor-istâ rather than âcapital-istâ:
âLabor is the hiring factor, therefore the voting and property rights are assigned to the people who do the work and not to capital, even though the worker-members supply capital through membership fees and retained earningsâŚAny profit or loss after normal operating expenses is assigned to members on the basis of their labor contribution.â (Adams et al 1993: 29)
Workersâ co-operatives have often been seen as an alternative or âthird wayâ to the domination of labour by either capital or the state (see Annex 2 for a comparison). Indeed, the present or modern form of worker co-operative was originally sparked by âcritical reaction to industrial capitalism and the excesses of the industrial revolution.â (Adams et al 1993: 11) The formation of some workers co-operatives, such as those by the Knights of Labour in 19th century America, were designed to âcope with the evils of unbridled capitalism and the insecurities of wage laborâ (Adams et al 1993: 16).
In short, workersâ co-operatives are organised to serve the needs of worker-owners by generating benefits (which may or may not be profits) for the worker owners rather than returns to (often external) investors with capital. This worker-driven orientation makes them fundamentally different from other corporations. Additional cooperative structural characteristics and guiding principles further distinguish them from other business models. For example, worker-owners may not believe that profit maximisation is the best, or only, goal for their co-operative or they may follow the Rochdale Principles.
Profits earned by the workerâs co-operative (or losses) are shared by worker owners. Salaries generally have a low ratio difference which ideally should be âguided by principles of proportionality, external solidarity and internal solidarityâ (Adams et al. 1993: 36) (such as a two to one ratio between lowest and highest earner), and often are equal for all workers. Salaries can be calculated according to skill, seniority or time worked and can be raised or lowered in good times or bad to ensure job security.
Worker control can be exercised directly or indirectly by worker-owners. If exercised indirectly, members of representative decision-making bodies (e.g. a Board of Directors) must be elected by the worker-owners (who in turn hire the management) and be subject to removal by the worker-owners (for an example of such a structure, see Annex 3). If exercised directly, all members meet regularly to make â and vote on â decisions on how the co-operative is run (sometimes a consensus decision making model is used for these meetings â see Radical Routes 2006a: 28-29). Direct worker control ensures a formally flat management structure rather than a hierarchical one.
Under UK law there is no special legal structure for a âco-operativeâ (Radical Routes 2006a). As noted by Catalyst Collective, an organisation which helps set up and register co-operatives in the UK, âCo-ops are registered under either the Company Acts, or the Industrial & Provident Societies Acts (IPS)â (Catalyst Collective 2006). A number of model rules have been devised to enable co-ops to register under both acts; for workerâs co-ops, these rules restrict membership to those who are employed by the workplace (12). According to Radical Routes, â[m]ost [workersâ] co-operatives are incorporated bodiesâ which limits the liability if it fails and goes into liquidation (Radical Routes 2006a: p.6) (13)
As mentioned, I am purely concentrating on workersâ co-operatives. Although I recognise that a lot of the above mechanisms exist to varying degrees across different workplaces (e.g. some degree of participation in management decisions), I have decided to focus only on workersâ co-operatives due to the significant differences outlined above between them and conventional businesses.
The work place and Participatory Democracy Theory
The advocacy of workplace democracy, in particular with the fullest expression of worker self-management, such as within workersâ co-operatives, is rooted within three intellectual or political traditions: that literature addressing the problem of alienation in the workplace and its alleviation, especially in regard to Marxist thought; that which is concerned with the encouragement of participatory democracy; and that which has searched for radical but popular-democratic strategies for the overthrow of capitalism, for example, several strains of anarchist thought. (14) (15)
This paper only expands on the participatory democracy literature. By participatory democracy, I refer to the tradition rooted in Greek forms of direct democracy (rather than the tradition of liberal representative democracy), which was later picked up by theorists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and more recently by Carole Pateman, Archon Fung, Erik Olin Wright, John Gaventa and others.
Within that literature, I focus on the impacts that workersâ co-operatives have on workersâ communal values, democratic capabilities as well as their participation in politics outside of the workplace. When discussing participation in âpoliticsâ outside of the workplace, I will use two definitions which are frequently used to describe politics, and will be analysing if people who work within workersâ co-operatives participate more or less in narrow and broad forms of politics:
- Narrow politics â a range of actions and thinking that people undertake in relation to the state and to the actors and institutions of government (e.g. voting, party membership, taking part in meetings for elections, individually or collectively lobbying politicians, group demonstrations which protest â or celebrate â government action).
- Broad politics â This includes everything within the definition of ânarrow politicsâ as well as including non-state orientated pursuits of power or influence. For example, this can include making statements and expressing identities, such as in gay pride marches, instead of only trying to achieve precise policy objectives through the state. Other examples include boycotts, giving money to charity, recycling, helping to set up or support other co-operatives as well as disputes over pieces of local land in developing countries where no government agency is involved. (16)
Many participatory democracy theorists (Pateman 1970, Greenberg 1986, Bachrach 1992) see workersâ co-operatives (or self management in the workplace) as necessary for the enrichment of democratic citizenship or as a vehicle for teaching those skills, attitudes, and behaviours most appropriate to a fully democratic society. Through the practice of democratic social relations and ownership at places of work, it is suggested, people gain the confidence, knowledge, and perspectives that enable them to be effective citizens at local and national levels. The more they are involved in participatory forms, the more imbued they become with citizenship or democratic attributes. Furthermore, the experience of direct participation in workplace decision making helps people to transcend mere private interest and to expand their sympathies to include others. In the practice of democratic decision-making at the workplace, it is argued that individuals come to learn to reconcile their self-interest with the group and/or public interest.
One of the goals within the participatory democracy literature is to develop and sustain more substantive and empowered citizen participation in the political process than what is normally found in liberal representative democracy (Gaventa 2006: 7) so that people can better represent themselves in the political arena and hold those in power to account. Carole Pateman, in her book Participation and Democratic Theory, puts this issue very convincingly:
âThe theory of participatory democracy is built round the central assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in isolation from one another. The existence of representative institutions at the national level is not sufficient for democracy; for maximum participation by all the people of that level, socialization, or âsocial training,â for democracy must take place in other spheres in order that the necessary individual attitudes and psychological qualities can be developed. This development takes place through the process of participation itself. The major function of participation in the theory of participatory democracy is therefore an educative one, educative in the very widest sense, including both the psychological aspect and the gaining of practice in democratic skills and proceduresâ (Pateman 1970: 42).
While advocates of participatory democracy often emphasise the democratisation of all spheres of life (17) to ensure the maximum socialisation of citizens for democracy, I have chosen to look at the literature on how workersâ co-operatives affect the communal values and democratic capabilities of workers, because it is there that citizens spend a large amount of their life. Outside the citizens relationship with government, the individual is involved to the greatest extent in relationships of superiority and subordination in the work place. These organisations also provide a chance to study some of the âhighest ideals of democracyâ (Adams et al. 1993: xviii) in practice, as well as how, and if, these democratic ideals in the economic sphere transcend into the political sphere.
These theories can be seen to be especially relevant for poorer people and groups which have long faced social exclusion, because their socio-economic and political situations often impedes their ability to share in the benefits of democracy or democratisation. As Jim Manor points out, the least well off tend strongly to be:
- the least confident;
- the least well organised;
- the least capable of articulating their concerns;
- the least knowledgeable about the political and policy processes;
- the least able to gain access to those two processes, to benefits that flow from them, and to public services and legal protection;
- the least skilled at exerting influence over those two processes;
- the least well connected (with one another and with influential people); and
- the least independent of larger economic forces (Manor 2004: 5) (18)
While many of the formal structures of representative democracy exist in the UK (a constitution (albeit âuncodified and eclecticâ (Moran 2005: 71)), a differentiated party structure, and periodic acts of choice, between parties, by an electorate for elections to legislatures), participation in many of the realms of narrow politics has been decreasing over the last few decades (Power Inquiry 2006). If the promises of workplace democracy on political participation are true, then not only could disadvantaged groups acquire the values, democratic capabilities and confidence to begin to compete with prosperous interests who possess these things in abundance from the start (Manor 2004) but overall political participation could increase from all sectors of society.
Communal values and self-development
Participatory democracy theorists, such as Bachrach et al., emphasise the âdevelopmental and educational role thatâŚparticipation plays in the cultivations of oneâs most fulfilled self.â (Bacrach et al. 1992: 10) (19). Authors such as Greenberg, even state that for the traditional theorists of democracy, participation is the âthe principle social process by which human beings, practicing the arts of self-direction, cooperation, and responsibility, liberate their capacities and thereby become whole, healthy, and integrated personsâ (Greenberg 1986: 19). Both authors see participation in the workplace as integral to the process of personal growth and self-development. This self-development is seen to not only develop workersâ internal selves but also has the potential âfor expanding their self-interest to encompass an identification with and a commitment to the well-being of othersâ (Bacrach et al. 1992: 21).
Unlike in many conventional companies, where workers can be alienated, try to âget one over each otherâ as well as trying to do as little work possible because there is little incentive, apart from the threat of being fired, to work hard and/or together, it is suggested that when workers acquire a stake in the governance and ownership of the workplace, they become less cynical about how the workplace is run and more willing to work together. The workersâ self-interest, due to the structure and dynamics of the workplace, expands to âencompass an identification with and a commitment to the well-being of others.â
Bachrach et al. do nevertheless recognise criticisms of this theory. For example, they point out that the very meaning of âself developmentâ of the worker:
âgets diluted given the complexities of the human condition and the wide differences in disposition, attitude, values, and outlook among individuals. Moreover, the participationists must know that the participatory experience can have a psychologically dysfunctional effect, since it can feed the egocentric traits of some and demean others who feel shy and inadequate. Finally, we cannot lose sight of those whose self-esteem is enhanced precisely by their systematic rejection of democratic values in their struggle for personal gain and power.â â (Bacrach et al. 1992: 29)
However, overall, the above authors feel that democratic participatory experience usually fosters participantsâ self-development and promotes communal values, which âleads to a sense of solidarity and individual well-beingâ (Bacrach et al. 1992: 30) within the workplace.
They theorise that this democratic participatory experience nurtures and heightens the groupâs identity though dialogue and interaction with others, as well as leading to a new sense of self or âself-interestâ for the individual. This process is also said to be heightened by the fact that the workers own the workersâ co-operative and thus all have more vested interest and power in working together, both as a group and individually. In essence, communal values and the groups interest becomes a more embedded part of the self-interest of the worker.
Democratic capabilities
Workers not only have a shift in attitude or in the way they consider their âself-interestâ, which are slightly nebulous concepts, but workersâ co-operatives can also contribute to political participation in more concrete ways. Workers, who can be alienated from political parties or other forms of politics, may gain the skills at the workplace which are conducive for both broad and narrow political participation. Workersâ co-operatives can provide hands-on organisational and management training as well as developing workers âleadership and problem solving skills and [the] confidence in their ability to help themselvesâ (Zeuli et al. 2004: 77) â skills which are transferable to other domains, including political spheres. As Adams et al. outlines:
âWith the worker-owned firm itself, democracy encourages leadership and skill development. Workers â often for the first time in their working lives â have an opportunity to participate in a broad array of economic and managerial responsibilities. From shop floor to the board room, workers can be their own bosses.â (Adams et al. 1993: 9)
Even the International Labour Organisation, with the passing of Recommendation 193 on the Promotion of Cooperatives, acknowledged that âcooperatives in their various forms promote the fullest participation in the economic and social development of all people.â (ILO 2002) This is especially the case because within the co-operative movement there is a large emphasis on education (see, for example, the 5th Rochdale principle). Workers sometimes receive training in basic management and economic skills, as well as rotating jobs and responsibilities within workersâ co-operatives. Where a relative scarcity of certain skills occurs, the self-managing process can lead to training or retraining of worker-owners to overcome such scarcity and this further contributes to the training and educational process.
The idea, at least on paper within the co-operative movement, is to also teach new workers the basic values, knowledge, and skills relating to co-operatives and the co-operative movement, with the objective of those workers understanding how co-operatives work, embracing the way co-operatives are run, and becoming participatory workers within the workplace. As noted by Zeuli et al.:
âCooperatives are democracies and as such depend on the active participation of all constituents. Therefore, the most important obligation of cooperative members is participation in the governance of the cooperative. In practice, this means they need to: keep informed about the cooperativeâŚ, attend cooperative meetings, and take their turn at committee and board service [if it is an indirect workersâ co-operative]â (Zeuli et al. 2004: 49)
This hands on and long-term instruction of democratic principles in the workplace is very different to much teaching of democracy. As pointed out by Carothers:
âThe experience of many civic education efforts points to one clear lesson: short-term formal instruction on democracy that presents the subject as a set of general principles and processes generally has little effect on participants. Such information is too abstract and usually too removed from the daily lives of most people.â (Carothers 1999: 232)
In workersâ co-operatives they are not just taught abstract ideals of democracy, but get to practice and learn about them within the workplace itself. Instead of democracy promoters trying to sell the concept of democracy to people who may already disillusioned with the liberal representative democratic system that exists, the art of practising it in the workplace, it is suggested, helps to cement democratic ideals within the workers. This resonates with many participatory democracy advocates who emphasise that learning a democratic participative ethos can only take place through the experience of participation in democratic decision making itself. Indeed, if true, workersâ co-operatives could help overcome the paradox of participatory democracy which states that âalthough participation in democracies helps people increase their capacities, those who have not yet had the experience of participation will sometimes not have the sufficient capacity to bring off a successful democracy. What they need is precisely what, because of their need, they cannot get.â (Mansbridge in Fung et al. 2003: 177) Workersâ co-operatives, it is suggested, help to develop these very same democratic capacities or capabilities. As outlined above, this is especially relevant for poor and poorly educated citizens who have little experience of political participation.
Below I outline a preliminary list of democratic capabilities which could be gained or enhanced through working in a workersâ co-operative:
- Workers become better able to organise and run meetings, which includes:
- Learning how to operate consensus and other decision making models (e.g. majority voting)
- Ability to facilitate meeting, such as trying to get all worker-owners to speak and/or trying to get different perspectives raised
- Ability to minute meetings
- Ability to work to â and contribute to â an agenda
- Workers self-confidence improves as well as their communication and arguing skills, which means they are:
- Better able to speak in public meetings
- Better able to formulate arguments
- Better able to more informed decisions within the workplace
- Better able to respond to arguments made against them by other members
- Workers become more able to understand and work to a budget
- Workers become more able to read and write official documents
- Workers become more able work together towards a common goal, which includes:
- Respecting other workers knowledge as well as increasing the empathy, caring or solidarity for others within the workplace.
- Increasing ability of workers to work together
Some, but not all (due to logistical reasons), of these factors are tested in the interviews (see Annex 4) and are expanded upon below in the case studies.
Participation in politics outside of the workplace
Perhaps one of the most famous advocates of work-place democracy is G.D.H. Cole, who believed that democratic participation in the workplace was crucial to socialise people into participating in political spheres outside of the workplace. Cole suggested that the majority of workers are trained to subservience, and that this training largely takes place during the course of their daily work. Cole goes even further by acknowledging what he calls the paradox of modern democracy:
âWhy are the many nominally supreme but actually powerless? Largely because the circumstances of their lives do not accustom or fit them for power of responsibility. A servile system inevitably reflects itself in political servility. Only if the individual could become self governing in the workplace, could this training for servility be turned into training for democracy, and the individual gain the necessary democratic character for an effective system of large scale democracy.â (Cole 1918: 35).
Cole outlines how repetitive and alienating workplaces, where the majority of workers have little to no say over how the workplace is run, inevitably leads to âpolitical servilityâ because workers are socialised into taking orders and not challenging figures of authority. According to Cole, only if the individual could become self-governing in the workplace could this training for servility be turned into training for democracy and the individual gain the familiarity with the democratic procedures, and develop the necessary âdemocratic characterâ for an effective system of participatory democracy. The intense horizontal interactions in workersâ co-operatives, the increase in responsibility and ownership as well as the incentives to work together (such as shared profits) help shift peoplesâ thinking to be more co-operative. This reduces the apathy, alienation and cynicism that is so often prevalent in many workplaces and, Cole would suggest, makes it a much more empowering environment.
Theorists such as Bachrach et al. go further when they suggest that:
âWorkers who take up the struggle for workplace democracy could be expected to experience a comparable enlargement as a result of participatory politics. As they gain experience in the democratic process, workers acquire an appreciation of democracy in the context of their own lives. By taking part in the democratic process, workersâŚmay also acquire enough of a sense of political efficacy to prompt their taking an active part in local and national politics.â (Bacrach 1992: 31)
Bachrach and Coleâs theories both suggest, although not always explicitly, that some form of conscietisation (Freire 1996, Gaventa 1980: 18) occurs within workersâ co-operatives which helps workers become more aware of the social, economic and political contexts which they exist within, and which in turn encourages political participation outside of the workplace. This is unlike groups which âcannot articulate their interests or perceive social conflict. Since they have been socialized into compliance, so to speak, they accept the definitions of political reality as offered by dominant groups, classes or government institutions.â (Mueller 1973:9 cited in Gaventa 1980:18) It is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper to expand on theories of conscietisation, although some of the case studies below touch upon it. However, the core argument of whether workers within workersâ co-operatives participate more in broad and narrow forms of politics outside of the workplace, is explored in the case studies below.
Case Studies
Measuring the impact of workersâ co-operatives on workersâ communal values, democratic capabilities and political participation outside of the workplace is difficult. It requires methods which can elicit the perceptions of workers as well as attempting to attribute causality. This is especially problematic because workersâ have tacit knowledge, official knowledge and actual experience. Or, in other words, what workers say, what they do not say and what they do are often very different. There are also underlying ideas, values and norms which workers think with or through (Schumacher 1973: 63-64) which determine their behaviour and which are often tricky to reveal. Therefore, we must bear in mind that it was very difficult to determine how open and honest workers answers were as well as if the workers interviewed tried to second guess what the interviewer wanted to hear.
Before continuing, we must also recognise the multi-dimensionality of workers, the plurality of their identities (for example, they can be radical in one dimension and conservative in another) and the coexistence of contradictory motives and interests. Thus, workers on the one hand may strive for profits but also have a social conscience that is nurtured for the âpublic goodâ. All of these different factors can also change over time. Also, some of those who had worked at the co-operatives for longer periods of time found it more difficult to differentiate the impacts of the co-operative on them than those who had worked there for a shorter period of time.
Questionnaires often make it difficult to attribute causality as well as often overemphasising quantitative data when some crucial changes within people can only be understood through qualitative analysis (such as the changes in workersâ self-confidence). Therefore, instead of empirical research, I have chosen to conduct semi-structured interviews with clear, specific and neutral before and after questions (see Annex 4 for a list of the questions used) about workersâ communal values, democratic capabilities and political participation before and after joining the workersâ co-operative. The questions used were neutral, so respondents could speak of damaging outcomes as well as positive ones. One-to-one interviews were also used to ensure that certain workers were not intimidated or remained silent within, for example, focus groups. When certain responses indicated important changes within workers, subsidiary questions were asked to elicit specific details and examples. Patterns were discerned from all of the responses to indicate the changes within workers since joining the workersâ co-operative. While more thorough research methods, such as immersions or participant observation, would be needed to explore these issues further, the semi-structured interviews gave initial patterns and indicators. One worker within a workplace was also selected to help explain how the co-operative works in detail.
These methods helped to reveal the nuances of peoples behaviour and perceptions as well as showing the crucial changes of workers behaviour over time. They also helped the interviewer grasp the changing political contexts and dynamics within which workers operate.
In preparation for the paper, I attended a national meeting of UK co-operatives organised by Radical Routes on the 10th February 2007, to discuss co-operatives and test the ideas present in this paper with members and ex-members of various workersâ co-operatives. The semi-structured questions developed were also piloted on two students who have had experience with workersâ co-operatives as well as with members of two other workersâ co-operatives. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed to ensure that all quotations of workers were exact.
The workersâ co-operatives chosen
Two workersâ co-operatives were chosen to be studied. One a recycling company, Magpie, based in Brighton, and the other, a bicycle shop named âBrixton Cyclesâ in Brixton, London (see Annex 5 for full details of each). These two workersâ co-operatives were chosen because they were both relatively small as well as being situated within the south east of the UK with similar socio-economic contexts. According to Ammirato, although outdated, the average UK workersâ co-operatives has only 4 workers, whereas within Mondragon the average is 304 workers (Ammirato 1996: 31). The workersâ co-operatives chosen were slightly different in size, but given logistical restraints (such as many co-operatives being too busy to be interviewed) they were the ones which were finally chosen. They were also comparable case studies because they both had broad environmental agendas (one promotes cycling, the other promotes recycling).
Unfortunately, I have not been able to look at â or define â a âconventionalâ business as a control due to time and resource constraints (see Annex 2 for an initial comparison), so any results found should be taken as initial indicators rather than a comprehensive study of the effects of different types of workplaces and organisations on political participation.
Who was interviewed?
Four workers from both Brixton Cycles and Magpie were interviewed. A diversity of workers were intentionally chosen. At each co-operative, it was ensured that at least one worker from each of the following categories was interviewed (all workers fell under more than one of the categories):
- Workers who had worked at the co-operative for long and short periods of time
- Part-time and full-time workers
- Managers and non-managers (not applicable for Brixton Cycles)
- Workers with information related jobs (e.g. accounts) and workers with more physical jobs (e.g. waste collection)
- Older workers and younger workers
- Male and female workers
Communal Values
It was clear that both co-operatives promoted communal values. As one Brixton Cycles worker stated:
âIt is the collective decision makingâŚit leads to a sense of shared responsibility and camaraderie.â
Another worker within Brixton Cycles stated:
âIf you donât pull your weight and do stuff then youâre only screwing yourselfâŚItâs in our own self-interest to communicate and be niceâŚwe kind of love each other but we might irritate each other at timesâŚItâs more than the sum of itâs parts it has an energyâŚthe whole thing is built on trust and respect. But we also have a laugh.â
A worker within Magpie made a similar point:
âIâve gainedâŚbecause itâs not like going into work and being a number. It is a very much community feel. Working within that kind of atmosphere, I suppose Iâve gained from that.â
They continued by stating:
âI like sort of belonging. Being a Magpie worker thereâs a real sort of solidarity because some of the work is quite nasty, especially in the winter when your out and dealing with peopleâs trash. But thereâs a real feeling of solidarity, so thatâs goodâŚWeâre all in this togetherâ
Phrases such as âsolidarityâ, âsupportâ, âcommunityâ, âshared responsibilityâ, âbeing appreciated for what you doâ were often mentioned by workers in relation to both co-operatives. Indeed, one worker from each co-operative told me that they had decided against working elsewhere, even when they had been offered higher salaries, because other workplaces would not have the same community values.
All workers said that working in co-operatives was different to other types of workplaces. As one Brixton Cycles worker succinctly put it:
âI donât like working for someone, I like working with people. And what I do has made an incredible differenceâŚI just respond better to being part of somethingâŚit is getting recognition about what you do and being an important part and just feeling valued for that. But also caring about what I do, whereas when I ended up working for people I ended up more disassociated and I donât care so much.â
While it was very clear that the workersâ co-operatives helped develop communal values within the workplace, it was not as clear how much these communal values extended beyond the workplace. Do these communal values stay âconsumed in the bubbleâ as one Magpie worker put it, or do workersâ self-interest expand to include citizens outside of the workplace ? A few workers within both workplaces seemed to think that it did extend beyond the workplace. When asked if working in the co-operative had shifted their way of thinking in any way, one worker at Brixton Cycles responded:
âAbsolutely, absolutely. I think that if you work in a bog standard pyramid management structure, thereâs a very obvious boss and worker system. Then you project that into the rest of your life, and your life is probably less co-operative, probably less empathetic. There is probably less understanding. Youâre probably more likely market driven about what you have, what you do, rather than about your community, your family, your neighbours.â
Another worker within Brixton Cycles even stated that:
âSometimes Iâll be at home and people will be having a bit of an argument and I just bring in a bit of the co-op thing and say, âoh lets have a meetingâ.
While one Magpie worker stated:
âOverall it sort of makes me a more relaxed and happy person because I do love my job. And, thatâs probably affected the way I am with my house mates or other people around me. I just get a buzz of what I do. Sometimes I get carried away and donât even take a lunch break. Because I do like working here.â
It was clear that communal values were strong in both workplaces, however it was not possible to determine to what extent these values extended beyond the workplace. Although more thorough research would have to be carried out to determine this, the answers given above give an initial indication that working in a workersâ co-operative do affect these values outside of the workplace.
Also, the question of what extent the size of the co-operatives affected the communal values was not explored. As one worker stated within Brixton Cycles, âbecause weâre still small we can be compassionate to each other.â More research would have to carried out to determine the effects of size on communal values.
Democratic capabilities
It was very clear that workers in both co-operatives gained democratic capabilities. As one worker in Magpie put it:
âYou arenât taught about democracy at school and when you try and make it work at work, and people coming into it not knowing how it works, itâs best to sort of know by getting involved andâŚasking more questions and treating it like it is yours. But itâs really hard. People need to be taught about democracy and we try and do that at work. Because people come in here and think âitâs really cool to work for MagpieââŚbut you have to come to meetings and itâs good if you participate.â
When asked, all of the workers said that since working at their workersâ co-operative they had improved their ability to speak in public, to compromise and see other peoples perspectives, to better argue their case and also in the amount of self-confidence they felt about themselves. The extent to which this occurred varied with each individual worker, but there was a clear pattern that it did exist to some degree for all workers interviewed.
For example, when asked if they could argue their case better since joining the workersâ co-operative, one Brixton worker said:
âWhen I first started I wouldnât say anything at a meeting. I was really shy, not very confident, that kind of stuff. Now that Iâve been working here for a few yearsâŚitâs much easier to express my ideas.â
And when asked if they could argue their case better they replied:
âMaybe a bit more. Not so much shouting. Iâm definitely a bit more clearer about what I want. I wont come into a meeting and just say something. I know beforehand what Iâm going to say.â
Another Brixton Cycles worker made a similar comment:
âWhen I first started working at the co-op I was so shy and found it so difficult to talk when we first had meetingsâŚit was so scary to speak in front of people and I think that just having to do it every week, not necessarily that I would have to say something, gave me the confidence as well as learning a skill and making a difference. All those things I think made it for me personallyâŚit has supported me in being more involved and being more confidentâŚwe have to look to each other. I think thatâs always part of me but to have that in your daily workâŚit must have an effect.â [my emphasis]
Similar statements were also made in Magpie:
âI am more prepared from being here because there have been meetings where itâs made me more willing to talk things through. I would definitely say that from being here itâs done that. Because at meetings here I had to stop being so complicit about things and putting myself forward.â
Increasing workers ability to compromise was also very clear. As two different workers within Brixton Cycles responded when asked if they had gained an ability to compromise or see other peoples perspectives since working in the co-operative:
âyeah Iâm definitely better at doing that. You kind of have to beâŚItâs not just about you, itâs about the bigger picture and everyoneâs ideas and making it work for everyoneâ
âThere are a lot of different perspectives and you have to learn to understand why different people do things differently.â
In terms of learning skills related to meetings, such as facilitating and minute-taking, it was clearer within Brixton cycles that all workers gained these skills. This is due to facilitating and minute-taking roles being consistently rotated within Brixton Cycles, whereas the same workers within Magpie almost always did them. Meetings were also more regular at Brixton Cycles than at Magpie. However, within both workplaces, it was clear that workers gained understanding about how consensus and majority voting works as well as learning how a democratic work place operates first hand.
When asked about general and financial management skills, workers from both co-operatives (but especially Brixton Cycles) frequently responded that instead of learning to manage other people, they had learnt to better manage their own time and work. For example, when asked if they had improved their general management skills, one workers within Brixton Cycles stated that:
âYes Iâm sure I have, but itâs not neatly defined. I manage my workload in a timescale, I am able to present the information that I work with to my colleaguesâŚand I think we people manage ourselves.â
However, unlike Brixton Cycles which has no managers, Magpie has one for each department. The management skills learnt by managers within Magpie were different from conventional companies:
âyeah, I had to learnâŚmanaging a co-op is different to managing elsewhere âŚI was working in IT software under a managerâŚI learnt working under him how to deal with people on a work basis. But when it comes to a co-op you can never demand something of somebodyâŚitâs always that we agree to do this. And as a manager Iâve been tasked with making sure that all resources are there to get the job done effectively so to stress to do it this wayâŚbut itâs different.â
Managers had to learn to manage in a much more co-operative manner.
In terms of finance, the workers who dealt with financial matters on a daily basis inevitably learnt gained more skills in this area than other workers. Although almost all of the jobs within Brixton Cycles were rotated, the accountancy position was not due to logistical reasons. Similarly, within Magpie, only a few workers were allocated to deal with financial matters. However, as financial decisions were made collectively in meetings by all workers in both workplaces, even those not involved in a day to day basis, had to discuss and sometimes vote on financial matters. One worker in Brixton Cycles went as far as to say that:
âIâm more careful with the co-operatives finances than I am with my own.â
Workers within both workplaces had to learn to discuss and vote on financial matters within meetings.
To summarise this section, the workersâ co-operatives analysed undoubtedly helped develop a whole range of democratic capabilities. Indeed, the structure of these workersâ co-operatives seem to make this inevitable. However, these democratic capabilities were further enhanced in Brixton Cycles because roles such as minute-taker and facilitator were consistently rotated as well as meetings being more regular. Also, all jobs, apart from the accountancy position, were formally rotated within Brixton Cycles, whereas much less rotation occurred within Magpie. The more jobs were rotated, the more workers were able to make informed decisions about a variety of areas within the workplace. Finally, although all workers had to discuss and vote on financial matters, those who did not deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis were at a definite disadvantage within meetings when matters of finance were raised. To further enhance the development of these democratic capabilities, more rotation should be explored within both workplaces (as suggested, for example, by Burrows 2003 and Albert 2003).
Political participation outside the workplace
The extent to which workersâ co-operatives affect political participation outside of the workplace was extremely hard to determine. This was especially problematic because many citizens only associate the word âpoliticsâ with narrow conceptions of politics and the negative associations that they have with it. Bearing this in mind, I intentionally did not mention the word âpoliticsâ in all but one question near the end of the interview. Indeed, when asked âDo you consider yourself to have become more or less politically active since joining the co-operative?â near the end of the interview, two interviewees responded negatively because they thought of politics only in terms of narrow politics, such as being involved with political parties or voting. For example, one worker within Magpie responded in the following manner:
âNo, I just donât like politics. I mean, for what they stand for really. Co-operatives are not a perfect word. I mean, campaigning for change, yes. And pushing for change. But thatâs through saying and showing there is a different way of doing things. That there is a different way of making money. That there is a different way of dealing with the cities waste. That there are different ways of treating citizens or human beings than animalsâŚto undermine decent society, absolutely. Change yes, but through politics no.â
One the other side, a few workers did consider themselves to be more politically active since joining the co-operative with one Brixton worker even noting that âthe personal is politicalâ. As another Brixton Cycles worker answered:
âI think itâs had a massive influence. Less shouting and less pointing and more thinkingâŚI think that it is very easy to just have a knee jerk reaction to world events. Itâs much harder to take on board your inputs and your responsibilities for themâŚYou are hard wired [by working in a co-op] to think about your position rather than to always blame.â
Even if a few of the workers interviewed do not consider themselves more âpolitically activeâ since joining the workersâ co-operative, many of the answers that all of the interviewees gave implied that they in fact had become more political in certain areas, especially if you include broader definitions of politics. As Venekalsen et al. note, âAll social relationships and dynamics are political, from the home to the corridors of governmentâ (Veneklasen et al. 2002: 12).
Co-operatives and âanti-politics politicsâ
One worker within Magpie described working within the co-operative itself as âanti-politics politicsâ and almost all of the workers interviewed considered working within their co-operative as some form of positive alternative to conventional companies or to show âthere is a different way of doing things.â Working within the co-operative was considered political in itself.
In terms of supporting other co-operatives, one Magpie worker was very adamant that they had helped many co-operatives:
âyeahâŚwe always do. We always have done. Real food direct was part of here, we helped that. Brighton composting centre, I spoke to Jon when he started. We just talk and are always happy to help out. And Greendragon bookshop, we spoke to them. Itâs part of the principles of being a co-operative that weâre supposed toâŚ.itâs in our legal documents, so itâs signed. Itâs legally bound really but Iâd do it anyway.â
Indeed, the sixth Rochdale principle encourages co-operation among co-operatives, specifically to âstrengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.â (ICA: 1995)
As noted by Adams et al, âWhen set in policy [the Rochdale Principles] through company by-laws, they become the principles of governance and decision-making, guides for both organizational and individual behavior, as well as the norms operating in the workplace. (Adams et al. 1993: 26)
Within Brixton Cycles all of the workers interviewed said that they had helped set up up or support other co-operatives and âother businesses with the same kind of ethosâ in one way or another. Within Magpie, only the one worker mentioned above, who had been at the co-operative for the longest out of all interviewed, said that they had helped set up or support other co-operatives. Another worker within Magpie, when asked, stated that although they hadnât helped other workersâ co-operatives, they had helped support other co-operative structures:
âItâs not something that Iâve personally been involved with, although the eco-village collective thing that Iâve been involved inâŚIâve been able to input quite a bit into that about structure andâŚgeneral kind of working together kind of stuff.â
This difference between Magpie and Brixton Cycles, which I will not expand upon here, could be due to any number of factors, such as size of the co-operative, the regularity of meetings, the amount of people who approach each co-operative for help, etc. Although not all workers interviewed within Magpie had helped other co-operatives, all workers gave the impression that if they were asked they would be more than happy to help.
Awareness of government programmes and spaces to discuss them
Within Brixton Cycles, all workers said that to some degree they had become more aware of how the local council worked and which government projects or programmes were supposed to reach their locality. Three of the Brixton Cycles workers gave the fact that there was more space to talk to customers as one of the main reasons for this. For example:
âThere is a lot more social interaction in the co-op and dealing with customers and the community. There are a wide range of people who come in and I feel that the extent to which I can interact with them is betterâŚbecause we deal with many types of people and because itâs a co-op, we are free to interact with them in any way. Our interactions are notâŚwell Iâve worked under a boss before andâŚthe co-operative environment helps me to have more fulfilling interactions with the customersâ
Another worker within Brixton Cycles similarly stated that they had become:
âA little bit more [aware] when it comes to this local councilâŚWeâre next door to the housing office so a lot of the customers work for Lambeth council so learn more about it through the customers that are coming in.â
Both of the above workers explained that working in the co-operative enabled much more fulfilling and in-depth interactions with customers which âyou wouldnât get at working at Tescos or something like thatâ because they were not constrained by a boss or a pure profit motive bearing over them. Indeed, the fact that workers within Brixton Cycles let me interview them during their working day was testament to this very fact.
Not only was the increased amount of space to talk to customers influential on political awareness, but the nature of the work place itself enabled workers to discuss issues more openly throughout the working day. For example, one worker within Brixton Cycles said that they had become more politically aware since joining the co-operative:
âA little bit. I say I read the paper a little bit more now. Iâm more interested in that kind of thing than when I first started. But Iâm not fanatical about it.â
When asked if that was to do with working in the co-operative, they answered:
âYeah definitelyâŚa few of the guys that work here are into their politics. That does rub off on me. Especially because Iâm a bit younger as well. Iâm easily influenced.â
Because of the structure of the workplaces, there was also more space to suggest and discuss ideas in meetings which may or may not be implemented in the workplaces. Political issues were discussed within meetings of both workplaces, specifically those which affect the workplace in some way:
ââŚbecause of Magpieâs positioning. Because itâs looking to influence peoples thinking about the way that they deal with their household rubbish. We end upâŚdiscussing and getting involved with politics to a degree. But we are completely apolitical. We donât support political parties.â
However, within Magpie, workers were generally more aware âin terms of the area of recyclingâŚIn other areas, not really.â The increased awareness of the council and the government programmes which were supposed to reach them were frequently only related to each workplacesâ goals (e.g. increasing cycling or recycling).
However, other areas, not directly relevant to the workplaceâs goals, were sometimes openly discussed at meetings and at the workplace. For
maeve
ivy đ´đłď¸âđ
đ AnastĂ s đš (An Artist)
:v_s: viscous nuisance đ˛ď¸
kÉ:Ęł :dragnmlem:
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the