On 9/13/10, Jesse Walker <jwalkernot@****> wrote:
  > Sounds like they've decided to destroy the things that Yahoo Groups are
  >  best at in order to import the things that Facebook is worst at. To
  >  judge from some of the comments on that blog, it sounds like a lot of
  >  archives are being effectively destroyed; I hope the organizers of this
  >  group will find a way to save the LL2 archives before the same fate
  >  befalls them.

  I'm doing everything in my power to circulate the news among the large
  groups I belong to and encourage people to go to the Groups official
  blog and howl as loudly as possible.
  http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/

  The old-style homepage had a description, a message grid, membership
  info, all organized concisely in the same place--with an appealing
  graphic interface.  No more.  And they're ruined the Messages archive
  with its numbered messages and search engine function, so if you're in
  the habit of searching LL2's archives to track down information you
  recall seeing here,  you won't be able to after they switch our group
  to the new format.  They already did it to Libertarian Alliance Forum,
  and it looks like crap.
  http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/

  The thing is, I suspect the people at the top who made the final
  decision on this don't want to hear the negative feedback.  That's why
  they put people like Layla in charge of handling it, to insulate them
  from it.  Their response will be 1) lots of official happy talk, and
  2) the most minimal, low-cost fixes they can get away with without
  making any fundamental reversals of a decision that's already set in
  stone.

  They need to get such overwhelmingly negative feedback, on such a
  large scale, that it percolates even up to the pointy-haired MBAs at
  the top.  Anyone who wants to help turn this into Yahoo's New Coke
  should go to their blog and comment:
  http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/

  Please circulate this to all YahooGroups that you're on or that you
  moderate, because they're going to do the same Facebook-style

--
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution:  A Low-Overhead Manifesto
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html

From Avi Lewis the director of The Take (the film of the Argentine recuperated factory movement)

South African Workers Occupy Abandoned Factory

 A first in South Africa

The workers of Mine Line and Tap Engineering - a factory making metal products like valves for mining � located near Johannesburg, are fighting back against a corrupt owner who looted the factory on the way to an opportunistic bankruptcy (sound familiar?)

They are determined to get the plant back into production under worker control. They have some powerful allies - a couple of unions and a new political grouping to the left of the ANC.

A new (4 minute) video has emerged from this brand new struggle. Below is a link to the video, produced by Workers World Media, a video group that does work on labour issues in South Africa:

http://labourshow.blip.tv/file/4387883/

Several of the statements of workers involved with the SA takeover resonate with the statements of workers in The Take.

To learn more about this occupation see the site of the Conference of the Democratic Left:

http://www.redi.co.za/default_landing_page/

(The above site may still be 'under construction' and if a better source appears it will be announced)

Viva Mine Line Workers Viva!

Avi Lewis

=-=-=-=

Above item sent by Bernard Marszalek

Greetings;

I am a long time freelance cartoonist and graphic artist who lives in a cabin in
the mountains of Tennessee. I love the idea of a virtual online workers
co-operative for freelancers, but I can't seem to find any, or even any
discussion on the subject on the internet. It seems like such an obvious idea I
can't imagine that they just don't exist, so I have to assume I'm just not
frequenting the areas of the web where they lurk. I joined your group here in
hopes someone could slip me a clue?

Barring that, are there any internet techies, I mean artists, animators, web
designers, programmers, IT specialists, and so on, on this forum with an
interest in starting one?

Thanks.

Hi Ray:

I've suggested the same sort of thing a few times and heard only crickets.

I'm a Linux administrator, and I've been interested in an online co-op for some
time, partly because there are very few worker cooperatives here in Los Angeles
and those that exist seem to be more charities for "poor people" than actual
companies started by workers who want to run things democratically.

Maybe the lack of virtual co-ops has to do with questions about where to
incorporate legally, how to operate in a distributed manner or perhaps there are
concerns about online fraud (which sadly is a valid concern). I think these
things can be overcome with research and reasonable caution.

Maybe we can powwow in IM and think about how best to proceed?

Michael

I love the idea of a virtual online workers co-operative for freelancers, but I can't seem to find any, or even any discussion on the subject on the internet. It seems like such an obvious idea I can't imagine that they just don't exist, so I have to assume I'm just not frequenting the areas of the web where they lurk. I joined your group here in hopes someone could slip me a clue?

--- In workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com, Ray Barnes <bazzfoo@...> wrote:
>
> Micheal;
>
> Heh, now there's two of us...Thankyou for answering, I was beginning to think
all I was going to get was the sound of crickets too. Yes I would like to
continue this discussion anywhere you find appropriate. Forgive me but I don't
know what "IM" refers to.
<SNIP>

Well, I meant instant message technology in general, but YM seems best if we're
starting from this list so we won't have to change IDs.

>
> I was pleased to finally find this forum, but then I noticed that posts were
sometimes months apart. WTF? Are people really that stupid? On the other hand,
it seems to me that if we could put together a team of active and competent
workers we would have such a tremendous advantage over hierarchical business
models we could clean up!
<SNIP>

Some list members are in co-ops already, and people get busy. Starting a
business is pretty hard anyway.

I think there are a lot of reasons worker co-ops are not more popular, not the
least of which is habit. People are really so used to the Way Things Are that it
can be very hard to break out. This makes for problems forming co-ops, because
while people might like the idea, they continue to behave in the same old ways.

We had a group form here in LA a couple of years ago, a man advertised on this
list about starting a green cooperative. He had also been posting on craigs list
about it, and about 20 people responded.

The leader and a few others seemed interested in rational, democratic governance
and interacting cooperatively. The rest sensed a power vacuum and began the
usual grabbiness, starting new websites and telling everyone that was the new
place to be, making plans before everyone could meet, looking for clients under
their own name, talking about getting govt stimulus money and making it big. It
all collapsed into infighting and went dead.

>
> Perhaps what we need to do is assemble a team of "Superheros" and start doing
work for people. Not even making any big thing about the fact that we are a
worker's co-operative. If we make a big financial success out of it we won't
even have to proselytize, rather we'll be able to sell how-tos describing how we
did it.

I'm not sure how big you're talking, but I'm only interested in a rather small,
structured group right now. The experience I describe above makes me cautious
about these kind of ventures.

>
> As individual freelance contractors I see no need for wasting time and money
on a formal legal or business structure.
<SNIP>

In many places, people working together with no legal structure can be held
accountable both as a group and individually for something any member does.
Read: if one guy in "the bar" commits fraud, you could get sued. Although, just
hearing about a job may not qualify. I think you'd have to be calling yourselves
a company and working together.


>
> Your thoughts?
>
> BTW, if you would like to confirm my skills just check out smokytopia.com
you'll find a weekly comic strip, an animated music video, and a professional
portfolio. Judge for yourself.
>
> Ray

Sure, I'll check it out.

Michael

 

Micheal; I hope I haven't scared you off with all that stuff I wrote? It's just my thinking on the subject, nothing is written in stone yet. And Joseph, many thanks for the clue, but the implication seems to be that there are no online workers co-ops already running and if I want to be a part of one I will have to build it? Not that I mind, but it's gonna take a while, apparently the first step is to recruit a team of trusted workers. What does everyone think of these "collaboration" sites, behance.net, or bettermeans.com?  Seems like a good way to meet people while making money. Also the tools and how-tos I'm finding for Worker co-ops seem based on the traditional get a business license and a book keeper approach. Pardon my cynicism, but it has seemed to me for years that those rules were written to create hurdles to high for small businesses to jump. I want an alternative. I'm not talking "illegal", I mean more like ,"informal.' I suspect there's a great deal of that going on, but of course no one is talking about it on forums. Just brainstorming, or maybe in my case it's just a light rain. Ray

--- In workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com, Ray Barnes <bazzfoo@...> wrote:
>
> Micheal; I hope I haven't scared you off with all that stuff I wrote? It's
just my thinking on the subject, nothing is written in stone yet.

No, I've just been a bit distracted in RL. I've been writing a response you your
last message but never seemed to send it. In the end, we may be after different
things, and that's ok. I enjoy talking about it.

>
> And Joseph, many thanks for the clue, but the implication seems to be that
there are no online workers co-ops already running and if I want to be a part of
one I will have to build it? Not that I mind, but it's gonna take a while,
apparently the first step is to recruit a team of trusted workers.

Sometimes you have to create something if it doesn't exist. The standard way a
company is started is a few people get together and control everything from then
on. The newer people tend to fall to the bottom of the hierarchy. I think a
co-op would have to wait and see what the members want before coming together.
It seems a more difficult way to go since new people will have as much control
as older ones, so the trick might be to find the right people, ie types who are
willing to share control but who are strong enough to carry responsibility. If
they are tyrants, they will try to take over. If they are lemmings, they will
bow to a tyrant.

The word "team" bothers me. It refers to a group under control of a supervisor,
who in turn answers to upper management. Isn't it more about finding members
than just hiring?

>
> What does everyone think of these "collaboration" sites, behance.net, or
bettermeans.com?� Seems like a good way to meet people while making money.

These seem interesting, especially bettermeans, which seems to have some very
interesting ideas about distributed governance and the failings of the
traditional business model. They do seem like a privately-owned subscription
site in the end though. In a cooperative model, everyone would have to own part
of the actual company.

> Also the tools and how-tos I'm finding for Worker co-ops seem based on the
traditional get a business license and a book keeper approach. Pardon my
cynicism, but it has seemed to me for years that those rules were written to
create hurdles to high for small businesses to jump. I want an alternative. I'm
not talking "illegal", I mean more like ,"informal.' I suspect there's a great
deal of that going on, but of course no one is talking about it on forums.

Well, the system as a whole tends to support big business, but it's more market
power and financial control over advertising, IMO. The structure is just a way
of agreeing ahead of time how things will be done, which I think will save a lot
of trouble. People can otherwise come together thinking they understand each
other when they don't.

Wal-mart's structure is not inherently bad, it's just that it's top-down
control. If it were democratically controlled, I think they would make different
choices.

Michael

--- In workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com, Joe Marraffino <joe.marraffino@...>
wrote:
> [slips clue]
>
> A Technology Freelancers Guide to starting a Worker
>
Cooperative<http://www.google.com/search?q=a+technology+freelancers+guide+to+sta\
rting+a+worker+cooperative&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official\
&client=firefox-a#hl=en&expIds=27552,27739&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=A+Technology+Fr\
eelancers+Guide+to+starting+a+Worker+cooperative&cp=52&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=f\
irefox-a&hs=zw2&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx\
=1&fp=b69933d19f024e3b>
>

Thanks Joe!

Michael

--- In workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com, Mark Kaswan <mkaswan@...> wrote:
>
> Michael and Ray,
>
> I'm not a techie, but your discussion is interesting, at least from an
> academic perspective (I'm an academic, OK? -- not something I can easily
> hide). Anyway, I think that in the informal economy cooperation is the
> norm.


It's my understanding that many groups do operate informally.


> But if you want to play in the formal economy, then you have to
> play by the formal rules -- incorporation and keeping accounts and legal
> lines of responsibility and all that jazz. There are reasons why all
> that developed, only part of which has to do with creating barriers to
> access. The truth is that informal partnerships based on nothing more
> than trust have a way of going sour -- I have a cousin who destroyed his
> family's finances by going into business with his "best friend" and
> ended up getting royally screwed. I think that's fairly common, too.

Yes, this is a good reason to play it safe, imo.


> In the formal world, also, "cooperative" has a distinct meaning, as it
> is a formal kind of structure based on shared ownership rights and
> democratic governance; there are federal tax laws and different state
> laws governing them.

Yes, my home state of California has a Cooperative Corporation on the books,
though a lot of groups tend to go with LLC or non-profit status with cooperative
bylaws.

> Then there's the ICA's Cooperative Principles,
> which may be more aspirational than legal but imho should be taken
> seriously.

Agreed, and even formalized into the bylaws.

> It sounds to me like what you guys are talking about is a lot more like
> an informal network than a formal cooperative, and that's cool (and,
> like I say, not uncommon). But if you want something more formal --
> which may have certain advantages, like greater stability that can come
> from pooling resources -- then, in my view anyway, you can't just do it
> by half-measures, you have to eat the whole can of soup.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>

Yes, I agree a group needs to decide one way or the other. I don't think
informal is wrong, it's just not the direction I want to go in.

Michael

 

Hmmm, it would be interesting if you could serve as  an umbrella for online groups of freelancers and take care of the legal aspects, which are apt to be beyond the resources of your average freelancer. I would be happy to volunteer graphic work for your website.

Another thought, Youtube is the premier method for popularizing ideas these days. How about an animated video educating people about the advantages of worker owned co-ops? You could write the script and even do the voiceover. I'd be happy to donate the animation. I'm equipped to produce and edit complete video files ready to upload. Ray Smokytopia.com Weekly online comic about life in the  awesome and mystical Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. --- On Mon, 11/22/10, Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop@...> wrote: From: Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop@...> Subject: [workerownedcoop] Oklahoma Worker Cooperative Network To: workerownedcoop@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, November 22, 2010, 9:28 AM   Dear fellow cooperators, I am part of a planning group that intends to start a non-profit organization, the Oklahoma Worker Cooperative Network, to provide assistance to workers interested in organizing worker-owned cooperatives.  Oklahoma has a lot of cooperatives -- mostly producer/farm, electric, telephone -- but no worker-owned cooperatives that we are aware of.  I have experience in organizing the Oklahoma Food Cooperative, which is composed of producers and customers of food and non-food items made or grown in Oklahoma.  Anyway, we are looking for ideas and resources.  We are presently working on our incorporation and establishing a website, and gathering information for a series of workshops on worker cooperative organization.  Thanks for any assistance y'all can be. Bob Waldrop Oklahoma City PS.  Ray -- check your spam file, I answered your recent private message but haven't heard back from you.

Hi,
I am the English editor for the Italian magazine "A Rivista Anarchica", that is
published in print in Italian and is available online in Italian and English at
http://arivista.org.

I am preparing a Dossier on the worker-owned cooperatives in North America, you
can see a draft copy at http://tangoitalia.com/coops/ and I would like to
include other cooperative experiences, please send me a reference if you belong
to or know of any other worker-owned coop.

Thanks,
Enrico

Greetings!

In the spirit of advancing collaboration between collectives I am pleased to announce that AK Press and Inkworks Press, in conjunction with Chicago’s preeminent labor history (and much more!) publishing house the Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company, have just released a new edition of Paul Lafargue’s The Right to be Lazy. 

And in a further gesture of obvious self-promotion (who else will do this for me?), this edition was compiled by yours truly. It comes complete with a state-of-the-art introduction (by me) and for the first time accompanying essays in the same mode, like The Rights of the Horse and the Rights of Man (it should be obvious who got the better deal).

Lafargue’s essay, aside from the Communist Manifesto (which I am sure you all read in High School), is the most popular Marxist text available, and the most satiric. For instance, Paul writes:

            “. . . the proletariat, betraying its instincts, despising its historic mission, has let itself be perverted by the dogma of work.”

Not to indulge in sarcasm, I think that this essay needs to be in the hands of all member-workers in the cooperative movement. When the pressures to conform to the exhaustive work norms of the most workaholic member become too great, what better way to diffuse the tension and achieve a modicum of release than to delve into Lafargue’s essay for a juicy riposte like the one quoted above?

AK Press is offering a “pre-publication” discount right now . Hurry and order, the discount won’t last long, since the book is already published! 

Bernard Marszalek

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bernard Marszalek, editor
The Right to be Lazy: Essays by Paul Lafargue
http://righttobelazy.com/blog/

---

4th Dimension March 31, 2011 10:56 AM

 

http://iqutools.com/23i352.html

My worker owned and operated operation is allowing extremely poor facilitation and pretty shit regard to communication space and agreements. I think we need to foster empowering facilitation, and build inter-relative respect. I'm looking for someone who'd come and show us what it looks like and hoping my collective allows this.

NoBAWC endorsed support for locked out union workers at American Crystal Sugar, a farmer�s sugar beet processing cooperative.

�

NoBAWC�s July GMM (31 July, 2012) unanimously endorsed the following:

�

Petition

�

TO BE DELIVERED TO AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CEO DAVE BERG

�

We, the undersigned, members of worker cooperatives, credit unions, food

and housing co-ops, cooperative developers and educators, and customers of

cooperatives across the United States, recognize that throughout American history

amicable relations between unions and cooperatives have benefited both and we

believe that fair labor practices are a vital element of the cooperative principles that

American Crystal Sugar endorses.

�

We, therefore, as members of the US cooperative community, implore American

Crystal Sugar to end the lockout and negotiate in good faith with their employees,

members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers

International Union (BCTGM).

�

Signed by The Network of (SF) Bay Area Worker Cooperatives (NoBAWC)@GMM-

July 31, 2012

�

�

- - - - -

On August 1, 2011 1,300 workers, all union members, at America Crystal Sugar were locked out of five plants in three states of the upper mid-west. The Management of this farmers� cooperative refuses to negotiate in good faith with the union.�

�

IMPORTANT: Please sign the petition here and show your support for worker rights in this cooperative.�

This is the best way to demonstrate our support for the locked-out workers and our fidelity to cooperative principles.

�

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/979/518/294/support-co-op-and-worker-negotiations/

�

Inkworks Press (a worker-run, union shop) kicked off this petition drive, and background information, including a short video, is on their website: http://www.inkworkspress.org