Cohousing-L Mailing List: work vs. pay: please don't caricature.

[David Mandel (dlmandel]

    I'm just back from some traveling, so I'm a little late in seeing
and responding to some of the responses to my brief explanation of
objections to having a community create a pay/work alternative.
    There were a number of perceptive observations, including by people
with whom I still disagree on the question fundamentally. But I can't
help but be annoyed by having my views quoted partially, then rephrased
into a distorted caricature that's oh so easy to dismiss.
    Howard Landman defined the other camp as "people who believe that if
any two people have different amounts of wealth then the richer person
must be a thief." I don't know of any people like this in my or any
other cohousing community. No, we're not neo-Proudhonists.
    Then he wrote, "To require everyone to put in exactly the same
amount means that you can't do anything at all unless the poorest member
of the community can afford the cost and the busiest member can afford
the time.This is fundamentally silly."
    This is, unfortunately, a far-too-common caricature thrown at those
of us who advocate for a greater egalitarian, inclusive consciousness in
our communities and in cohousing in general. There may be a few naive
idealists who enter their first community experience with the
expectation that everyone can or will contribute the same amount of
work. But a little living in even the most collectivist commune will
quickly dispel that notion. It will also impart a more complex,
sophisticated understanding of how individuals' different values and
priorities lead to differences of opinion regarding which work is
important and how much it is worth, .. and thus to appreciation of the
need for flexibility in setting work requirements, not to mention
defining what constitutes work.
    To repeat the second paragraph of my earlier brief contribution to
the discussion -- the one that Howard didn't quote:
     "Of course it's not so simple, because no matter what you do, some
are going to work more than others, in many instances for reasons that
are completely understandable. The alternative approach, however, is to
1) come to a community consensus on the minimum expectation from
everyone; 2) give lots of good strokes to people who exceed it. 3)
finance the costs of what the community can't do with a progressive
system in which those who can afford more pay a bit more -- just don't
tie it to how much those same people are working."
    Can we please now agree that no one is arguing that everyone "should
put in exactly the same amount" of work? (By contrast, I do hear that a
lot of communities in formation seem to require that everyone put in the
same amount of money -- a policy which tends to exclude lower-income
people. But that's a different discussion.)

    For anyone who would like to read a little more deeply on the
subject, here are some excerpts from an early-2000 position paper
regarding our former pay-or-work system that has now been changed to
de-link the two.

1. We don?t like a system in which members have the option of paying in
lieu of work. Dedicated as we are to economic diversity in our
community, we find something wrong with a picture in which some can
easily afford to pay more and do less work, while for others it?s not a
choice. Even if the amount we adopted last year is relatively small, it
can be a slippery slope. We don?t like the whole idea.
2. The policy by which some are excused from paying if they do a certain
amount of work creates a situation where some of us must judge others on
matters that could involve subjectivity and have financial consequences.
This is problematic for community relations.
3. The formula we adopted -- per person ? is a particularly regressive
one, in that it takes a proportionately bigger bite from low-income
members than from high-income members. This runs contrary to our regular
assessments, in which owners of larger units pay more. There is more of
a general correlation (though not perfect, admittedly) between unit size
and ability to pay. (See also No. 4 below.)
4. The amount being charged -- $6 per month ? is truly nominal compared
to the number of hours one must work to be excused from payment; so it
can hardly be an effective incentive to members to work more. The
results of the last year indicate that it hasn?t caused an increase in
community work, at either end of the scale.
5. On the contrary, we believe the actual result is to create a
disincentive, to foster a rationalization among people who may be less
inclined to contribute their time. Since they are paying the extra fee,
they may feel absolved of an obligation to work as much as they might
otherwise. The result could well be a vicious circle in which we?ll need
to collect more money -- which in turn will spawn even less
participation, for the same reason. ...

Instead, we favor the following:
1. Continue to refine the work allocation system, which in its other
aspects is functioning much better than previous methods.
2. Encourage even better participation by making hours reporting easier,
making work parties more fun and more well-organized, encouraging more
creative work contributions -- and particularly, making good use of the
nudgnik role to improve follow-up.
3. Agree that it?s OK to pay for certain tasks that require special
skills or tools or that the community can?t find the energy to do
despite our best efforts. ...

    This was more or less accepted. We continue to have a stated policy
in which members are expected to contribute a minimum number of hours of
work -- and it is a minimum; we'd have trouble keeping the place up if
everyone just did the minimum.
    There are many different types of work options, including
responsibility for regular chores, committee participation, holding a
coordination job, joining work parties, ... even activities on behalf of
the (larger) neighborhood association.
    Everyone is supposed to submit a declaration twice a year laying out
what her or his work plans are, and submit an hours report so s/he can
gauge her/his participation vis a vis the average.
    The egalitarians among us are also more accepting than we once were
of the need to hire people to do certain important jobs that we were
having trouble with. We therefore all pay a special monthly fee -- on a
sliding scale according to self-declared ability to pay (high, medium or
low) that goes for such needs. But even those who far exceed the work
minimum pay, and others who fall short are not penalized.

    One more thing. Curiously, I find that I feel differently about
private arrangements, suggested by some discussants, in which one member
would pay another to do his/her chore. I'd prefer it not happen, but
given the realities of everyone's different time/work/income needs, I
wouldn't really mind that much. In part, I suppose, it's because the
community can't really prevent it from happening; we might not even know
about it. But also, it's a private agreement between two parties, made
consciously and relatively freely. My feelings are much more laissez
faire than with regard to an organized community program in which the
community institutionalizes a work vs. pay alternative.
    Any other thoughts on this difference?

David Mandel, Southside Park, Sacramento