These lines intend to underline the importance of the figure of the worker member as one of the central elements of meaning of the cooperative identity, its paradoxes, perversions and some proposals for debate. In short, it is about trying to rescue this central factor for a current analysis and provoke debate and proposals.
In the cooperative approach of the richest years in the creation and multiplication of this socio-economic phenomenon in the Basque Country, we speak of the decades of the 50s and 60s of the last century, cooperatives, through the creation of the figure of the partner- worker, offered, on the one hand, a proposal to democratize the company and be able to participate in it, making the worker a subject of the business process. From there, the maxim of 'one member, one vote' was formulated, which allows the worker-member to have the last word before the most strategic decisions of the cooperative. And on the other hand, they placed on the table a new and real way out of the main historical battle posed by the Marxist left: the struggle between capital and labor. And lThe cooperatives knew how to put work before capital, that is, they gave the person a higher value within their structures than to capital. It was her emancipation. Today, we are already used to the reality of cooperatives, this does not surprise us especially, but sixty years ago it was a radically courageous and innovative approach.
Being an organization made up of a collective of worker-members who owns their work is one of the most consistent signs of cooperative identity. It is a clear element that offers a lot of meaning to cooperativism. This condition means for the member that he is a worker and also the owner of the company, at the same time. They are two relatively paradoxical attributions, but they have to be managed with business, human and social responsibility in a task of good cooperative pedagogy, balance and maturity.
However, the actual practice of this trait has caused some perversions and injustices. Expressed in a single idea, we would say that sometimes it is perceived that the group of members is a privileged group within cooperatives, and that sometimes some 'use' that status and hide behind it against the rights of temporary workers, and also against those of their more committed colleagues. Part by part. With respect to eventuals, it seems that in certain somewhat delicate situations (institutional crises, adjustments, the distribution of costly tasks, economic crises…) that are posed to every organization, the partners are ultimately the absolute priority and the subject to defend.In short, there is an atmosphere of 'corporatism' and 'special security' on the part of the partners and for them. These situations or advantages can always be explained, but for me they contain a degree of suspicious injustice with the cooperative ideal and values. And on the other hand, there is the injustice of the unsupportive partner towards the total group of committed partners. It could be said that these attitudes are the fruit of the insufficient level of commitment to the cooperative project understood in an integral way. And furthermore, it is known that this situation will never change; it is assumed, with a certain disappointment and resignation, that all members are 'untouchable'.
At this point, I would like to add an argument that some members often use to justify their status vis-à-vis potential members: they say that members take profits, but also losses (in case things go wrong for them). organization). In any case, this argument falls under its own weight because all the prospects want to be partners, in my environment of course they do, and without any exception. Honestly, I think that this point is unanswerable.
Before entering the block of proposals for a debate, one last note. There could be the paradox that in some capital companies, if it turns out that their main shareholder (s) has a special sensitivity to this type of injustice, this reality would be better than that which occurs in some cooperatives.
Let us approach, without further delay, the propositional block.
Proposals for discussion and improvement
In the first place, it is based on the conviction that the very act of debating and proposing contributes 'per se' vitality and meaning to the cooperative that does it. In this direction, I consider that this problem has an important motivational potential to activate some cooperative members.
Let's start with a general appreciation. With this question, surely, we have stumbled upon a problem of human nature, and it does not have many more twists in that sense: the human condition itself, that is, the real lack of solidarity and the lack of commitment that characterizes a significant part of the people.. Therefore, in addition to debating, we should not be too naive. The improvement could come through proposals and specific norms approved in the competent bodies that serve as 'corrective elements' to minimize these situations of injustice.
Next, we are going to point out some specific proposals that could be the subject of debate in cooperatives:
- Study the possibility of evaluating the commitment to the project of the worker-members in order to seek a higher level of solidarity and justice between partners, and between partners and prospects. Open discussion processes with this issue in the cooperative collectives. Could it be a rule in the Internal Regulations? A decision by the assembly and implemented by an agent specialized in evaluation? Of the Governing Council? There is the proposal for the debate: make smaller cooperatives and decentralize the 'big ones'. Pursuing the idea of federation or association rather than creating 'a great company' or practicing merger strategies. It could be a decision in which the lack of solidarity could not be 'hidden' so easily among the great 'mass'. Along with this strategy, it would be very interesting to identify cooperative leaders with the greatest potential to promote the culture and practice of justice and cooperative identity. This could be a second point of discussion: Establish a new system (tool) in the partner selection process. To evaluate, on the one hand and especially, the level of commitment of the candidate to partner with the project, and with the people who compose it. And on the other hand, a new system that avoids a danger of arbitrariness or injustice that could occur in the election of the new partner by the management and the Governing Council. It seems that the current partner selection methods could be improved. It would be interesting to tune them to the goals set by each cooperative for this election process. Here is another question to debate. Period of eventuality of the worker in the cooperative.It would be pertinent to reflect in cooperatives about the policy that should be established in relation to the time a worker must 'wait' in a situation of contingency, and reduce it as much as possible. It is also important to ensure sincere, direct and systematic communication with these people in relation to this issue. Yet another topic of debate. The difference between remuneration. Although it is known that in capital companies the salary band is much higher than in cooperatives, I think that this debate and a new proposal in the direction of reducing the difference to the maximum would have an extraordinary 'moral force' also for the question that we occupies at this writing. Furthermore, it would offer a cooperative coherence of great symbolic significance; it would bring an unprecedented degree of equality and justice between partners and between partners and eventuals; It would be a significant business advantage, in my opinion; it would offer much greater moral authority to members with responsibilities within the organization; It would be an action that would have a great impact on the level of real justice, both within and outside the cooperative. Here we have another great topic of discussion.education, awareness-raising, debate and formulation of proposals. Do not think that these questions have easy answers. Be certain that these are complex issues, but that they must be addressed in order to achieve higher levels of justice. And to have the conviction that the debate itself and the formulation of proposals on issues that directly affect us are an exercise that gives meaning and revitalizes cooperativism. This could be another business to finish.
Conclusion: the significant inequality in the commitment to the cooperative project between partners, and between partners and prospects, must be debated within cooperativism and innovative, demanding and courageous proposals are required. Perhaps we are risking something more important for cooperativism than it seems at first glance, that is, the search for justice and cooperative regeneration itself.
