Mondragon and Intros

["Vic Thorpe" <just.solutions@pandora.be>]

Lisa Fowkes makes an interesting point regarding wage solidarity between
workers and the danger that wage concessions given by workers in exchange
for shares in their company may undermine gains achieved by workers in
conventional companies.

The Mondragon policy to which Lisa refers exists at three levels:
1.  Inside the Mondragon group, each cooperative is supposed to link its
wage payments (and its working hours) to a central index, within a range of
90 per cent to 110 per cent of that reference;
2.  Cooperatives are also expected to ensure that their wage rates are
linked to those of workers in the same sector in the same region - unless
those wages are regarded as outstandingly low;
3.  There used to be a 3:1 ratio between the highest and lowest qualified in
the cooperative, but that was slowly eroded as things got much larger and
more complicated.  Now top management (which is still subject to approval
and removal by the cooperators as a whole) is employed at a rate 30 per cent
below 'market rates'.

A link to the Mondragon site can be found at www.mondragon.mcc.es or click
on the link attached to this message.  Later on, if there are enough people
interested, it would be possible to arrange a trip to Mondragon for a group
of 15 people or more.

When comparing wage rates between worker-owned and 'conventional' capitalist
firms, it is worth remembering that a large part of the point of worker
ownership is to secure the benefits of payment not only in wages, but also
in long term capital appreciation and sometimes in tax-reducing dividends
too.  So, it's worth considering the whole 'package' of benefits in the
short, medium and long term.

That said, I strongly agree both Lisa and Brian Kohler's points that there's
no advantage to worker ownership that turns out to be no more than
self-exploitation through wage give-backs without control.  It looks like we
are already homing in on the essential differences between ESOP's that are
purely 'motivational' devices to drive up short-term productivity without
surrendering control and those that are designed to transfer both ownership
and control to the workforce.

Introductions

As Lisa has begun the introductions, can I suggest that everyone registered
for this discussion also introduces themselves, so we get to know the
variety of backgrounds from which we are investigating this subject?  It
will also help to check that all the systems are working OK, since we had a
little glitch at the outset.  Let me start, to give you the idea:

'My interest in worker ownership began in the early 1970's when I was editor
of a rank-and-file newspaper and a trade union book club in the UK.  Under
the guidance of my friend and comrade, Walter Kendall, of Ruskin Trade Union
College, I was a keen (but, in my case, inexperienced) advocate of worker
control.  We took up the cause of the Triumph Meriden cooperative and
supported the Lucas Aerospace work-in (for which I also edited the 'Lucas
Aerospace News').  These ventures collapsed in large part because of lack of
understanding and support from the traditional trade union movement, which
interpreted 'ownership of the means of production' as a political victory
through the ballot box for a 'Labour Party' committed to nationalisation of
key industries.  That kind of faith in the good will of politicians never
did satisfy me and everything that has happened since has only strengthened
that cynicism.

Since then I've worked for over twenty years with the International
Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM) -
first as a researcher, later as Deputy General Secretary and latterly as
General Secretary.  When I stepped down from the position of General
Secretary last November, ICEM membership stood at 21 million members from
over 400 unions in 135 countries.  Without exception, our members were
looking for an effective answer to the ravages of globalisation and the
triumphalism of so-called 'free market' capital.  I've written and spoken a
lot about globalisation, but have come to the conclusion that organised
labor has to rediscover its past and promote a more complete answer to
social reconstruction than just money wage militancy.

Since the beginning of this year, I have been working part-time as Senior
Adviser to my old international (ICEM) on new policy areas and trying to
link with others worldwide by creating a consulting network called 'Just
Solutions' to serve labor and the social sector.  One of our key interests
is to support worker buy-outs by research, training and by finding external
resources.  Other areas include labor, social and human rights auditing of
large companies with and on behalf of trade unions; sector research;
campaigning and lobbying for labor; establishing new discussion fora on
broader labor themes.

I was Chair (and now board member) of a London-based trade union training
and development agency called Labour & Society International (LSI) that I
helped to found four years ago.  I am also a founding board member of the
Global Labour Institute (GLI) - an international think-tank for labor, based
in Geneva, Switzerland.  At the moment, I live in Brussels, Belgium.'

That's me; now you?

In solidarity,

Vic Thorpe

Title: Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa