The food co-op where shoppers are happy to work

[YMix]

Chris Agee is loading boxes of food and drink products on to a conveyor belt down in the basement of a grocery store in Brooklyn, New York.

One floor above him, shoppers push trolleys up and down the aisles, picking up their weekly groceries.

But this isn't Chris's full-time job. In fact he's not getting paid a wage at all. Chris actually teaches political science at City University of New York.

He is one of the 16,000 members of the Park Slope Food Co-op, who volunteers at the store.

The co-operative is one of the few in the US that still has a member labour requirement - members have to work there if they want to shop there.

Cheaper products

Chris admits that some people find it hard to believe that he stacks shelves at the weekend, but he says he does it for two main reasons - the quality of the food and the pricing of the food.

"We hire 80 people to select the best quality produce, so when you shop here you really feel like you're getting food that's healthy and organic.

"The other reason why I do it is there's no profit margin that goes to some unknown group of people. We end up paying a third less because there's no profit margin because it's a co-operative," he explains.

"People ask me, 'What were you doing?' I say, 'Stocking tomatoes.' But it's fun, it's a change of rhythm and actually I'm quite proud of it."

'The world's changed around us'

All members of the Park Slope Co-op are required to work 2.75 hours every four weeks. Jobs vary from working on the check-out to unloading deliveries to working in the office upstairs.

When you enter the shop as a customer, people on the entrance desks will scan your membership card to ensure that you are keeping up with your scheduled shifts.

Ann Herpel, one of the general co-ordinators at the Co-op, says the member labour requirement was a decision made when the Co-op was founded.

"We're 40 years old this year. It was decided that a co-operative at its base means working together," she says.

"So in order for us to be a true co-operative [it was decided that] working together was the best way of both owning and making a business you own sustainable."

She says that in the 1970s Park Slope wasn't the only working co-op in the US, and that though it might be unusual today, it is only because others have moved away from the original model.

"We don't really feel we've changed, we feel the world's changed around us."

Natural evolution

That's certainly true. The National Co-operative Grocers Association (NCGA) says that of the 170 stores their members operate, none have a mandatory labour requirement. (Park Slope is not a member of the NCGA.)

Consultant Adam Schwartz from The Co-operative Way - a firm dedicated to improving the operations of co-ops - says there are many reasons why most other co-operatives in the US dropped the requirement for members to work.

"Part of it is a little bit of natural evolution - as co-ops have grown in their sales volume, there was less of an actual need. They could [afford to] hire trained staff."

Paid staff also bring more professionalism to an organisation, he says.

"When you're paying someone you have a very good expectation that they're going to be there that you might not have with volunteers. Plus paid staff are going to develop more expertise with the products."

So what is it that makes Park Slope different?

The neighbourhood became increasingly gentrified in the 1980s and 1990s but never lost its sense of community, according to Ms Herpel.

"Community is something lacking in many ways in America," she says.

'Good for the health'

Musician Shawn Onsgard agrees. He's been a member of Park Slope for six years and writes articles for the Co-op's newsletter about how to grow food safely in Brooklyn and the specific issues that people face gardening here.

He says in many ways community can actually be developed through labour.

"Putting produce on the shelves, taking boxes off trucks, the kinds of conversations that you have with people - it becomes fun and you come to the Co-op and it's hard not to bump into people that you know and to have friendships.

"I really like the relationships I've made with people through the process of doing work here. It's been a real community-building, friendship-building experience for me."

And as Chris Agee puts it, working at the Co-op is "good for the health, it's good for the pocketbook, it's good for social relations".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25455991

[Endovelico]

Most interesting YMix.





I wish people would realize that this form of cooperative would solve most of the problems we experience in a capitalist society.

[Mr. Perfect]

Unfortunately it won't solve any of the problems created by socialist economies.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It is interesting but I can't help but think of all the people in Brooklyn who could use a job there. No mention is made about how many minorities actually participate in this co-op. All that talk of community and good prices, organic food and professors who get a kick out of stocking shelves tell me that it isn't exactly a diverse place.

[Endovelico]

It is interesting but I can't help but think of all the people in Brooklyn who could use a job there. No mention is made about how many minorities actually participate in this co-op. All that talk of community and good prices, organic food and professors who get a kick out of stocking shelves tell me that it isn't exactly a diverse place.

People who do the work in cooperatives have a job there, even if it isn't their only one. They may not be paid cash, but their pay is lower prices for what they need. Being paid in kind is acceptable from an economic point of view. Now, whether you have ten people working eight hour days or eighty people working one hour a day, is irrelevant.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

It is interesting but I can't help but think of all the people in Brooklyn who could use a job there. No mention is made about how many minorities actually participate in this co-op. All that talk of community and good prices, organic food and professors who get a kick out of stocking shelves tell me that it isn't exactly a diverse place.

People who do the work in cooperatives have a job there, even if it isn't their only one. They may not be paid cash, but their pay is lower prices for what they need. Being paid in kind is acceptable from an economic point of view. Now, whether you have ten people working eight hour days or eighty people working one hour a day, is irrelevant.

That they have time to contribute for only 33% off the normal retail price (on the best of the best according to them) makes it awfully hard to believe that the clientele is the type which struggles to afford the essentials in life.

It may be true that ten people working eight hour days or eighty people working one hour shifts doesn't matter much on paper but that doesn't fly so well when the single mother in the apartment building near the store needs some sort of job to keep a roof over her head, the old man down the street needs a part time job to clothe himself, and the black communities in Brooklyn are being priced out of the city they grew up in because young 20 and 30 somethings like the idea of urban communities made up those who can afford to work for a coupon off gourmet food.

It's also not quite the same if such an arrangement avoids the usual taxes and regulations the mom&pops and chain stores in the area have to pay; that money is much better saved in their pockets than going towards something like fixing the streets or paying for the schools and hospitals. The foie gras crowd who band together to save a buck fifty could teach a thing or two to those normal, boring people who get paid in cash for their labor; how can they justify higher wages to afford something above the level of synthetic doritos and mystery meat hot dogs? Those bums should be more enterprising with their time.

[Mr. Perfect]

People can do what they want, whatever makes them feel good, but I can't imagine I would get more for my time stocking shelves in exchange for groceries than I would doing other things for cash. Maybe some people would.

[noddy]

It is interesting but I can't help but think of all the people in Brooklyn who could use a job there. No mention is made about how many minorities actually participate in this co-op. All that talk of community and good prices, organic food and professors who get a kick out of stocking shelves tell me that it isn't exactly a diverse place.

People who do the work in cooperatives have a job there, even if it isn't their only one. They may not be paid cash, but their pay is lower prices for what they need. Being paid in kind is acceptable from an economic point of view. Now, whether you have ten people working eight hour days or eighty people working one hour a day, is irrelevant.

That they have time to contribute for only 33% off the normal retail price (on the best of the best according to them) makes it awfully hard to believe that the clientele is the type which struggles to afford the essentials in life.

It may be true that ten people working eight hour days or eighty people working one hour shifts doesn't matter much on paper but that doesn't fly so well when the single mother in the apartment building near the store needs some sort of job to keep a roof over her head, the old man down the street needs a part time job to clothe himself, and the black communities in Brooklyn are being priced out of the city they grew up in because young 20 and 30 somethings like the idea of urban communities made up those who can afford to work for a coupon off gourmet food.

It's also not quite the same if such an arrangement avoids the usual taxes and regulations the mom&pops and chain stores in the area have to pay; that money is much better saved in their pockets than going towards something like fixing the streets or paying for the schools and hospitals. The foie gras crowd who band together to save a buck fifty could teach a thing or two to those normal, boring people who get paid in cash for their labor; how can they justify higher wages to afford something above the level of synthetic doritos and mystery meat hot dogs? Those bums should be more enterprising with their time.

yep, if housing was free and we didnt have a million parasites (ermm, sorry) compulsory service fees hovering around us then this kind of thing might be relelvant to the low income people.

seeing as we dont have that setup you are perfectly correct - its an indulgence for comfy middle class folks, which is nice.

[Endovelico]

We are talking here about distribution cooperatives, but production cooperatives would be quite capable of accommodating poorer people's needs, including stable jobs and incomes.

[Torchwood]

This is a logical extension of the fact that even capitalist mainstream shops now expect shoppers to do most of the work - not just serve yourself , but also the insidious spread of self service checkouts. Of course, an Ikea flat pack is the ultimate...

Re production co-operatives, I note that Endo's favourite the Mondragon co-ops in Spain are no more immune to economic problems than the rest of Spain

[Endovelico]

This is a logical extension of the fact that even capitalist mainstream shops now expect shoppers to do most of the work - not just serve yourself , but also the insidious spread of self service checkouts. Of course, an Ikea flat pack is the ultimate...

Re production co-operatives, I note that Endo's favourite the Mondragon co-ops in Spain are no more immune to economic problems than the rest of Spain

That's right. It seems Fagor's problems are due to poor management decisions. So it should go bust. Cooperatives are not - and should not be - immune to paying for their mistakes. That's the only way to make sure people try harder. But at least with Fagor you don't see workers being fired and shareholders going on holiday to Bora Bora...

[Simple Minded]

the great part of this post, is depending upon one's philosophical predilection, it is either a data point for what is right with capitalism/free markets or what is wrong with capitalism/free markets.

right: voluntary association allows people to solve their own specific problems and provide for their specific needs according to their abilities and resources.

wrong: obviously due to lack of regulation, the evil rich are displacing the local poor who would get paid to stock shelves cause the rich are so greedy they want to pay less.

A local shelf stockers union who would be willing to knee-cap a couple college teachers with too much time on their hands would appeal to some.....