Re: You can have it both ways | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharon![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:54:53 -0800 (PST) |
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Rob Sandelin wrote:
I realised that in my post I forget a key point, you can encourage andallow members to follow their bliss, and also set some kind of minimum inputrequirement. That way, people who want to spend 10 hours a week in the garden can do so, even if the minimum is only 2 hours a week.
I think minimums works very well. It has also worked well for us in financial terms. People pay the minimum but often contribute more.
The workshare policy we are discussing now would set an average minimum of 4 hours a week--including meal preparation, meetings, anything people consider a contribution to the community--and suggests self-regulation with a payment of $20 for any hours not "worked."
We require all workers except residents to be insured and licensed. The hourly rates vary from snow plowing at $42 an hour to plumbing at $90 an hour plus travel charges so a realistic charge would be much higher.
We had to have our elevator pit drained and cleaned with cost a fortune with three workers at $42 an hour for about 6 hours. We now do it ourselves in 1 1/2 hours but it gets old. We hope to find a permanent fix but.....
Labor is very valuable. Sharon ----- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: consequences in community/work participation, (continued)
- Re: consequences in community/work participation Racheli Gai, November 30 2005
- Re: consequences in community/work participation Sharon Villines, November 30 2005
- Re: consequences in community/work participation Racheli Gai, November 30 2005
- You can have it both ways Rob Sandelin, November 30 2005
- Re: You can have it both ways Sharon Villines, November 30 2005
- Re: consequences in community Chris ScottHanson, December 1 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.