Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: work-or-pay system - legalities? general advice?

[Beverly Jones Redekop (beverly.jones.redekop]

Hi Rick,

Our community is half-built, and we have just formalized our community
contribution system.  We are about to try something very similar to what you
describe, so I'll let you know how it turns out!

We all agreed that the least-desirable job would be the job of "penalty
collector" (going around asking people who have not done their work to pay
up), so we decided to side-step it.  Everyone is to submit post-dated
cheques (or other arrangement if they don't use cheques) to the organizer.
 The deadline for submitting hours is to be clearly communicated, and anyone
who submits adequate hours will have his or her cheque ripped up while
everyone else will have his or her cheques cashed.  We're letting people
carry hours forward, too, so that a big project in the summer can cover your
winter away travelling or with a newborn.

Simple and motivating (we hope)!

When Tree Bressen was here for our facilitation intensive, we learned an
activity called "six hats" which we used when developing our monthly
maintenance fee amounts (which are separate from our community contribution
fee).  The hats we took turns wearing were the following:

   1. large family in large unit
   2. large family in small unit
   3. single person in small unit
   4. single person in large unit
   5. couple in large unit
   6. single parent in large unit

We used the hats to imagine what it would feel like if monthly maintenance
fees were calculated on square footage, appraisal value, number of people,
per household, ecological footprint, household income, etc.... (We mixed up
scenarios that seemed more likely and less likely to us).

For those of us in the exercise, it turned out that the most important value
for us was to roughly equal real costs: no one wanted to feel subsidized or
fined.  It was felt that by attempting to approximate real costs, it would
feel very fair, so that people who earn less or more would all feel accepted
as equals who are paying their own ways.

This same principle applies to community contribution hours: keep it
transparently fair so that there's no need to waste energy thinking about
"fairness" later.

We've built in flexibility in a few other ways:

   1. hours are "billed" per unit adult but "paid" by the unit (A two-adult
   unit owes ten hours, but it doesn't matter which adult does how many hours.)
   2. residents can allocate the hours they've worked towards another
   resident, which allows for support during tough times or creative bartering

One other delightful rule thought up by those who think about such things: a
meeting only counts for one hour no matter how long it takes!

Beverly
welcome [at] yarrowecovillage.ca
www.yarrowecovillage.ca (100 km east of Vancouver, BC, in the delightful
small town of Yarrow)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Beverly Jones Redekop

    beverly.jones.redekop [at] gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Rick Gravrok <rick.gravrok [at] 
gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Hello fellow cohousers,
>
>    Here's an idea for a financial carrot-like approach to encourage people
> to help with chores (or to compensate if they aren't doing chores). As an
> example, here's how this works for my wedding photography business: I
> increased my photography fee by $100.00 and then I'd tell the Bride and
> Groom that if and when they, and the wedding party, are all on time for the
> photographs, they get $100.00 off of their bill. Only once was I not able
> to
> give that $100.00 refund. The Bride and Groom liked this approach because
> it
> worked and because it took the responsibility off of them to get everyone
> there on time. It also avoided any frustations on my part because it kept
> people from being late, and no one had negative feelings towards me which
> would have happened if I were to impose a penalty fee for times when people
> were late for photos.
>
>    How about if we applied this same carrot/positive consequence approach
> to encourage members to do their fair share of chores? What if everyone
> started off with an additional "Chore-Charge" (say a certain additional
> percentage of the monthly association fee) and then when the community
> agreed by consensus that individuals were doing their fair share, then that
> additional fee would be removed for them. And then on a yearly basis,
> perhaps at the Annual Membership Meeting, the fee would automatically go
> back on for everyone, except for those members who the community then
> agreed
> were doing their fair share. Wouldn't this be better than the concept of
> using a stick/negative consequence/penalty fee approach? Also, with this
> method, no one has to be the 'accountability cop', the bad-guy who might
> justifiably want to point out someone who they think is not doing their
> fair
> share of work.
>
>    Is anyone doing something like this already? If so, let us know how it's
> working please.
>
>    And in those cases where people are choosing to put more of their time
> into making money, or traveling, raising children or whatever, this would
> give them a way to support the community and be fair to those members who
> do
> the work. It could also reduce the guilt (or shame) that some people may
> feel when they know they're not doing their share of work whether it's by
> choice or because of health or age-related issues. This could also help to
> keep senior members in the community, where otherwise they might leave
> because they don't want to be a burden on everyone else when they can't do
> as much to help anymore.
>
>    For healthy, happy and smooth functioning co-communities!
>
> Rick Gravrok
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Kay Argyle <Kay.Argyle [at] utah.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've read everything I could find in the archives about other
> communities'
> > work/participation systems, especially work-or-pay; that is, a system in
> > which residents are expected either to do a certain amount of community
> > work
> > or pay for hours not worked, or in which people who work get a rebate on
> > their HOA fee.
> >
> > It is certainly possible to have an arrangement totally off the books
> > (making sure the community's accountant and insurance agent are unaware
> or
> > at least have plausible deniability). On the other hand, it would be nice
> > if
> > the work system can operate aboveboard and openly yet without any undue
> > burden of paperwork or cost. What are the legal, tax, or insurance
> > implications of a work-or-pay system?
> >
> > Very generally, for any community who has tried a work-or-pay system,
> > - There are potentially a lot of different ways to set up a work-or-pay
> > system. What has worked well and what hasn't?
> > - What adjustments has the community made to its system?
> > - What adjustments would you personally make if you could persuade
> everyone
> > else?
> > - Have there been pitfalls or unexpected bonuses?
> > - Has the community tried and abandoned a work-or-pay system, and why? Or
> > after serious consideration, decided against it in the first place?
> > - What advice would you offer a community considering a work-or-pay
> system?
> > - anything else you are willing to share!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kay
> > Wasatch Commons
> > Salt Lake City
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature
> > database 6042 (20110414) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>