Should the PLG Food Coop Allow Paid Memberships?

I was talking with a couple of neighbors involved in the Lefferts Farm Food Cooperative, a food coop planned for PLG and nearby Crown Heights and Flatbush. Apparently, one of the big debates in planning the coop is whether to require all members to work, or to allow members to opt out by paying a fee.

At the Park Slope Food Coop, where Charles and I are members, members work about 2.75 hours per month. This allows the store to have far fewer paid staff members than other grocers, which keeps prices much cheaper than places like Whole Foods or Fairway. We're happy with that arrangement and it suits us just fine.

Still, if it were up to me (it's not), I'd vote for allowing people to buy memberships to Lefferts Farm, at least for the first couple of years. The money would help the coop establish itself initially, and the planners could always revisit the question once the startup chaos settles.

The main arguments against this is that it creates two classes of members, workers verses the moneyed. Everyone should have to work, goes the thinking, because it's only fair. I think there's something to this, which is why I'd recommend accepting paid memberships on a trial basis. But as far as I'm concerned the practical reasons for having paid members trump the theoretical.

• The coop will live or die based on whether it's convenient and affordable for shoppers. If it only offers a small selection of organic and natural foods, it's not going to be all that much different than the CSA and grocers that we already have in the neighborhood. (What makes the Park Slope Food Coop great is that it carries a LOT of stuff, at reasonable prices.) If it's located farther than easy walking distance, it's not going to be any improvement over shopping in Park Slope. Paying for these conveniences will take serious capital.

• Workers who put in only 2.75 hours per month are less efficient than full- or even part-time workers. In a typical grocery store, an employee will be there 40 hours a week and pick things up quickly. By comparison, it can take a year or more before coop workers get up to speed in their department (and a high percentage inevitably quits before that even happens). When shoppers have questions about products or where to find things, many workers aren't knowledgeable enough to help. Workers often do their jobs incorrectly, since central authority is weak. This isn't a major problem at the Park Slope Coop now -- many of its members have been there for years and even decades, and so there's always someone around to help if you look. But it's likely to be a problem with a startup.


• The coop will need as many members as it can get, at least early on. The more shoppers it has, the more items it can afford to stock -- and vice versa. I know many people who would have joined the Park Slope Food Coop if they could pay instead of work. Rather than shutting out this group of people, I think the PLG coop planners would do well to include them.

Paid memberships shouldn't be cheap, however. They should cover well over the value of a volunteer's annual labor. This way, there should be a lot more workers than payers, contributing to a healthy coop's sense of co-ownership.

None of this should imply that I'd buy my membership. In fact, members of the Park Slope Food Coop will likely get credit for a shift by working at Lefferts Farm. It may even be that by working at the Lefferts coop, I'll be able to shop at two coops for the "price" of one -- not a bad fringe benefit, by any stretch.

Comments

[babs]

I have to say I am totally opposed to allowing people to opt-out of the work requirement, apart from the reason given (bringing in needed funds early on).

I don't buy argument number 2 at all -- what grocery stores have you shopped in lately besides the Food Co-op? Your average grocery store employee is unmotivated, unknowldegeable, inefficient, and unfriendly (try Key Food on 7th Ave to see what I mean, with some very notable exceptions). With good reason -- it's a crappy, low-paid job. Workers at the food co-op know they are there for a larger reason, and are much more knowledgeable about the stock (of course, since they shop there!), much friendlier to shoppers (who are, after all, their fellow members), AND at least as efficient!

However, if the choice is to go with two classes of membership, I guess I'll just stay w. the Park Slope Food Co-op -- at least they stick to their ideals. The type of people who'd rather pay than work in a co-op are not the type of people I want to have as fellow-members.

[carrie]

> The type of people who'd rather pay than work in a co-op are not the type of people I want to have as fellow-members.

I can tell you about the kind of people who don't want to work at a coop. I was one of them for years (before joining the Coop). I was working as a freelance web designer in order to support the nonprofit magazine that I founded. I was working about 80 hours a week. Three hours a month* may not sound like much, but when you're working as much as I was, you're more interested in saving time than money. I would have paid to have a Coop membership if I could have.

You might want to avoid making stereotypes of others based on limited knowledge of their personal decisions. That kind of thing gives coops as bad rep for being places of intolerance and self-righteousness.

* Corrected. I originally wrote "week."

[Art Tatum]

I'm with Carrie on this one. I love the ideals of the coop, but when I was a member of PSFC, I found myself working there more than I was shopping there. Much of this had to do with the location of the coop relative to where I was living, and also that shopping there was usually a crowded and chaotic experience that I wanted to minimize as much as possible. My busy and erratic schedule also made it very difficult to schedule work slots. I don't believe that being a hard worker in the professional world should disqualify me from being able to buy healthy food at an affordable price.

[sarah]

The Flatbush Coop on Cortelyou allows for paid and working members and it seems to work fine. The membership is not expensive, but they do offer a larger discount to working members which seems fair to me. I freelance in film which means that when I'm on a project, I end up working 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week. Having a wildly erratic and crazy schedule makes it virtually impossible to schedule anything else consistently. Because of this, I never joined the Park Slope Coop when I lived there. I did, however, join the Flatbush Coop immediately when I moved over here. I am in favor of a paying option because I think that it makes the coop accessible to more people. I'm sure I am not alone in appreciating the flexibility it would allow.

[babs]

It's not three hours a week, it's 2 hours and 45 minutes every FOUR weeks. I honestly believe that anyone unable or unwilling to commit to 2 hours and 45 minutes every four weeks to work in a co-operative enterprise shouldn't be looking to be in one. It's not a question of intolerance or self-righteousness, just a matter of the meaning of a co-operative and looking for members who can actually contribute to that spirit. And anyone who can't find 2 hours and 45 minutes every four weeks for him or herself (especially considering that shifts start before 7 am and go well into the evening hours) has way more problems than food shopping in any event. One of the benefits of freelancing is that you do have flexibility with your schedule. As a freelancer, I work 7 days a week, nearly 365 days a year, and often for over 10 hours a day. However, if I want to take a few hours out for something that is important to me as a person I can do it, so I guess it's really a question of priorities. If working in a co-operative enterprise isn't a priority, don't join a co-op.

[babs]

One other point about co-op funding: all members are investors and do contribute a nominal investment amount (I think it's $100 at the Park Slope Food Co-op) at the time they join (this amount is reduced for students and lower income levels), so the co-op is not entirely dependent on member labor.

[sarah]

I'm a member of PSFC now, but I'm moving closer to PLG and would love to be a working member at LFFC. I suspect that reduced labor costs are the main reason that PSFC manages to have such good prices. That said, it's much easier for me, as a single childless student, to find a convenient shift for 3 hours a month. And PSFC has a real distribution problem in terms of labor, making a lot of people feel superfluous. Perhaps there could be a tiered system--with higher-need slots counting for more somehow? This is something that may need to get worked out in the process.

[Seth]

As a former member of the Park Slope Food Coop and a board member of a large housing cooperative when I went to college, I’ll put in my two cents. The reason members are required to work is because *it's a cooperative*. It is founded based on the principles that every member is an owner and that every member contributes. The work shift is a reminder of that principle. You are the owner, the worker, the customer. There are many good arguments that cooperatives can be and are very frequently inefficient. True. But cooperatives are not about efficiency. They're not Wall Street corporations. They are about cooperative principles that serve to provide the members with something that traditional businesses do not. In the food coop's case it is high quality food products at a low price that are selected with the members' interests in mind from only vendors that meet with the coop’s ideals and principles. The moment you start taking away the cooperative principles the less it starts to become a cooperative. If someone wants to be a member of a cooperative but wants to pay to get out of the cooperative duties maybe joining a coop is not the best choice for that person. And that's what being a member of a coop is. It's a choice. In one of the above comments the poster chose to dedicate her time to her non-profit magazine. An admirable choice to be sure. And it's the same as being a member of a coop. It's a choice to dedicate one's time to something that has meaning to you.

[Clara]

"Your average grocery store employee is unmotivated, unknowldegeable, inefficient, and unfriendly ... With good reason -- it's a crappy, low-paid job."

I don't disagree with most of the sentiments here. I just want to add that, ideally, the coop would be providing something wonderful to the community by offering living wage jobs with health insurance to the people of PLG. Some sort of hybrid membership arrangement could amount to more jobs in the community, in addition to low cost, high quality food.

[Charles Star]

They are about cooperative principles ... In the food coop's case it is high quality food products at a low price that are selected with the members' interests in mind from only vendors that meet with the coop’s ideals and principles.

That is a pretty extreme way of looking at how a coop observes its principles, particularly when they contradict each other. Some people are members because it is a community; some are for the cheap food; some for the range of organic products available. To reduce what a coop "is" to the beliefs of the most committed members is a mistake.

There are a lot of degrees of principle that need to be reconciled to make a coop work. Most coops don't take the hardline approach that requires (a) all shoppers to be members and (b) all members to be workers. This, particularly for a new coop, will mean less start-up resources and will result in less choice on the shelves.

The PSFC sells meat over the objection of some members. They stopped selling bottled water over the objection of some members. There is an ongoing debate in the newsletter over a boycott of Israeli suppliers. Everyone who supports the restrictive approach to each of these questions insists that the "principles" of the coop require their preference but, frankly, it is not true in any of those cases. Each of those decisions requires weighing competing interests within the framework of a group association. "Coop principles" in the abstract are not enough to answer the questions raised.

I think the incentives should be set up to push people towards work over membership fee but I think drawing a line in the sand over this during the planning stages will do more harm than good.

[carrie]

We should be careful about making too many comparisons to the Park Slope Food Coop. That Coop has over 14,000 members. In the world of food coops, it's a giant -- the largest worker-based food coop in the country (by far, I believe). The Coop is the largest customer for many of its vendors. In other words, PSFC is the exception, not the rule.

The planners should be thinking realistically about how many members they can expect to draw in this area. Perhaps the PSFC would be willing to share info such as how many of its active members live in zip code 11225. Also, it'd be interesting to know how other new food coops in the city (Greene Hill, Bay Ridge, Bronx, etc.) have addressed this question. What did they decide to do and how has that worked out for them?

[Jeanne]

We too as freelancers would have a hard time doing volunteer hours only. The food coop hardly has to cater to us and maybe per Bab's view of it we really aren't the types the coop would value as ideal potential members, but if it helps with these planning discussions I wanted to present our situation as an example of people who would rather pay a fee. My husband is slammed and totally unable to do the monthly volunteer hours. Not even an option. I would have to hire our babysitter for 3 hours so I could do the volunteering and that's $45 each month. And if like the PSFC, at the future PLGFC each adult in a household has to do 3 hours for a total of 6 hours for a married couple that means I'd perform both shifts which is $90 babysitter pay.
Per month.

[babs]

I think Seth really says it best -- the work is a reminder of what a co-operative really is. And honestly, I think that if you really can't find 2 3/4 hrs of free time every four weeks, this should serve as a wake up call that there is something wrong in your life -- or maybe you actually do have the time, but maybe you are telling yourself you don't because in reality (consciously or not) you just plain don't want to do the work. In that case continue shopping at regular grocery stores. And best of all Fresh Direct delivers to just about all of PLG. Now there's the ideal solution for people with absolutely no time -- you don't even have to go to the store at all! I, for one, really relish the fact that there is at least one thing out there in our society that you can't throw money at to make go away.

[babs]

Oh, and BTW, PSFC has on-site child care, so you can bring the baby while you do your shift -- for free (it's also a shift option if you have child care experience). Even at $90 per every 4 weeks in babysitter pay, you'll still save more by shopping at the co-op generally speaking -- and provde money to another PLG resident.

[Seth]

In reply to Charles, that PSFC sells meat or stopped selling bottled water just proves that it is a cooperative. The members voted and decided what principles they wanted to adhere to. As always, belonging to the coop is a choice. I myself left a long time ago because I disagreed with the coop’s decisions. That was my choice. That does not invalidate the cooperative’s principles for me. It only validates them more. A cooperative is not about the individual. It’s about the collective need. I’d say that the size and success of PSFC is a clear testament to the principles of that coop and cooperative principles in general. It seems like the people that want to pay to get into the coop without working believe the PSFC represents inexpensive food that they should have access to. Joining a coop is probably not the best choice for these individuals. Nor would it be in the best interest of the coop to have these members. They represent the viewpoint of individuals who want something for themselves as individuals. You state that my views are extreme but you seem offended by the notion that a cooperative disrespects the needs of certain individuals. That is very radical in my opinion!

I would respect any plan to start a coop based on any principles the founders agreed to. But starting a coop will require so much time and effort and sweat that I think you would find that the individuals that want to write a check are not very helpful. And I think you’ll see that it’s not about disrespecting their individual needs (which are completely valid) but it is about respecting the needs of the cooperative as a whole.

[brn442]

For those who insist on mandatory "volunteering", are you really interested in a food coop or a food commune?

I thought the mission statement of a typical food coop was to bring high quality/healthy foods to a (usually underserved) community at "reasonable" prices - Period. Not to hold hands and sing kum ba ya or dig wells in Guatemala.

After walking by the Park Slope Coop for the umpteenth time and seeing (bordering on the comical) a "Volunteer” escorting someone with usually no more than what looks like just two cans of beans and a head of lettuce to their car/bike/ bus, it's clear that there is way more Labor used than is actually needed.

I don't see why there can't be a mixture of both. At the end of the day it's about efficiency not sentiment.

After all, don’t forget, the PS Coop was founded before there was even a (public) Internet/Whole Foods/Trader Joes/Fresh Direct as we know it and their business model reflects it. As we enter the decade of social networking, there is no reason there can't be a sense of community without adhering to outdated, inefficient, and ultimately counter-intuitive dogma of what a food Coop should’ve been 20 YEARS AGO.

90% of PLG residents are blue collar workers, most are on a fixed income. Many wouldn’t mind “volunteering” in lieu of paying dues, as would the out of work freelancer, student, or anyone who has time on their hands as a result of the recession. However, having people work just for the sake of it will just be a waste.

[carrie]

The PSFC offers child care, true, but that certainly doesn't mean that the Lefferts coop will! Providing free child care costs a lot in terms of extra space and regulatory hassle.

Neither Babs nor Seth seem to have any concern whatsoever for practical matters. You have to care about things like the numbers of members, costs, and efficiencies or there won't be much of a food coop at all.

[Seth]

As I wrote, starting a coop will require so much time and effort and sweat that I think you would find that the individuals that want to write a check are not very helpful. I don't know how much more practical you can get than that. BRN442 you are right. Times are cush at PSFC. But should things change it is the members that will get PSFC through. If something like a Katrina ever should happen who will be there to help the coop? It's not going to be people who wrote a check. The cooperative model is designed for long term survival. Over the next 30 years the entire membership may turnover. But there will be the PSFC still rolling along.

[Seth]

And BRN I went to a big national coop meeting once and they actually had everyone hold hands and sing "We Shall Overcome." LOL. That was way too much for me. What that had to do with coops I'll never know.

[Charles Star]

Seth, if the PSFC isn't radical enough for you there is probably no food coop that will satisfy you politically while simultaneously having an interesting enough diversity of goods for people to want to shop there. I can only assume that you currently grow all of your own food in a terrarium.

As for whether people who contribute "only money" are the kind of people the coop should engage with, I'd guess that very close to 100% of projects of all types in any endeavor involve people with different levels of commitment. A person willing to open their wallet is rarely considered a leech.

[Jeanne]

Yes Carrie, and not to mention liability of providing on-site childcare. And the space for it. I would never count on that for the PLGFC. As somebody else pointed out there is a huge difference in what a food coop with thousands of members can provide and one with (if we're lucky) a few hundred members can provide at least for the first several years as it is growing. Somebody needs to sit down and crunch the numbers. This isn't a philosophical debate only. Maybe it does work out okay financially to be members only. It just doesn't sound like from Bab and Seth's arguments that's been determined yet because they are fixated on the kind of people who can find time to donate. By the way, Babs, for artists there is no such thing as extra free time. Literally every hour you spend on something else means time away from your work so that volunteer time is chosen carefully. You are assuming nobody has any other volunteerism they already perform each month. I am already committed to two other volunteer efforts which at this time I must make a priority over a food coop. Again nobody has to cater to me but I don't think I'm alone that's all.

[Seth]

Charles, I think we should stick to our arguments and not make personal attacks.

This is the last thing I can add. Four of the nation's most successful cooperatives are the PSFC, the U of M housing cooperative, the MSU housing coop and the Berkeley housing coop. I have been a member of three of them. All were founded based on the cooperative principles Babs and I are discussing. All were started by members who gave their blood sweat and tears to create organizations that would long outlast them. At one of the coops I belonged to an employee decided to go the bank and withdraw a large sum of our money for herself. We had stringent safeguards against this. Someone at the bank screwed up. So we sued the bank. We got back our money. That took four years. In the meantime the cooperative almost failed after two decades of existence. It was only because of the absurd amount of time and dedication of members that the coop survived. All of the major coops have had their crises. All have survived because of their members. If by some chance a PLG resident donated a million dollars to start a food coop would that be a good thing? I would say it would not. You would end up with something far closer in resemblance to Keyfood than a food coop. The reason is because the die would be cast from that moment forward. You would have a large population of members who wanted to write a check. The members that did work would look at Jack and Jane and wonder why they were working. They would write checks. The member who couldn't write checks or didn't want to would resent the check writers. If the coop ran into problems who would it turn to? How much are people who wrote a check going to care versus people who gave their heart and soul to building something? Eventually you'd end up with a food coop that accomplished little if anything anybody wanted in the first place. Instead of a 40 percent discount like the PFSC you'd have a 10 percent discount. And someday at some meeting someone would raise their hand and say

Why can't this be more like the Park Slope Food Coop?

[brn442]

Haha Seth - believe me, Capital will play a more important role than Labor for the Coop's initial survival. It's all about getting the balance right with the financial model. As PLG isn't as big as the Slope, maybe childcare wouldn't be as necessary anyway. I have these dreams that the Fat Albert building would be the spot or, maybe that space next to the laundromat on Empire?

[Jeff]

Some of us--including my wife and me--have lives so busy (with work, family time, volunteering, endless soccer games, exercise and even making art) that finding an extra 2.75 hrs to do anything (including those things we don't have enough time for already) is difficult.

If time is money, we use our money to buy time. But as this thread reveals, coop membership too often boils down to selecting "the right people." This alone makes it different from ordinary business--and not necessarily in a good way.

However, brn442 has an excellent idea which I would like to take further. Keep the fees the same, but let those who won't volunteer subsidize those who do. Those with no time should pay those who give time. One hand washes the other.

[Jeff]

How much are people who wrote a check going to care versus people who gave their heart and soul to building something?

Please explain, relative to the above, how charitable donations work. Please also explain how charitable donors feel they have an ownership stake when (unlike a food coop) they don't receive goods or services in return.

[dporpentine]

Very depressing comments.

This is an exciting possibility--a food coop serving neighborhoods that could really use one--and most people respond by talking about themselves.

Thank God the PSFC doesn't allow well-heeled people to buy away their responsibilities! I bet that the people working to form the new one are hoping to have the PSFC's support (e.g., logistical help, workers, etc.), so I'm pretty sure that means they'll adhere to the same work policy--otherwise, as I understand it, the Park Slope folks won't help. So this whole question is moot, I'd guess.

And by the way: you can demur at "well-heeled" if you want, but if you've got more money--and work--than free time, especially in neighborhoods with some of the highest unemployment rates in the city, you should just keep your mouth shut about your good fortune. (I know: it's not "good fortune"! You're the one who actually works hard! Everything you have you fought for! It's all you you you! Go get 'em, tiger!)

[carrie]

The PSFC was instrumental in getting the South Bronx Food Coop off the ground. That coop not only allows people to buy memberships, it allows nonmembers to shop.

Perhaps because the organizers of the Bronx coop--who arguably share the values of the PSFC (PSFC members helped found the Bronx one)--realized that without a large number of customers, there'd be no way to survive financially.

[babs]

For all of those people who are more concerned with easy access to the foods they want, and less with the true benefits of a co-operative, where the oh-so-busy (and comparatively well-off) work side by side with the less financially well-endowed and where each draws inspiration from and learns from the other, why not pool all your checks and fund the opening of an upscale market a la Union Market in Park Slope? Otherwise, by implying that the "90% of PLG ... blue collar workers, most ... on a fixed income, ...as well as ... the out of work freelancer, student, or anyone who has time on their hands as a result of the recession," should cater to the busy check-writers (whose lives and time are clearly so much more important than those of these "volunters"), is just perpetuating the class system we're trying to break away from with a true co-operative.

[babs]

Frosm the South Brox Co-op's website (http://sbxfc.org/about_faq.html):

"Q: Do all members have to work, if so why?
A: Yes all members do have to contribute 3 hours of their time per month. One of the coop's goals is to provide food to the member-owners that are both low priced and high quality. Low prices come primarily from saving money in the area of payroll expense. Payroll is the biggest expense of any store, including this one. The fact that our members do about 75% of the work, thereby keeping our payroll low, is the main reason that the members of this coop pay low prices. Another goal accomplished when members are doing 75% of the work of the coop is a feeling of being a member-owner that one cannot get from merely investing one's money."

They do allow non-members to shop there, but a higher prices and offer an additional discount for "superworkers" -- more than 8 hours a month. This is perhaps a solution for all those people who, just because they are blue collar workers, students, or on a fixed income, apparently have lots of time on their hands, according to some.

[carrie]

The Bronx food coop site contradicts itself. See the Membership Page:
http://sbxfc.org/membership.html

Non-working members pay $40 per year and get 3.5% discount off of prices. Working members get a 10% discount.

And, as you acknowledge, the coop allows nonmembers to shop (who are effectively "buying" their way in through 10% price premiums).

At this point I'm going to politely request that, in order to encourage NEW people to participate in the discussion, people who have posted more than 3 times refrain from posting further. We know how you feel. An exception will be made for correcting factual errors.

[Jeanne]

What is with this poor people have more time thing? Low income mothers work 2 or 3 jobs. I would argue it is the wealthy who can give up 3 hours per month for each adult and still have time for their children. Those are folks who have every weekend free not people who work another job on weekends. If nobody noticed, Park slope residents are quite wealthy. Also, the PSFC already IS involved in helping the PLG food coop. I attended one of the meetings they hosted for several food coops in planning stages. The PSFC never said they would refuse to help or give advice to somebody whose business model is different from theirs. In fact Joe talked about the different business models. He likes their own model best but he never told the other food coops they could not choose another type of membership or not have the support of the PSFC.

[Art Tatum]

When I was in Montana, I went to this absolutely awesome coop, and their philosophy is a bit different. There, the ability to work shifts is what is optional, and every member pays dues, so it's sort of the reverse of what we're looking at. Those who volunteered to work shifts would then receive discounts based on the amount of hours they worked. The interesting thing was, this place had such a warm community feeling and everybody really felt like a part of something special, even though the bulk of members did not work shifts. People would just go there to hang out even when they weren't shopping. They also had some really great "green" ideas that I haven't seen elsewhere around here.

http://www.bozo.coop/home

[Nethermeade]

The Sevananda co-op in Atlanta also allows members and non-members to shop. This openness is prominenly advertised on the Sevananda website and influences the feeling of the physical store. I found it wonderfully accessible and warm when I lived in Atlanta for a single year and did all of the shopping I could there. The shelves feature two prices: 1 for non-members and a discounted price for members. Members are encouraged but not required to work. I'm sure the dollars of non-members help that co-op remain viable. And I'll bet the "all are welcome" approach helps recruit members better than an exclusionary policy. I'd love to see a co-op based on this model in the neighborhood and would shop there initially and perhaps join down the line.

[Jeff]

Good luck on the community-building thing, guys....

“The type of people who'd rather pay than work in a co-op are not the type of people I want to have as fellow-members.”

“Anyone who can't find 2 hours and 45 minutes every four weeks for him or herself (especially considering that shifts start before 7 am and go well into the evening hours) has way more problems than food shopping in any event.”

“I think that if you really can't find 2 3/4 hrs of free time every four weeks, this should serve as a wake up call that there is something wrong in your life “

“…the individuals that want to write a check are not very helpful. …If something like a Katrina ever should happen who will be there to help the coop? It's not going to be people who wrote a check”

“Thank God the PSFC doesn't allow well-heeled people to buy away their responsibilities.”
“The member who couldn't write checks or didn't want to would resent the check writers.”

“And by the way: you can demur at "well-heeled" if you want, but if you've got more money--and work--than free time, especially in neighborhoods with some of the highest unemployment rates in the city, you should just keep your mouth shut about your good fortune. (I know: it's not "good fortune"! You're the one who actually works hard! Everything you have you fought for! It's all you you you! Go get 'em, tiger!)”

“For all of those people who are more concerned with easy access to the foods they want, and less with the true benefits of a co-operative, where the oh-so-busy (and comparatively well-off) work side by side with the less financially well-endowed and where each draws inspiration from and learns from the other, why not pool all your checks and fund the opening of an upscale market a la Union Market in Park Slope?”

“I would argue it is the wealthy who can give up 3 hours per month for each adult and still have time for their children. Those are folks who have every weekend free not people who work another job on weekends.”

[eastbloc]

Definitely allow paid memberships.

If you need manpower, price them accordingly to what the market will bear for paid help. A lot of us would be more than happy to contribute and participate but unable to get sufficient time off out of our everyday lives.

You could offer partially-paid memberships with fewer requirements. This would complicate bookkeeping somewhat but would make it easier for those of us with demanding jobs to stay involved.

[BCTOBK]

Well said Jeff.

Call me Pollyanna, but isn't the heart of the question this; if the PLGFC is struggling to get off the ground financially or to survice as an ongoing concern(and there's nothing to say it will because we are all speculating wildly in the absence of the financial analysis) isn't the greater community good served in being flexible and letting the community contribute in myriad ways to the success of the coop, including paid memberships?

I don't doubt that every poster on this thread is committed to the success of this venture. I agree that the heart and soul of a cooperative venture such as this is volunteerism.

But depressingly, this debate seems more about ideological purity instead of how we can all have access to fresh, reasonably priced carrots and bring a new and positive entity into PLG.

Maybe this thread could use a little more community spirit and flexibility on finding answers to the end-game of the ready availability of fresh and reasonably priced produce to all of our neighbours!

See you at the PLGFC and Happy New Year!

[Anna]

Jeff & BCTOBK

The Park Slope Food Coop is made up of an absurdly diverse group of 15000 people who all manage to agree and adapt to do one thing: work 3 hours/month. But because you don't want to do that makes the group exclusionary? It's just the opposite. It's incredibly open to just about anyone including even people who cannot afford the membership dues. Or need accommodations to fulfill the work requirement because of disability or illness. They just ask one thing. But because you don't want to do it you identify the problem as being with the co-op? 15000 people at the PSFC who can all agree on one thing and you're saying people with the same philosophy are going have to problems with the community building thing? I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that it is people who say everyone else should adapt to their needs are going to have the problem you cite. I would be personally embarrassed to paste together a string of quotes like that and claim I don't have 3 hours/month.

[Lucy]

As a matter of simple arithmetic - if the PSFC has 15K members, and each member works 2.75 hours/month, that's ~1375 man-hours consumed by the co-op PER DAY. Does that really sound plausible to anyone? That's the equivalent of 114 people working there all day every day. Really? Where are they hiding?

On the larger issues of righteousness and moral indignation about the correct way to run the perfect co-op - in the end, if non-working members are not allowed, the PLGFC will have fewer members and may not survive. I personally will not join if there are not non-working memberships. I have other priorities in my life - family, work, and (gasp) actually enjoying my free time rather than running from one overscheduled moment to the next. I'd be happy to support the PLGFC by both writing a check and by spending my shopping dollars there - but if I'm not deemed to have my priorities in order to the standards of the Kommittee, then I'll support an organization that doesn't feel the need to sit in judgement on the lifestyle choices of others. Seriously, haters - get a life.

[Lucy]

Oh, and I'm excited to see we have given birth to the 21st century version of the Hitler analogy - the Katrina analogy! An update to Godwin's Law should be along any day now!

[Karen]

Hi all,
I'm one of the lead organizers for the planning of the Lefferts Farm Food Cooperative. While there are interesting opinions here, I'd like to clarify the article that Carrie wrote. LFFC has not had *any* formal discussions on membership structure nor do I feel like we have had any "debates" about it. That will be part of the larger planning process and will be decided upon based on a community assessment of needs and a to-be-determined decision-making process. As you can see, we are in the early planning stages and I invite all of you to join and view our public MeetUp page (http://www.meetup.org/plgfoodcoop) where all meeting notes to date have been posted.

Unlike a typical business, this is probably going to be a longer process because of the importance of community involvement (in addition to determining the market for a food co-op) and all types of expertise are needed--from organizational structure, finance, organizing/outreach, project management, real estate, etc. It's truly a comprehensive project. So, please, opinions may abound about structure, etc, but if you are really interested in how this turns out, please join the group to stay informed and come to a meeting! There are two schedule for this month. One is a general meeting on January 21 and one is on January 28 to get the Communications Committee going.

Also, feel free to email me at karen[at]houseofcakes.com if you have any questions or want more information.

Thanks!

Karen

P.S. FWIW, Bay Ridge has decided to be member-based. Not sure about Greene Hill, but I think they are headed that way. SoBx was originally but it's an issue of planning/organizing/community support (it is much more difficult to be member-based v. member/non-member) so they may have changed their position on that.

[Anna]

"in the end, if non-working members are not allowed, the PLGFC will have fewer members and may not survive"

"I have other priorities in my life - family, work, and (gasp) actually enjoying my free time rather than running from one overscheduled moment to the next."

So in other words you want to have your say but you don't want to commit any time to the co-op. And even though you don't feel it's important enough to commit your time, you will blame the people who do commit their time for not representing your opinion. It will be their fault for not creating a co-op you want. Not your fault. Correct?

[sharon]

thank god for fairway

[m.]

I am a member at the PSFC; my shift works well at present; it hasn't in the past; it probably won't again in the future. It works right now b/c childcare is offered at PSFC. Co-op work is fun (or can be)! It's interesting to be a part of the system that brings food to your plate (beyond the wallet). However, I work the office shift & have quickly learned that the mandatory volunteer system requires multiple office staff & a host of volunteers to fully administer scheduling and the arrears that folks get into for all stripes of reasons. So. It's a self-perpetuating situation & a hard choice. Overall, I think it's better when all the members work a shift. But I'm not sure a co-op starting now, in 2010, can do what PSFC did decades ago. It is true that a lot of people are seriously over a barrel in their lives via work, school, parenting or otherwise. PSFC does have a shift called FTOP that allows one to 'bank' shifts in advance to accomodate those who have unruly schedules. Overall, I believe that I support a mixed membership option with tiered pricing like Flatbush Food Coop. It is very true that PSFC has much lower prices due to costs saved on labor, but it's also true that PSFC's daily operations are structured and supported in large part by its paid (and knowledgeable) staff. A two-tiered structure would allow both financial and volunteer time investors to build a food coop in a city that is much different than it was back when PSFC started. Time and money are both necessary investments and could potentially result in an employee or two for the new co-op. Either way, I support *all attempts to bring better food options to PLG* & would potentially participate.

[babs]

The idea of having non-working members at the LFFC had never been mentioned by anyone on the organizing committee prior to this piece being posted and was just as speedily rejected. The commitment to a member work requirement was re-iterated at last night's general information meeting as well; no-one in attendance supported the idea of non-working members. PSFC members can actually use FTOP to work their required shifts here in PLG on organizing the co-op; we are in particular need of members with finance, legal, PR, and IT skills. We are currently in the process of formalizing this FTOP shift-sharing arrangement and it should be off the ground shortly. In the meantime, for further information, I invite anyone interested to visit our Meetup page (http://www.meetup.com/PLGFoodCoop/) and to beome a fan on Facebook (look for the Lefferts Farm Food Cooperative).