Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
The Case of Mondragon
Mondragon is a cooperative that has 147 companies employing 80,000 workers. It was established by a Catholic priest, Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta (JMA), in the Basque country in Spain. As did many priests in that country, JMA sided with the popular classes against the fascists, who—supported by Hitler and Mussolini—came to power in Spain, overthrowing an elected government in 1936. The leadership of the Spanish church hierarchy supported the fascist coup, and JMA was jailed because of his support for the republican democratic forces, as well as his opposition to the coup and to the dictatorship that it established. For many years JMA was ostracized from the church, although more recently he has been “discovered” by the Vatican and is even being considered for canonization, meaning that he could become a “saint.”
In 1956, JMA established the first cooperative, according to the principle that companies are best run when workers are their owners and participate in management decisions. Its success proves that JMA was right. Mondragon, based on this principle, has become one of the largest conglomerates of companies in the world. Of its employees, 46% work in the Basque country, 40% in other parts of Spain, and 17% in the rest of the world. The four major areas of involvement include industry (46%), commerce (40%), finance (3%), and services (1.3%). The system of governance is arranged so that the workers (members of the cooperative) own a share of their company, elect their managers (in each company and in the overall cooperative), and participate in all major decisions. The salary range limits the difference between executive positions and the lowest paid employees; the highest paid can never make 6.5 times more than the lowest paid. In other large companies, this differential is much, much greater, such that the best paid directors and top managers may make 200 times more (in some cases, 1,000 times more) than the average employee of the company. Mondragon companies are more efficient than these other companies.
Recently, one of Mondragon’s companies collapsed. Immediately, the conservative and neoliberal economists used that collapse as a means of discrediting the cooperativism movement. The company, Fagor Electrodomesticos, produced electrical material for use in home domestic tasks (e.g., washers). The collapse of the construction industry, a result of the explosion of the housing bubble, directly affected this company, as it sold its products primarily to the Spanish market.
The response of Mondragon, the overall parent company, to that crisis was quite different, however, compared to what other non-cooperative companies have done in similar situations. Mondragon lent 700 million euros to Fagor to help it recover. When recovery eventually looked impossible, only then did Mondragon stop lending money. But then, it relocated 600 of Fagor’s worker-owners to other companies belonging to Mondragon. Universal solidarity among worker-owners made the collapse of Fagor more bearable than it would have been otherwise.
There have been some problems, however, that need to be noted. One is that employees who are not owners have increased more rapidly than worker-owners, to a point that in some companies, the first are a much larger group than the second. In the supermarket chains owned by Mondragon, employing 38,420 workers, only a minority (12,260) are worker-owners, which establishes a difference in terms of whom to save in the case of collapse. In the collapse of Fagor, the transfer of employees favored those who were worker-owners, which is expected, but clearly creates a two-tier system that affects labor relations. Those who do not become owners either cannot afford to become owners or choose not to become an owner.
Actually, one of the successes of Mondragon was its ability to create a sense of identity among the workers within the company, encouraging an environment of solidarity and collegiality among them, a feeling that also extended (although to a much lesser degree) to non-worker-owners. The connection felt by the latter group has somewhat weakened, however, exposing a vulnerable point for the cooperative. Otherwise, from a business perspective, Mondragon is an excellent case of matching efficiency with solidarity and democracy.
Vincent Navarro is Professor of Public Policy at the Johns Hopkins University and Pompeu Fabra University.