Dan Clore
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: A ParEcon Workplace Is Possible |
 |
|
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/19264
The NewStandard: A ParEcon Workplace is Possible
October 30, 2008
By Jessica Azulay
[An excerpt from the book Real Utopia (AK Press, June 2008)]
A parecon workplace is possible. I have experienced one, and now I
believe we can overcome capitalism.
The hierarchical workplace is an insidious institution. It is a powerful
mechanism through which capitalism imposes and normalizes some of its
most vicious values: It thrives on competition. It encourages
authoritarianism and subservience. It rewards workers for their race,
gender, education, output, age, conformity, and their ability to "work
the system." It is dangerous for individual empowerment and democracy,
yet it is embraced even by most social-change organizations. It must be
subverted.
The theory of Participatory Economics provides a framework for creating
a new kind of workplace in present-day market economies. It shows us how
to organize our work around a different set of values: equity,
solidarity, democracy, and diversity.
Unlike some facets of the parecon vision, which may seem lofty and
futuristic, the workplace model can to a great extent be immediately
implemented. I say this with confidence because I have done it.
For four years, I, along with several co-workers, labored in a
parecon-based workplace to produce a daily, online news publication
called The NewStandard. TNS, as we called it, was 100 percent reader
funded and not-for-profit. It upheld the highest ethical standards in
the news industry and focused on the perspectives of people most
affected by current events and government and corporate policy.
Our particular project was a less-than-ideal laboratory for parecon. At
its peak, when there were six of us, we worked from four different
locations, which made communication challenging. We worked grueling
hours to meet daily publishing deadlines, leaving little time and energy
for other aspects of our organization. And the funding pressures of the
news and alternative-media industries kept our publication on the
financial brink.
Yet we found even this to be a rich environment in which to stave off
hierarchy. Using the parecon fundamentals---balanced job complexes,
participatory decision-making, and payment for effort and sacrifice---we
were able to experiment, invent, and reinvent until we found ways of
operating that were increasingly efficient and fair.
The workplace structure we created for ourselves was unlike any other
parecon-based organization we have ever heard of. Parecon's emphasis on
diversity, self-management and solidarity allowed each of us to
participate in the development of our organization and to help it work
for each and all of us. So here is how this exciting economic vision was
put into practice by Megan Tady, Shreema Mehta, Catherine Komp, Brian
Dominick, Brendan Coyne, Michelle Chen, Simone Baribeau and myself.
Jill of All Trades
There are many ways to implement balanced job complexes. Some groups
have rotated tasks, giving everyone a turn at each to-do. I know of at
least one organization that tried to assign an empowerment ranking to
each chore. At TNS, we didn't have the time to get very scientific about
it and we also needed each staffer to work on things she was good at.
We divided our work into four categories: managerial, content,
administrative, and something we called "conmin." Had we all been
working in the same physical space, there would have been a janitorial
category, but since we each worked from home, the messiness of our
respective workplaces was not a collective concern.
The managerial category covered work related to decision-making. It
included attending collective meetings, participating in email
discussions, serving on decision-making committees, and other forms of
coordination and management that involved policy-related decision-making.
The content category included tasks associated with creating and
publishing: reporting, editing, website development, etc. Since this
work became the public face of our organization and required a high
skill level, we considered it very empowering.
Administrative work included most of the behind-the-scenes tasks:
bookkeeping, answering email, providing technical support to website
users, opening the snail mail, answering the phone, cutting and pasting
website text or computer code, taking meeting notes, etc.
Finally, the conmin category was something we created to encompass tasks
that were less desirable than most content work, but more empowering
than most administrative work. This was not one of our original
categories, but we created it out of necessity to acknowledge that some
tasks carry empowerment with them, but are nonetheless tedious. This
category included activities like writing text for our fundraising
drives, fact checking, and putting together our member newsletter.
When we divided up the work, we tried to make sure that each staffer was
assigned roughly the same number of hours of each kind of work. It
didn't always come out equal, but we tried to address inequities by
rotating tasks when possible and assigning new or temporary tasks
according to who was low on certain types of work. We also audited
ourselves periodically by keeping track of who spent how much time on what.
Some aspects of our jobs were very similar. For instance, participation
in collective meetings and email discussions were part of everyone's
balanced job complex. We also took turns acting as facilitator and
note-taker at meetings.
The rest of our workdays were fairly specialized. My own balanced job
complex during the last year of publication consisted mostly of editing
work (content) and an occasional writing assignment (content). I was
also the main fact-checker (conmin), the article coordinator
(managerial) and the bookkeeper (administrative). And I posted content
to the website most mornings (administrative).
Brian Dominick's job complex included website development (content),
copy editing (content) and writing/editing short news bulletins
(content). He also posted content to the website (administrative),
answered the mail and phones (administrative), performed website upkeep
(administrative) and provided technical support (administrative). And he
coordinated our In Other News section (managerial).
Another co-worker, Megan Tady, spent most of her time writing articles
(content) as well as doing some editing (content). She was a member of
the fundraising/promotion and accountability committees (both a mix of
managerial and conmin). And she managed all member email
(administrative). Most of the other "managing reporters" like Megan had
similar job complexes.
Organized Anarchy
At TNS it wasn't that no one was in charge; everyone was in charge. But
we did not make decisions in isolation, which would have lead to chaos.
Instead, we developed a sophisticated structure to facilitate quick
group decisions, self-management and accountability. This was based on a
formal policy we called the Participatory Decision-Making Process.
The goal of the decision-making process was to engage all participants
in order to account for diverse views and opinions and arrive at the
most widely agreeable or acceptable outcomes. The greater the impact a
decision would have on the organization, the more agreement it needed.
We arrived at decisions using a variety of democratic methods, including
consensus and voting. When a decision had a large impact on our
organization, we required consensus, which to us meant that everyone
actively accepted the decision. We also limited the circumstances in
which members could block consensus to those in which a member felt a
decision constituted a radical departure from the mission or core values
of the organization or the decision would pose a moral dilemma
unacceptable to the blocker.
When impact on the organization was smaller and removed from the realm
of morality and core values, we employed a voting method. Sometimes we
used simple majority (four out of six votes, for instance), and
sometimes we required a super majority (five out of six votes).
Regardless of which method was used, a formal discussion process always
preceded a decision so that staffers could weigh in, ask questions,
modify proposals, or express dissent. Dissent was always recorded in our
meeting notes, even when dissenters eventually accepted an outcome.
To better comply with the principles of parecon, we also sometimes used
other, more-unorthodox methods, in conjunction with consensus or voting.
One such method was called "proportional input." We used this to account
for the disparate impact a decision might have on one or more staff
members. When using a voting method, like simple or super majority,
individual staffers were assigned additional votes based on how much the
decision would impact them.
When using proportional input with consensus, a person who stood to be
disproportionately affected by a decision could block consensus, even if
the decision posed no departure from the organizational mission and
presented no moral dilemma.
Another unorthodox method we used was called "proportional outcome."
This method was designed to increase the diversity of our
decision-making outcomes. For instance, we used proportional outcome to
decide which of several possible new features to implement on our
website. We each ranked the possibilities from favorite to least
favorite, added up the scores assigned to each item and then used the
items with the top three scores.
Proportional-output voting was invaluable in cases where we were seeking
the "best" solutions, rather than trying to determine right and wrong
ways of moving forward. We often used this method when deciding how much
to buy or how much to spend on something. Instead of trying to gain
majority support for a specific number, we would each propose a number,
average the proposals and use that average as our final decision.
This Participatory Decision-Making Process probably sounds complicated,
but over time it became pretty intuitive. For most day-to-day decisions
we reached unanimity very easily, even when a voting procedure could
have been used. Most of us found it easy to reach compromises and stay
relatively unattached to our own preferences because no one wanted to
sit in meetings longer than necessary. Staffers had to agree to the
decision-making process before joining, and experienced staffers helped
newer collective members navigate the process until they were
comfortable with it.
Speaking of meetings, we did have a lot of them. We held short morning
meetings (about 20 minutes) most weekdays to decide which stories TNS
would pursue. These meetings took place at the same time every morning
and were conducted over a free conference-calling system. Other
day-to-day decisions were made over email, instant message, or an
occasional emergency conference call.
Decisions that could not be made with these methods or that needed
longer discussion were saved for our weekly meetings, which were also
held by conference call. These lasted about one to two hours.
Facilitation for these meetings rotated among all staff members. The
facilitator was also in charge of putting an agenda together and sending
it out to all collective members ahead of time. Note taking for these
meetings also rotated.
We also held board meetings a few times a year. For these, everyone
traveled to one location for a "retreat," which involved a series of
meetings over two or three days. Whenever possible, we saved major
organizational decisions for these face-to-face discussions. The task of
creating the agenda for these retreats rotated among staff as well.
Before you think the TNS workplace was utopian, let me assure you that
we did have problems. Sometimes people habitually missed their
deadlines. Sometimes staffers violated our policies. Sometimes they
abused power. Eventually, we realized that we needed a way to hold each
other accountable for such transgressions.
The main goals of our accountability process, developed over several
months, were (1) to provide a fair and quick way to address problematic
behavior, (2) to focus on restitution instead of punishment, (3) to
provide staff members with support or resources they needed to change
their behavior, (4) to allow transgressing staff members to own up to
their mistakes and self-manage their remedies.
Any staff member could ask for an accountability meeting about another
staffer. At the meeting, the problematic behavior would be described in
detail and the negative impacts on individuals or the organization would
be listed. Staffers would then decide if the violation was mild, medium
or severe. Severity of violations would determine which remedies
staffers would have at their disposal.
For mild violations, staffers could ask the violator to write an "owning
up letter" to the rest of the collective in which she would describe her
own problematic behavior and apologize for it. For medium violations,
there were several options, including asking the transgressor to come up
with her own plan for restitution, prescribing a course of restitution
(like extra work to make up for the extra work she caused someone else),
corrective instruction (like re-reading the journalist handbook or read
a tutorial about the specific area she messed up with).
For situations in which decision-making power or other forms of
empowerment were abused, the collective might temporarily shift the
transgressor's balanced job complex to include more rote work and less
content or management work.
For the most severe violations, the collective could decide to take away
decision-making power specific to the offense. The collective could also
decide to downgrade a staffer's status from full collective member back
to trial collective member. This was a severe step that would strip the
transgressor of blocking power for six months at the end of which all
other collective members would have to reach consensus to restore full
membership.
Payment for Effort and Sacrifice
All full-time staff members at The NewStandard were paid the same
salary, regardless of seniority. Though we started off having receive
pay in the form of promised "sweat equity," by the end, we were paying
$21,600 per year, a living wage in most of the cities from which we
worked. We also provided health insurance and eleven days paid vacation.
Our sick-day policy was a little less traditional. We wanted to
recognize that some people get sick more often or have more family
emergencies than others through no fault of their own. So we gave each
collective member three personal days that they could use in the event
of sickness or personal emergency. And then we created a collective
"pot" in which we put four days for each staffer. (For instance, when
there were six of us, there were 24 days in the pot at the beginning of
each year.) Anyone could use days in the pot if they ran out of personal
days. But if the pot had ever run out of days (which it never did),
anyone who used more than four from the pot, might have to start paying
days back. This just meant that some of the days they took would revert
from paid to unpaid days.
The result of this policy was that people had a disincentive to take
more days than they needed because they knew that leaving days in the
pot would help other collective members. Staffers also knew that if they
took more than seven days, they might have to pay some of them back if
the pot ran out. This policy helped foster solidarity among the staff,
as well as accommodate a diversity of needs.
Aside from employing a full-time staff, TNS also paid several dozen
freelance journalists over the years. We knew that coming up with a
system for paying reporters based on their effort and sacrifice would be
difficult, but we tried anyway. I think we got pretty close.
We made a list of the different kinds of work entailed in writing news
articles and then we assigned a dollar value to each. For instance,
conducting a full interview with a source was worth $20, while reading a
document (like a court transcript or a scientific study) was valued at
$10. Calling a source for comment chalked up $5. There was a base fee
for all articles on top of which fees for these specific types of work
were added.
We set up an online system so that after publication of an article, a
journalist could log on through our website and fill out an invoice. She
would list all the interviews conducted, calls for comment made,
documents read, etc. She could also note any extra effort that went into
the article. For instance, sometimes journalists had to read documents
that were hundreds of pages long or sometimes sources were particularly
difficult to interview. When she was done, her editor would review the
invoice and adjust amounts accordingly. The editor could also add
bonuses for clean copy (which saved others labor time), a quick
turnaround (which implied sacrifice) or other extra efforts.
The Capitalist Intersection
Many people think that our nonprofit, reader-driven funding model killed
TNS. I think it would be more accurate to say that capitalism killed
TNS. Our funding strategy, which was to ask readers to donate a small
amount each month, proved successful in many ways. Per reader, we raised
an extraordinary amount of money, much more than we could have if we had
tried selling our readers' eyeballs to advertisers.
Our main funding problem was that we never gained enough readers. I
believe that is because our news-making model incorporated gobs of hard
work and ethics, and we were competing in a greed-driven marketplace
that generally rewards exactly the opposite.
Aside from funding, the toughest challenge our collective faced was
hiring. The U.S. education system and capitalist economy do not prepare
people for working in a parecon workplace. We needed people who were
skilled journalists, but willing to work for low pay while putting in
the extra effort our high standards required. We also needed people who
were ready and able to take on the challenges involved in managing a
struggling nonprofit organization, but who were willing to share that
power collectively.
We found that many skilled journalists did not always have the desire to
manage an organization or enthusiasm for collective decision-making. And
people with enthusiasm for our workplace values often lacked the
reporting or editing skills we required. On top of that, almost everyone
qualified for the job could find better pay elsewhere.
For those of us who did end up working at TNS, it was life-changing.
Those who had never even heard of parecon before joining our collective
quickly adapted to it and became devotees. The very things that made
hiring hard, made working on TNS rewarding. Each of us was able to learn
and grow in many different directions at once and develop diverse
aspects of our professional lives. Although our adventure did not last
forever, the four-year experience that we created for ourselves and the
example that we provided to those who came into contact with us still
reverberates.
We discovered the parecon workplace to be an inspirational institution.
I believe it could be a powerful mechanism through which a movement for
radical economic change could facilitate and normalize its most vital
values: equity, solidarity, self-management and diversity. It encourages
individual empowerment and democracy, yet it is rejected by most
social-change institutions. They see it not as a threat to capitalism,
but as a threat to their internal status quo. But, if we must become now
what we wish to see in a better society, resistance to true workplace
equity and democracy must give way, and nonhierarchical workplaces must
be implemented.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"From the point of view of the defense of our society,
there only exists one danger -- that workers succeed in
speaking to each other about their condition and their
aspirations _without intermediaries_."
--Censor (Gianfranco Sanguinetti), _The Real Report on
the Last Chance to Save Capitalism in Italy_ |
|
