Fort Greene Co-Op Chooses Toiling
Despite the low-pitched groan that emanates from the Park Slope Food Co-op due to compulsory work slots, the impending Fort Greene co-op has chosen to follow Park Slope’s model. The Brooklyn Paper reports that every member of the Greene Hill Co-op will work a shift in exchange for discounted organic groceries, though they’re in favor…
Despite the low-pitched groan that emanates from the Park Slope Food Co-op due to compulsory work slots, the impending Fort Greene co-op has chosen to follow Park Slope’s model. The Brooklyn Paper reports that every member of the Greene Hill Co-op will work a shift in exchange for discounted organic groceries, though they’re in favor of a less strict policy than Park Slope’s, which has members work two shifts if they miss one. Can’t have community unless all folks participate, they decided. Now they just need to find a space.
Workers of the Co-op Unite [Brooklyn Paper]
PSFC Produce. Photo by bluesage.
Polemicist…it does sound like it has become a model co-op for anyone else interested in opening one given your post at 2:44.
Yes, the on-time payment is a big problem in the food distribution business. I am sure there are many suppliers now knocking on their door to try and get in.
Why not now reduce the number of hours worked? If they were closer to me I’d investigate joining. When I retire I would like to invest a significant amount of my assets in something that will cocnsistently yield 6%!!!!
Combustible2:
Actually, I think the philosophy is very much about capitalism. It is the perfect example of how people have the freedom to choose for themselves what they want to eat and how they want to pay for it. The entire system is based on free association – the very fundamental quality of capitalism versus other economic systems.
Polemicist…it would now seem that they have more than enough members and should now adjust the work hours downward. This in turn should bring in an even larger number of members.
daveinbedstuy:
They were referring to operating profit. The co-op is financially sound with significant cash reserves. Despite being small, their financial strength has allowed them to be a preferred customer to many distributers as they always pay on time. This is a big issue in the business. They also have very little debt, and what debt they have is primarily with members. You can lend money to the co-op at great rates right now – over 6% last time I checked.
You know, for a site that seems to be so filled with neighborhood busybodies – I’m amazed not a single person here is a long time member of the co-op. I’m also perplexed at how a simple explanation can result in both irrelevant hostility and incomprehension.
Goldie:
I really have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve been a member of the co-op for many, many years. How can you possibly interpret my explanation as hatred? The mandatory workslot rule has absolutely nothing to do with fostering a sense of community. You cannot possibly think this if you are a member as they explain why working is required even in the new member orientation!
Also, it’s 2.75 hours per month, not 2.5 hours per month – unless you work in maintenance.
Johnife:
I’m impressed in your ability to use Wikipedia. I’m perplexed at your inability to understand the relevance. The social trap issue occurs when people excessively exploit a resource when there is no cost to themselves. In the case of co-ops nationwide, and the Park Slope Food Co-op specifically, if members are not required to work, few choose to do so. What ends up happening is the co-op then resorts to hiring workers or folds. In the end, either the lowest possible prices aren’t achieved due to additional labor costs or people cease having a co-op. The Park Slope Food Co-op once did not require members to work, but that system did not last because you ended up without enough workers. Co-ops all over the country have failed due to their inability to manage labor costs and needs. Mandatory work slots were implemented for the specific reason there were not enough workers. Ask any coordinator at the co-op.
benson:
Very even-handed look at the issue. I wouldn’t worry about goldie, the person probably isn’t even a member.
cmu:
I don’t really get it either. The co-housing thread, and now this. I hope people can see how the same mindset that is opposed to co-housing and the co-op is the same one that is irrational regarding city planning issues.
The NIMBY mindset is one of aversion to change. To them, building new buildings, co-housing, the co-op… It’s all crazy because it changes their little world and they have little or no control over it.
When an organization outgrows its original planned scale, its time to bring in professional management in one form or another. This is a good thing.
Maybe they start with “professional cashiers” if there is such a thing!!!
I don’t think anyone said the co-op was perfect or not in need of some fine tuning.
Overall, it seems like a pretty great organization which does well, attracts thousands of members (some would say too many) and serves as a model for nearly every major Co-op which has come since its inception.
What’s irksome about the PS coop is that I think they could share the fruits of their success, but they don’t.
Do they really need everyone working monthly, or is it just a matter of principle?
Assuming they need help 16 hours a day, every day, that’s 196 2.45-hour shifts, which means an average 76 workers per shift. Even 50 seems high.
I suspect the work requirement could be cut back to once every six weeks or two months, but that ain’t groovy enough.
benson writes…”I can respect Goldie’s point of view, and those of others who are going in with their eyes wide open, have done their own personal calculation, and decided that it is worth their time. I can also respect 11217’s POV that there are other benefits they receive for their effort, in terms of socializing, being part of a community effort, etc.”
AND I DO TOO despite my generally negative view towards the rigidity of the membership rules and their lack of flexibility in selling to nonmembers. I just wanted to make that clear.