Comment from guest #3
Just one more thought. Again, this would probably apply to many co-ops, not just Ann Arbor's.
Assume a worst case scenario. Business is down, and due to unfavorable working conditions, good employees are hard to find. Offering competitive prices gets increasingly difficult as people tighten their purse-strings in a reaction to high energy prices and a difficult job market. The co-op ends up in the red. Sales start to decrease, and people get laid off one by one. The end is near. This is all hypothetical, of course...
What checks and balances are there? What happens if it gets to the point where the money isn't there to support what is perhaps more or less by necessity and history a top-heavy organization, and member drives can't raise enough money to solve the problem?
Does the board actively seek answers and changes? Or is the problem, as has often been done before, attributed to Whole Foods? It seems to me that if (and let's hope this doesn't happen) -- just if -- it were beginning to look like PFC might end up having to shut down for good -- would the board, at a certain point in time, concerned that the PFC might be getting precariously close to the precipice of no return, take decisive action to remedy the situation, or... would the current management go down with the ship?
In other words, is there any conceivably possible situation at any point in the near or far future where the board would make an attempt to change the personnel? Something similar, perhaps to what has just happened with Micheal Brown and FEMA? What are the expectations for a medium-sized natural foods coop? Is it just to barely survive and scrape by, or is it to create a vibrant retail establishment with a consistent rate of growth?
Is there a roadmap of various scenarios, of various growth rates, of various degrees of success and failure? Might moving outside of downtown to a long-term location where there is ample parking and where renting space is not the only option help the bottom line? Could it be that perhaps the only thing that management really dreads is the loss of their own jobs if/when the co-op shuts down? Is anyone in management afraid of getting fired for failing to achieve certain rates of growth; or keeping turnover (which is more expensive than many people seem to think) in check; or maintaining sufficient financial stability to be able to provide ALL employees with a living wage? Certainly something like a living wage ought not be a stranger to something like a natural foods co-op?
Simply put, if a management team here in the US, or anywhere in the world is only concerned about keeping the store afloat, just barely scraping by, and there is no pressure on the management team to maintain rates of growth consistent with information gleaned from in-depth market research, then such co-ops, whether located in Sweden, Australia, or Ann Arbor, will fail to thrive; such co-ops will fail to do as well as they might. Obviously, if the market research suggests that the co-op will not be able to do very well, then it might warrant a serious look at available options.
This is the basic thought that I had just now. How much pressure is being placed on managment to succeed, to do as well as possible? Or is that pressure absent? Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but I've never seen it anywhere. I have always been under the impression that management is there to stay regardless of how well the store does. Whole Foods has more say-so in regards to PFC's well being than PFC's management does. Is this just the way it is? Or is this simply a result of management not being held accountable? And if this is a phenomenon that is occuring throughout the US, can the solution be found in a major change in the structures that lie at the very heart of the co-op? Is there any real oversight; the kind of oversight one would have if, instead of ten-thousand members contributing $60 each, it was a single individual putting up $600,000 of their own money? Whose money is it that we are talking about? Why is it a struggle to get 10% of the members to vote?
Obviously, it is quite difficult getting thousands and thousands of members to speak with one voice about what they would like to see going on with their money. The money that the memberships represent, which is, essentially, any co-op's "capital", is, in a sense, fragmented. It comes in little bite-sized pieces from thousands and thousands (for some co-ops, millions) of members. Perhaps as a result of this fragmentation, the pressure to work hard and do something productive with that money gets fragmented as well and in the end we end get a fragmented dream; an unrealized vision, of what PFC could really be.
If we step back and get a good look at the big picture, we might realize that if the structure of the retail product member co-ops in this country does not change, they will fail to thrive. They will fail to live up to their potential. Might this have to do with the fact that the membership fees are fragmented between thousands (and in some cases, millions) of members and there isn't any effective framework by which the democratic process can effectively hold the managements accountable to higher levels of professionalism and higher levels of excellence such as those that are typically demanded from publically traded companies or other non-coops? The many thousands of "owners" are simply either unwilling or unable to speak with one voice and demand, at a bare minimum, the type of performance from their investment that, all profit aside, would raise everyone's wages and improve everyone's working conditions.
Certainly, if market research shows that the likelihood of a particular co-op located in a particular area doing well is unlikely, then the co-op ought to disclose that information to its members; its "owners" - the source of its capital. Otherwise, the members ought to expect (and demand) a thriving, vibrant business with a consitent rate of growth. In any case, estimates should be established from in-depth market research, and if those estimates hint at low wages, shoestring budgets, and likely failure of the co-op, options should be considered and members ought to be notified. Just barely scraping by for the purposes of maintaining the job security and relatively premium wages of the managment team is unacceptable. There ought not be second-class employees in any business that claims to care about the earth and its children.
There is risk anytime you do something like start a co-op. One of the risks is that it will fail. Perhaps there is a new risk now, a risk that, before now, none of us has recognized; could this be a phenomenon occuring in co-ops throughout the country? As the job market gets tighter, as corporate neckties allow even less circulation to take place, as working until retirement age for one employer becomes less and less of a reality for most working people today, as the baby boomers begin to place a strain on our social safety net, upper level co-op managers grandparent themselves into stable, cushy positions paying relatively premium wages; positions with freedoms that most working folks could only dream of. Meanwhile, the remainder of the employees drift closer and closer to minimum wage, increasing turnover rates and their associated costs.
So that's really my question; and perhaps it has everything to do with hurricane Katrina and FEMA and Mike Brown, but it's a question that needs to be asked. Who goes over the management team with a fine-tooth comb? Does anyone? Do they go down with the ship? Or does the board set reasonable goals that the management team needs to reach, based on competent market research?
Depending on who you are, and how much you know about the situation, the answer to that question is, unfortunately, quite predictable. The new thing that I now think about is the possibility that this is happening "en masse" throughout the country in natural food and other types of retail co-ops.
God bless.
Assume a worst case scenario. Business is down, and due to unfavorable working conditions, good employees are hard to find. Offering competitive prices gets increasingly difficult as people tighten their purse-strings in a reaction to high energy prices and a difficult job market. The co-op ends up in the red. Sales start to decrease, and people get laid off one by one. The end is near. This is all hypothetical, of course...
What checks and balances are there? What happens if it gets to the point where the money isn't there to support what is perhaps more or less by necessity and history a top-heavy organization, and member drives can't raise enough money to solve the problem?
Does the board actively seek answers and changes? Or is the problem, as has often been done before, attributed to Whole Foods? It seems to me that if (and let's hope this doesn't happen) -- just if -- it were beginning to look like PFC might end up having to shut down for good -- would the board, at a certain point in time, concerned that the PFC might be getting precariously close to the precipice of no return, take decisive action to remedy the situation, or... would the current management go down with the ship?
In other words, is there any conceivably possible situation at any point in the near or far future where the board would make an attempt to change the personnel? Something similar, perhaps to what has just happened with Micheal Brown and FEMA? What are the expectations for a medium-sized natural foods coop? Is it just to barely survive and scrape by, or is it to create a vibrant retail establishment with a consistent rate of growth?
Is there a roadmap of various scenarios, of various growth rates, of various degrees of success and failure? Might moving outside of downtown to a long-term location where there is ample parking and where renting space is not the only option help the bottom line? Could it be that perhaps the only thing that management really dreads is the loss of their own jobs if/when the co-op shuts down? Is anyone in management afraid of getting fired for failing to achieve certain rates of growth; or keeping turnover (which is more expensive than many people seem to think) in check; or maintaining sufficient financial stability to be able to provide ALL employees with a living wage? Certainly something like a living wage ought not be a stranger to something like a natural foods co-op?
Simply put, if a management team here in the US, or anywhere in the world is only concerned about keeping the store afloat, just barely scraping by, and there is no pressure on the management team to maintain rates of growth consistent with information gleaned from in-depth market research, then such co-ops, whether located in Sweden, Australia, or Ann Arbor, will fail to thrive; such co-ops will fail to do as well as they might. Obviously, if the market research suggests that the co-op will not be able to do very well, then it might warrant a serious look at available options.
This is the basic thought that I had just now. How much pressure is being placed on managment to succeed, to do as well as possible? Or is that pressure absent? Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but I've never seen it anywhere. I have always been under the impression that management is there to stay regardless of how well the store does. Whole Foods has more say-so in regards to PFC's well being than PFC's management does. Is this just the way it is? Or is this simply a result of management not being held accountable? And if this is a phenomenon that is occuring throughout the US, can the solution be found in a major change in the structures that lie at the very heart of the co-op? Is there any real oversight; the kind of oversight one would have if, instead of ten-thousand members contributing $60 each, it was a single individual putting up $600,000 of their own money? Whose money is it that we are talking about? Why is it a struggle to get 10% of the members to vote?
Obviously, it is quite difficult getting thousands and thousands of members to speak with one voice about what they would like to see going on with their money. The money that the memberships represent, which is, essentially, any co-op's "capital", is, in a sense, fragmented. It comes in little bite-sized pieces from thousands and thousands (for some co-ops, millions) of members. Perhaps as a result of this fragmentation, the pressure to work hard and do something productive with that money gets fragmented as well and in the end we end get a fragmented dream; an unrealized vision, of what PFC could really be.
If we step back and get a good look at the big picture, we might realize that if the structure of the retail product member co-ops in this country does not change, they will fail to thrive. They will fail to live up to their potential. Might this have to do with the fact that the membership fees are fragmented between thousands (and in some cases, millions) of members and there isn't any effective framework by which the democratic process can effectively hold the managements accountable to higher levels of professionalism and higher levels of excellence such as those that are typically demanded from publically traded companies or other non-coops? The many thousands of "owners" are simply either unwilling or unable to speak with one voice and demand, at a bare minimum, the type of performance from their investment that, all profit aside, would raise everyone's wages and improve everyone's working conditions.
Certainly, if market research shows that the likelihood of a particular co-op located in a particular area doing well is unlikely, then the co-op ought to disclose that information to its members; its "owners" - the source of its capital. Otherwise, the members ought to expect (and demand) a thriving, vibrant business with a consitent rate of growth. In any case, estimates should be established from in-depth market research, and if those estimates hint at low wages, shoestring budgets, and likely failure of the co-op, options should be considered and members ought to be notified. Just barely scraping by for the purposes of maintaining the job security and relatively premium wages of the managment team is unacceptable. There ought not be second-class employees in any business that claims to care about the earth and its children.
There is risk anytime you do something like start a co-op. One of the risks is that it will fail. Perhaps there is a new risk now, a risk that, before now, none of us has recognized; could this be a phenomenon occuring in co-ops throughout the country? As the job market gets tighter, as corporate neckties allow even less circulation to take place, as working until retirement age for one employer becomes less and less of a reality for most working people today, as the baby boomers begin to place a strain on our social safety net, upper level co-op managers grandparent themselves into stable, cushy positions paying relatively premium wages; positions with freedoms that most working folks could only dream of. Meanwhile, the remainder of the employees drift closer and closer to minimum wage, increasing turnover rates and their associated costs.
So that's really my question; and perhaps it has everything to do with hurricane Katrina and FEMA and Mike Brown, but it's a question that needs to be asked. Who goes over the management team with a fine-tooth comb? Does anyone? Do they go down with the ship? Or does the board set reasonable goals that the management team needs to reach, based on competent market research?
Depending on who you are, and how much you know about the situation, the answer to that question is, unfortunately, quite predictable. The new thing that I now think about is the possibility that this is happening "en masse" throughout the country in natural food and other types of retail co-ops.
God bless.
posted by Solomon at 8:44 AM
0 comments
