Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing-L Digest, Vol 228, Issue 5 <WORKSHARE>

[Philip Dowds (rpdowds]

Cohousing Friends —

My wife and I are members of Cornerstone Cohousing, 32 units and 50+ adults in 
Cambridge, MA.  I emphasize that in responding to the list, I’m speaking just 
for myself and my own views, not for the community.  Some of my friends and 
neighbors are likely to have contrasting views.  But here goes …

EXPECTATIONS FOR WORKSHARE?  Not very high.  Some of our members like to 
emphasize Cornerstone as a community replete with benefits and opportunities, 
but intentionally light on costs and obligations.  We understand that we cannot 
“force” any owner/resident to do more than (a) pay the monthly dues, and (b) 
obey some basic rules, like, “Don’t park on the grass.”
      We also have what I regard as an unusual prioritization scheme.  Some or 
many members are explicit in their view that, “If a job really needs doing, a 
volunteer will step up and do it.  No volunteers = the job is not actually 
important.”  I try really hard to learn the cohousing life way, but this part 
still isn’t real for me.

PARTICIPATION?  My personal guess is that it’s something like …
  •  One-quarter of our adult members are super-volunteers, and broadly engaged 
in a range of administrative tasks and labor chores, often adding up to a 
substantial number of hours every week
  •  One-half are selectively engaged.  For instance, they will accept one or 
two weekly or monthly chores, provided that they never have to come to a 
meeting.  Commitment level varies, and some members wonder if other members are 
so minimalist in their contribution that they are not really pulling their 
weight.  And …
  •  Maybe a quarter of our adult members are rarely or never seen at meetings, 
or doing chores.  In the background, there is occasional grousing that the 
super-volunteers are working hard to keep the monthly dues low for the 
slackers.  But this gets little public discussion, because it’s so painful.

MANAGEMENT?  We do keep a master list of tasks and chores, and mostly keep this 
list staffed with the name of a person — but only because a minority of members 
are willing to accept responsibility for many different items.
     What we DON’T do is keep a master list of each individual member plus an 
itemization of the chores and tasks for which s/he is responsible.  Such a 
list, of course, would make clear who’s flogging it and who’s dogging it, but 
we worry that this could turn into some kind of public “blame and shame” 
operation.  However, I do know of one community which has a more formal system 
of assignment and tracking — and, a volunteer who has the chore of contacting 
under-achievers:  “Hey, you were supposed to do Chore X, but we see this chore 
hasn’t been done for a while.  What do you need to help you succeed?  Would you 
like to switch to Chore Y?”  Etc etc.
     A while back we did consider paying members having particular skills for 
doing particular tasks and chores, but we decided (correctly, in my opinion) 
that pay-for-play would probably create a caste system that would be bad for 
equivalence.

CONSEQUENCES?  Some of us think we observe chronic maintenance deficits and 
worsening shabby conditions.  Others tend to respond, Oh that’s not so bad, we 
washed it last year.  Some will take the position, “No volunteer? Not 
important!” — but cannot recognize they are caught in their own tautology.  Our 
problem not just mess and shabbiness; it is ALSO that we don’t have enough 
volunteer labor.
      SPECIFIC EXAMPLE:  We live in a squeezed floor plan on a tight urban 
site, and sometimes complain that we don’t have enough activity space or 
storage.  OK … but we also have an exercise room and a workshop that are 
orphans — meaning that no committee or individual is responsible for keeping 
them in any agreed order.  So one of the rooms is under-performing, and the 
other looks like a tornado runs through it.  For a community sometimes 
complaining about “not enough space”, you’d think we could find some way to 
deal with this.

After fifteen years of living here, I’m inclined to rate Cornerstone mostly 
successful as both cohousing and as a condo association.  For balancing labor 
hour contributions from the membership, I’d like to say we’ve got some good 
answers to share.  Instead I have to say:  We’re still working on it.  Like 
many cohos.

------------------
Thanks, RPD
617.460.4549

On January 5, 2023 at 6:16:29 AM, cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org 
(cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org) wrote:

 ... 

Message: 2  
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 18:37:49 -0600  
From: Kathleen Lowry <kathleenlowrylpcclmft [at] gmail.com>  
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org  
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Voluntary Community Participation?  
Message-ID: <96BBF496-FE0C-48A3-B67D-C60824D47C26 [at] gmail.com>  
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8  

Joyce, thank you. Yes I wonder about pay rather work creating a sense of a 
class system? That would certainly not be recommended for families-our time is 
equally important.  
But it doesn?t seem to bother you all that much? You who do contribute probably 
have some fun?  
Enforcement- yes a problem. If it were me, I?d want people to an agreement when 
coming in (not uncommon practice in couples therapy) but I imagine it would 
make membership recruitment harder.  
Kathleen  

> On Jan 4, 2023, at 11:46 AM, Joyce Cheney <jcheneyjc [at] gmail.com> wrote:  
>  
> ?The wonderful, dedicated idealists who started our community created, a 
> structure where work is not REQUIRED. They created a structure where work was 
> not even EXPECTED in an ?unwritten-rule way.? Work participation WAS ASSUMED 
> in the sense that everybody would just want to work together wouldn?t they??  
> 20 years later, we HOPE that people will work to support and be part of the 
> community, but there?s still has no requirement or even expectation. We 
> invite and encourage people to participate; that?s it.  
> We understand that condo associations can?t require work legally, but some of 
> us (not all!) believe that not even having an expectation of work is a major 
> flaw in our cohousing design. From @55 madult residents, the same 15 people 
> do most everything. Several adults? participation is zero.  
> We read of some cohousing communities that require 4-10 hrs of work per month 
> - or hefty amounts of pay per hr ($35-40) - and wonder how they can do that 
> legally, and wonder who the collection police are!  
> Beyond those tough logistics, that sounds  
> Fair.  
> Note: I am speaking for myself, not for the cohousing Community, in which I 
> live.  
> Our community move-in was 20 years ago; I?ve been here six.. Jc  
>  
>  
> Sent from my iPhone  
>  
>> On Jan 4, 2023, at 7:41 AM, Kathleen Lowry <kathleenlowrylpcclmft [at] 
>> gmail.com> wrote:  
>>  
>> ?Hi Ed and others: To repeat my lost email and comment: (My apologies.)  
>>  
>> I am a deeply and broadly trained couples and family therapist who follows 
>> in part the work of Alfred Adler (equal in importance to Freud and Jung). 
>> Adler?s emphasis was on community, families and parenting. He said teaching 
>> cooperation and social interest is the primary parenting role, and primary 
>> predictors of mental health.  
>>  
>> Adler also famously said: ? There is harmony only among equals. ?  
>>  
>> We aren?t in my view born ?sinful?but most of us have to be carefully taught 
>> by caregivers or others to cooperate and pitch in.  
>>  
>> Equality of time and effort is considered essential to a happy partnership 
>> and healthy families, that is, equality of play time, self-care time etc. 
>> and contribution time. For example, kids contribute by doing what they are 
>> capable of, (by age 4 or younger they can load the clothes washer) and 
>> grandparents might contribute by representing the family as a reading tutor 
>> in a school setting.  
>>  
>> Adler also said ?spoiled children grow into angry adults? so even those not 
>> expected to contribute equally become resentful (and inevitably less 
>> respected) as well. (Very possibly not consciously.)  
>>  
>> This is rich ground for growth in couples and families.  
>>  
>> For example, food coops have been good examples of the Little Red Hen 
>> philosophy.  
>>  
>> I?d love to hear what various communities are doing in this regard (sense of 
>> equality) and how it?s working-how it affects the community spirit and 
>> experience of trust and joy in community.  
>>  
>> For all I know the above re Adler doesn?t apply to communities at all. 
>> Thanks.  
>> Kathleen  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>> On Jan 4, 2023, at 6:11 AM, Ed Sutton via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] 
>>>> cohousing.org> wrote:  
>>>  
>>> ?Eno Commons? founding principles include ?voluntary participation,? i.e. 
>>> no one is required to participate in the work of caring for the community, 
>>> and there is no penalty for non-participation.  
>>>  
>>> Our low HOA dues were established with an assumption of a high level of 
>>> resident care work.The small group of neighbors who are struggling to care 
>>> for common property are questioning the wisdom of continuing this 
>>> arrangement.  
>>>  
>>> Are there any other co-housing communities successfully operating after 25 
>>> years of laissez-faire resident participation?  
>>>  
>>> Ed Sutton  
>>> Eno Commons