People not profit

Pleased this topic is being discussed.

This explanation from above gave me pause:
"The writer might be saying that they disagree with the choice that some members make in buying produced and packaged goods, but at the end of the day the co-op is here to serve the needs of its entire membership as best it can"

I imagine I understand where Ben is coming from on this, but, still, the issue seems like it might be more complicated than the way it is presented. I have heard that some products have been pulled from the shelves lately because their parent company was eaten up by a larger naer-do-gooder. The co-op does not carry milk with RGBH, I believe. I don't know if the co-op would stock someone's requests for, say, cornmeal from another local mill rather than Moore's, frozen White Castle burgers, or cheese from Neals Yard Dairy. So, while special ordering can widen the options by allowing members to purchase items that will be picked up from the storeroom rather than stocked in the store, it looks like there are some bounds to what the co-op will offer on its shelves that members might say they "need." What are these bounds? I realize that I am just not clear on what "serving member need" means to the co-op these days. That being so, it would be wonderful to hear more about what you (and the co-op?) think about this!

On a related note, I too find the amount of processed and packaged foods in the co-op unfortunate, and would also be most interested in hearing how education on food politics shapes the co-op these days (if it still does). How is it involved in making decisions that stock the shelves? How does its ideals contribute to the vision of the co-op within our community? Finally, I did not read a response to an earlier question about economic accessibility, so I will assume that this is not a consideration taken on in co-op ordering or in image anymore. Would I be correct in doing so?

If there is a link to this particular information on the web site that I have missed, please point the way and accept my apologies for asking questions that I could have clarified for myself. I do believe the co-op to be a very valuable community asset, and I am eager to fill these gaps in my understanding of what it sees as its role as these days.

Many thanks.

Thank you very much for your comments. Based on "Member's" concerns I did a little investigation.

As far as I can tell, the co-op continues to sell the same range of bulk and non processed foods as it ever has. Some products have disappeared because they are simply no longer available. Furthermore, we are no longer able to prepare foods in the IDF kitchen. The city health department made it clear that they would shut the co-op down if we sold items made in a kitchen that did not meet code.

On the other hand, the staff has greatly increased the range of products to meet the demands of members. The writer might be saying that they disagree with the choice that some members make in buying produced and packaged goods, but at the end of the day the co-op is here to serve the needs of its entire membership as best it can.

If anyone feels that there are specific bulk and non-processed products that they wish to see in the co-op then they should discuss them with the staff who will do their best to include them in the range on the shelf or special order them.

Finally, please don’t underestimate the impact that errors in pricing have had in the history of the co-op. A review of our financial records reveals that until recently the co-op had never broken even. We dipped into member equity, received donations and accepted member loans that were never paid back to cover operating costs and subsidize the low prices members enjoyed for many years.

Ben

Appreciated Ben's blog and Jeremy's definition of profit. Any intelligent business, cooperative or capitalist, that wants to survive needs to have some "profit" for further improvements, "rainy day" money. (Don't remember who blogged that one.) In a capitalist business some of the profit would go back to the owners, shareholders/stock onwers. In our co-op the money needs to go back into the co-op and if for some reason there was much more to go around, then we could all go to Bermuda.

More importantly I think we need to recognize that the co-op is now being managed very professionally.I (and hopefully others) are recognizing how much more satisfied we are as customers. If we want to keep good paid staff, we need to pay them well, and provide benefits. In the past I think some co-op paid staff was in effect "exploited" by the membership in regard to how little they were paid. If we are really committed to a cooperative society we need to treat and pay our employees in an exemplary fashion. Otherwise, we are only somewhat better than greedy capitalists. Having no "profit" at all would prohibit expanding benefits for paid staff.

"In conclusion, the prices were lower in the “old co-op” because food prices were generally lower in the industry. We also had several years where the co-op was actually selling items at a loss and member equity was being drained out to subsidize artificially low prices."

I appreciate the writer's willingness to address this topic. However, I have to question the conclusions drawn, and note that prices were lower in the "old co-op" for reasons beyond the two he stated.

The "old co-op" took on an overt commitment to economic accessibility. While still concerned with organics and local goods, this found the co-op questioning items with excessive packaging (leading to higher environmental waste and higher prices), items that were excessively priced, and items that were, to be blunt, just excessive.

We have many more fancy, highly priced, highly packaged items filling the shelves, coolers, and freezer these days than I have seen in my two decades with the co-op. While tempting and very sexy-looking, many items stocked in the co-op broadcast a lack of concern for economic accessibility. While we perhaps used to be Marshall Fields, these days, the co-op feels a little more like Barneys.

It's understandable -- changes in ideologies and visions lead to changes in practice. But acknowledgement of this really needs to be part of any board member's explanation of why prices have changed so much in the co-op.

To be clear, while inflation and errors in pricing have surely lent a hand, the shift in structure away from a focus on economic accessibility (and towards a different staffing structure, as noted previously) has played a large role in increasing the prices that greet us in the co-op.

Overall, I think this post is on target in that everything is more and more expensive (even moreso now with the faltering dollar) and food is going up along with the rest, especially the last few years. That said, I do have a few questions and points (for whomever would like to respond.

First, haven't we been making some profits this last year? Does this not count because it's going to paying old debts?

Second, while I don't think that the reason we have higher prices is merely for making profits, I do think that a legitimate point for discussion should be whether this coop should be making a profit or not. Are we? I don't think it's a given that this is a fundamental goal. I know other coops do have profit as a goal, not saying it's wrong. We're not necessarily "non-profits;" we're .coops not .orgs.

Second, it's a bit disingenuous to not acknowledge that part of the reason prices are higher is that overhead is higher due to hiring managers and other paid workers where the coop did not have so many in the past. I'm not saying that situation was better, but it was cheaper. However, I don't see how the coop today could operate with the larger (and growing) membership and longer hours, etc... without paid staff. Maybe in a commune with very dedicated members. Is the original comment trying to question whether we should be growing bigger, moving etc...? Legitimate questions, certainly.

Third, the original comment Ben responded to was clearly born out of frustration at higher prices. I can understand that. But it also echoed an idea that "the old coop" was necessarily better, but from what I understand, there were some very serious financial problems, i.e. not being able to meet obligations, conflicts of interest, etc..., some serious problems in other areas too. The older coop was great but it wasn't perfect.

I see the old-coop-was-better idea as being part of something bigger where older members are uncomfortable and angry about HOW some changes have happened in the newer coop. We need to have more discussion about more specifics, like the profit question, that people are unhappy about. I think this would be more helpful in making this coop represent the interests of members, closer to a concensus (modified, as the bylaws say).

OK, that's what I thought of.