Chicago factory occupiers form worker cooperative

[Let's Get Free]

http://truth-out.org/images/060112-1.jpg
First, they occupied the factory to get their wages from the bosses that owned the machinery. Then, they occupied their factory to keep the second bosses from shutting down their machinery. And, now, they are on their way to owning and running the machinery.
The group of workers who occupied their Chicago factory in 2008 and again in 2012 incorporated a worker-run cooperative on May 30, 2012. The factory window makers will take over was formerly owned by Republic Windows and Doors and then Serious Energy, and will now be run by New Era Windows, LLC.
Their battle to win wages and back pay from Republic Windows and Doors by occupying the factory is often mentioned in the same breath as the occupation of the Wisconsin State Capitol to protest Gov. Scott Walker's anti-union bill as a flash point of progressive struggle since the recession took hold.
Armando Robles, president of the United Electrical Workers Local 1110, said that the school of struggle the workers went through with both factory occupations helped them win the confidence to take over their factory.
"We learned how to fight against the bosses and now to negotiate contracts with the owners of Republic and Serious Energy, how to negotiate in contract negotiations and how to make escalating actions before going on strike."
The story began in 2008, when the Republic Windows and Doors Factory shut its doors without paying workers their severance pay or accrued vacation time in "a perfect parable of all that was wrong with the financial crisis."
"Just a few days after receiving $25 billion in bailout funds from the federal government, Bank of America cut off the company's credit line, leading Republic's management to immediately and unceremoniously fire all 250 workers without providing the 60 days' notice or 60 days' pay required of them by the federal WARN Act," reported Salon.
In response, they called for an occupation. The workers spent six days barricaded inside the factory before Bank of America was pressured into agreeing to reopen the company's line of credit, and the workers were paid their due.
"Here the banks like Bank of America get a bailout, but workers cannot be paid?" asked Leah Fried, an organizer with the union workers, in 2008. "The taxpayers would like to see that bailout go toward saving jobs, not saving C.E.O.'s."
When Serious Materials (now Serious Energy) bought they company, it promised to hire all of the fired workers. But in February 2012, it also fell victim to a continuing economic downturn, and announced it would be closing immediately.
In response, the workers occupied again. In the rain and cold, and with the support of Occupy Chicago, they won a temporary reprieve after only 12 hours. Serious Energy promised to sell the business and keep the factory open for 90 more days.
"When we found out nobody is going to buy the company we started this idea [to form a cooperative] and brought it in proactive," said Robles. "We started having meetings about it."
The next step for the workers, whose business in now incorporated with the State of Illinois, is to raise the investment money to start the cooperative and buy the machinery from their former employer.
Robles says they are working on getting the money together - about $2 million to purchase the machinery - and have already started building the structure of the cooperative: "we already have a steering committee, we have two treasurers. We will keep doing forward."
They expect to start producing windows in two or three months, said Robles, and running their unionized cooperative.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9500-republic-windows-and-doors-serious-materials-workers-form-cooperative

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Although cooperatives don't equal socialism, this clearly shows the most revolutionary conclusions that average non-marxist Americans have made in, well, dear god who knows how long.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not really sure how I feel about co-ops. I guess I'm glad that it should raise the wages of the workers there.

[skitty]

Wonder if everyone will be paid the same?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'm not really sure how I feel about co-ops. I guess I'm glad that it should raise the wages of the workers there.
And keep their jobs...

[Geiseric]

Well that sure is something. Thanks for the article!

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Regardless of the dead-end road that cooperatives are, it took a group of workers understanding that their interests are fundamentally opposed to the owners' interests for this to happen. This is good, and progressive to a limited degree.

[Let's Get Free]

Regardless of the dead-end road that cooperatives are, it took a group of workers understanding that their interests are fundamentally opposed to the owners' interests for this to happen. This is good, and progressive to a limited degree.

At the least it shows workers are capable of managing their own workplace

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I think I remember these guys from Capitalism: A Love Story (let me know if i;ve mixed them up).
Whatever your opinion of co ops, the fact that the workers have taken control and proven they can manage their own business is inspiring.

[l'Enfermé]

Beautiful.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not really sure how I feel about co-ops. I guess I'm glad that it should raise the wages of the workers there.
Is this really the case?
From what I remember about that article at libcom, the previous owners have backed out due to the effects of the recession, so that would imply that the co-op will be forced to reckon with the pretty much same problems, though the distribution of income, and workers' experience of struggle, could mean a lot.

But that is the thing with co-ops which is clearly shown in tough economic situations - workers managing cuts and downsizing.

[The Jay]

I'm not really sure how I feel about co-ops. I guess I'm glad that it should raise the wages of the workers there.

Why would you not like workers' cooperatives?

[The Jay]

Regardless of the dead-end road that cooperatives are, it took a group of workers understanding that their interests are fundamentally opposed to the owners' interests for this to happen. This is good, and progressive to a limited degree.


I agree that it is a good thing but what did you mean by saying cooperatives are a dead-end road?

[Art Vandelay]

Is this really the case?
From what I remember about that article at libcom, the previous owners have backed out due to the effects of the recession, so that would imply that the co-op will be forced to reckon with the pretty much same problems, though the distribution of income, and workers' experience of struggle, could mean a lot.

But that is the thing with co-ops which is clearly shown in tough economic situations - workers managing cuts and downsizing.

I was really just speculating, in all honesty, about the wages.

[Art Vandelay]

Why would you not like workers' cooperatives?

It's not that I necessarily dislike them, it's just that they don't really have anything to do with socialism. While they are undoubtedly progressive, it is perfectly capable for workers self management to exist in capitalism. To answer your question to PC below (and correct me if I'm wrong) but I would venture to guess that he calls them a 'dead end,' since they are not a viable route to socialism.

[The Jay]

It's not that I necessarily dislike them, it's just that they don't really have anything to do with socialism. While they are undoubtedly progressive, it is perfectly capable for workers self management to exist in capitalism. To answer your question to PC below (and correct me if I'm wrong) but I would venture to guess that he calls them a 'dead end,' since they are not a viable route to socialism.


How does workers owning and directing the workplace have nothing to do with Socialism? If you want to say that a society consisting of no businesses but workers' cooperatives is not Socialism then I would agree because of the continuation of the market. What I would also say is that the method of organizing within the workplace is closer to socialism than basically any other thing, barring isolated communes. Yes, they are still forced to discipline their labor and compete with traditional firms but what they can do is avoid their surplus being controlled by anyone other than themselves. They eliminate the capitalist. That is not the end since they must eliminate the power of capital by getting rid of the market, but what is certain is that they would have to change less of their lives compared to the average person if there were to be a socialist revolution in which the state were seized/brought down.

When you go on to say that workers' coops are not a way to Socialism I would have to hear a more in-depth argument if you are willing to provide it.

[Art Vandelay]

How does workers owning and directing the workplace have nothing to do with Socialism? If you want to say that a society consisting of no businesses but workers' cooperatives is not Socialism then I would agree because of the continuation of the market.

That's exactly what I would of said.


What I would also say is that the method of organizing within the workplace is closer to socialism than basically any other thing, barring isolated communes.

Agreed, it is probably the best possible working environment for individual workers.


Yes, they are still forced to discipline their labor and compete with traditional firms but what they can do is avoid their surplus being controlled by anyone other than themselves. They eliminate the capitalist. That is not the end since they must eliminate the power of capital by getting rid of the market, but what is certain is that they would have to change less of their lives compared to the average person if there were to be a socialist revolution in which the state were seized/brought down.

Agreed, hence why I called them 'progressive.' I just don't want workers co-ops to end up being fetishized. As they are by some Naomi Klein type liberals.


When you go on to say that workers' coops are not a way to Socialism I would have to hear a more in-depth argument if you are willing to provide it.

I said that I would of ventured to guess that PC, called them a dead end, since he doesn't view them as a viable road to socialism. Ultimately, in my own opinion, seizure of the means of production will be done in a swift, organized and widespread manner, come time for revolution. However, for the time being, it is certainly a welcome development to hear of workers taking the initiative.

[Geiseric]

I think the best thing about this is that it shows the management and the owners aren't necessary for the factory to run, that can inspire a bunch of people.

[The Jay]

It is good to hear. I have a lot of sources and things like that on the issue since I pay attention to the 'coop movement'. I find it stupid that they call it a movement but I use their vernacular anyway. Just message me if you want any.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, they are still forced to discipline their labor and compete with traditional firms but what they can do is avoid their surplus being controlled by anyone other than themselves. They eliminate the capitalist.
And who is a capitalist if not a person or persons controlling and directing surplus value for the sake of its accumulation?
Which would not change one bit if it wasn't a single individual but a group of workers who took over a workplace.
In other words, they eliminate the capitalist and position themselves as the (collective) capitalist.



That is not the end since they must eliminate the power of capital by getting rid of the market, but what is certain is that they would have to change less of their lives compared to the average person if there were to be a socialist revolution in which the state were seized/brought down. This is completely irrelevant for a strict class analysis. Politically, it might be relevant, but I'm afraid that you're disregarding some issues which do not paint such a nice picture.

For one, in dire straits, one excellent resource for capital could well be self-management, which would thus become the last refuge of capitalist society, especially if there would be some serious problems with repression and its effectiveness. It should not be excluded that the "old" owners might also find themselves in positions of power in the new, sprawling workers' co-ops.

[The Jay]

And who is a capitalist if not a person or persons controlling and directing surplus value for the sake of its accumulation?
Which would not change one bit if it wasn't a single individual but a group of workers who took over a workplace.
In other words, they eliminate the capitalist and position themselves as the (collective) capitalist.


You could look at a workers' cooperative as every worker being both a worker and a capitalist, all owning some of the surplus value created by the other members, but then the term 'capitalist' loses some of its defining power does it not? If you argue that because of the market the coop members exploit themselves for the sake of re-investment into the business, that is one thing and I agree. If you are saying; however, that since they own their own means of production that such makes the bourgeois then i vehemently wish for you to explain that further.



This is completely irrelevant for a strict class analysis. Politically, it might be relevant, but I'm afraid that you're disregarding some issues which do not paint such a nice picture.

Please be more detailed here since I could take this in a number of ways. If you meant by the first sentence that, through class analysis, workers' cooperatives are bourgeois then you must be saying that the only way to not be bourgeois is to not engage in any ownership of the means of production what-so-ever within a market system. I disagree since I think that when the capitalist and the workers are all the same people within a certain enterprise, the words lose their descriptive power and that the surplus in in the hands of those that produce it. When you look at it from the perspective of surplus analysis I think that what I said stands on very solid reason.

As for it being politically relevant I agree with you there.


For one, in dire straits, one excellent resource for capital could well be self-management, which would thus become the last refuge of capitalist society, especially if there would be some serious problems with repression and its effectiveness. It should not be excluded that the "old" owners might also find themselves in positions of power in the new, sprawling workers' co-ops.

I suppose that is possible but that is very much speculation.

[Thirsty Crow]

You could look at a workers' cooperative as every worker being both a worker and a capitalist, all owning some of the surplus value created by the other members, but then the term 'capitalist' loses some of its defining power does it not?Nope, definitely not. At least if you wish to understand capital in its fundamental dimension. While the issue of management is important, it is not the only one, far from it.

And what you described here sounds a lot like a group of petite bourgeois pooling in their resources and capital for economic ends.


If you argue that because of the market the coop members exploit themselves for the sake of re-investment into the business, that is one thing and I agree. If you are saying; however, that since they own their own means of production that such makes the bourgeois then i vehemently wish for you to explain that further.

I think there's a need to point this out. Communism doesn't represent sectioned groups of workers owning their workplaces, but rather the common, directly social ownerhsip of production, implying the elimnation of the market.

What makes the co-op a capitalist enterprise is the fact that it will be forced to compete in the market and to accumulate value as value.


If you meant by the first sentence that, through class analysis, workers' cooperatives are bourgeois then you must be saying that the only way to not be bourgeois is to not engage in any ownership of the means of production what-so-ever within a market system. I disagree since I think that when the capitalist and the workers are all the same people within a certain enterprise, the words lose their descriptive power and that the surplus in in the hands of those that produce it.

Of course I'm saying what you here claim I do.

Words are irrelevant here; what matters is a groups relationship to the means of production as capital. Bourgeois is not a swear word, it is not a cultural signifier, it is a term designating a function in the social and economic processes which comprise a society.

And again, the question of control over surplus is secondary here since the more important issue is in what social form does that surplus appear - as capital or as something else? I think, and it seems you agree, that it is evident here that it would definitely function as capital.


When you look at it from the perspective of surplus analysis I think that what I said stands on very solid reason.Not really. You're focusing exlusively on the issue of management and control.


I suppose that is possible but that is very much speculation.Sure it is, and cannot be anything else since there is no actual, mass movement for workers' co-ops, though I think it is rational and based on historical experience (sorry, but I don't have the time right now to dig up the articles on co-ops; will do later).