Park Slope Food Coop Provisioning

Every member must work at the Coop for 2 hours and 45 minutes once every four weeks. At this rate, every member works 13 times per calendar year. Decommodified work has the lion share in this 'member labor coop': about 75% of the work are decommodified. The coop has...

The most remarkable feature of Park Slope Food Coop is how it manages to Honor Care & Decommodified Work. All able-bodied members are required to work for 2'45 hours per month. E.g.: more than than 17000 people do what has to be done "for free", while only 60 have formal jobs in the coop. It's a combination of "jobs in a self-owned company" and "decommodified work by all stakeholders". This is at the heart of the coops impressive scale: to contribute "decommodified work", that is TIME, in order to save commodified work. It is certainly the most important element that enables the coop to Trade with Price-Sovereignty.

From the FAQ, html

This Do-it-Together approach allows the Park Slope Food Coop to save money on what is otherwise the largest expense for a grocery store of its size: labor. Prices reflect this savings and are typically significantly lower than elsewhere. Not only in other supermarkets, but also in other food coops. Prices reflect the savings through decommodified labor.

Joe Holtz, one of the 10 original founders, reflects upon the link between decommodified work and the member-ownership approach. Because some have argued for: the Coop could and “should consider having members who would not want to work but who would pay higher prices.” Interestingly, this idea has never been submited as an agenda item for the General Meeting, that takes place once a month and is a way to Assure Consent in Decisionmaking.

Some were saying that perhaps membership should be open to all people, regardless of whether or not they were willing to work. And in fact, most coops offer their members a variety of membership levels to choose from, with the greatest discount on groceries going to those who do the most work and the smallest discount for members who choose not to work at all. But, says Holtz, "each of these levels represents a different economic 'deal' between the coop and its member-owner." It would introduce a stratifications, first and second class members. But this wouldn't be the biggest problem. The biggest problem would be, that the work would have to be done in a commodified work and all would be back "to normal", including the high food prices.

By contrast, "on average our members feel more connected ... and care more about our Coop ... than members of other coops", says Holtz. Giving every member the opportunity "to pick one or another economic deal with the Coop" would get them back into a calculative rationality. They would be induced to figure out and constantly rethink which one is the best deal, "and that process forms a barrier to making the ownership connection.", to create a sense of belonging.

By offering only one “deal,” instead of choosing membership levels, a sort of class system is being avoided: "because the members with more money would tend not to work, and the members with less money would tend to work," says Holtz. And in fact, work —when performed in a decent environment- "can enhance the possibility of a sense of caring, of pride and of ownership." "The more that a coop membership is different from a video store membership or health club membership, the more members will realize that they actually own their coop. If you feel like you own it, then you care about it. If you care about it, then the coop has to improve."

ak I thought about this for a few days. One thing I believe is that on average our members feel more connected to our Coop and care more about our Coop and feel more like owners than members of other coops. Requiring every member to pick one 8or another economic deal with the Coop or giving members the ability to switch from one deal to another would cause the members to be constantly rethinking which deal was best for them, and that process forms a barrier to making the ownership connection. You are always making a deal with an “other.” The more that a coop membership is different from a video store membership or health club membership, the more members will realize that they actually own their coop. If you feel like you own it, then you care about it. If you care about it, then the coop has to improve. At the Park Slope Food Coop, by offering only one “deal,” which is simply called membership, I think we clear the way for a higher level of involvement and commitment. Also, I believe that some sort of class system would emerge if members could choose a membership level, because the members with more money would tend not to work, and the members with less money would tend to work. There is also something about the very nature of work—when performed in a decent environment, work can enhance the possibility of a sense of caring, of pride and of ownership. Keep in mind that all this talk about caring and the feeling of ownership is in terms of an average. To get that average we have dedicated members and we have alienated members and a wide range in between. I believe that our average member’s commitment is greater because of our work requirement than it would be without it. One of my greatest pleasures is when I see a member who initially cares very little about the Coop come to care a great deal about the Coop. I believe this transformation occurs more often than not because of the participatory nature of our Coop.

With the exception of one “store format” coop that requires members to work about six hours a year and requires all shoppers to be members, I know of noother “store format” coop other than ours that requires work from all members capable of working.