‘Collective Number One’ ponders union future

by Andre Chouravong

Facing a lack of a bargaining partner, contract negotiations between the union formed by North Country Co-op workers in March were halted in late September. The workers began organizing in response to what they felt was a lack of protection for their rights and a loss of too many benefits, resulting from a change in management structure.

Until a few years ago, the workers had participated in the operation of the store as a collective. The collective was dissolved, in order to present a cleaner management structure to lenders, when the board of directors purchased the building at 1929 S. 5th St. Workers then began a long process of giving up benefits and wages to help defray the cost of the mortgage on the building. Health insurance, retirement, discounts and wages were eliminated or cut. From being the highest paid workers in a Twin Cities co-op they went to being some of the lowest. The workers decided that they have made too many concessions and that a union was necessary to protect their interests.

Collective Number One, as the organizers named the union, embraces a grassroots style similar to that of the co-op. Large unions often have top-down control from the national level with hefty union dues, perks for high ranking officials and minimal voting power. The collective’s idea of local control appealed to the majority of workers, which is the reason most have joined. Overwhelming support for this organization was obtained by the steering committee of the collective, with 23 of 25 staff members seeking representation.

The North Country Co-op, located in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood in Minneapolis, prides itself on being “a community of people, both members and workers, who value democracy and actively work together for a better world,” according to its web page. It abides by the Cooperative Principles, instituted by the first co-op in Rochdale, England, in 1884. Such tenets include democratic member control and member economic participation. Yet today, the majority of workers feel that the very principles North Country stands upon are being compromised.

The union sought the assistance of Greg Bastien, a schoolteacher with 25 years of union negotiation experience. Bastien agreed to help at no cost. He said formulating a contract with the board of directors would protect the rights of the workers.

Initially, the board of directors welcomed negotiations with the newly formed union. The General Membership meeting in April brought new hope for the workers when board members told the gathered members that the workers have formed a union. Four meetings were held since that time. A solid majority of new hires and older workers continued to support the union.

In late September, the board decided that the process of negotiating a contract could not go forward. It cited the fact that the change in governance structure does not allow the board to be involved in day-to-day operations. The vacancy of a permanent general manager also did not help matters. On the advice of its attorney, the board ceased negotiations. Effectively, this left nobody to bargain opposite the union. The union was not explicitly voted against, but it was not officially recognized either.

The board approved an employee handbook and believed that it adequately protected the workers’ rights. Although the union disputed nothing in the handbook, Bastien said the handbook “carries no legal weight and can be adjusted or voided anytime at the discretion of the board.” He said the union’s goal is to have something more concrete and enforceable.
North Country’s interim general manager, Patrick Werle, and the members of the board were unavailable for comment.

Members of Collective Number One expressed hope for the future success of both the union and the co-op as a whole. Member David Miller said, “We want the co-op to thrive and the workers to regain some of the power they had in the past.”

There is no threat of a work stoppage, and the union is considering its limited options, one of which is a formal petition to the State Bureau of Mediation Services. This state agency is responsible for assisting parties in collective bargaining disputes and resolving questions of labor union representation and bargaining unit structure. If successful, the union and the board would be required to resume negotiations. Though the Bureau cannot control the outcome of the talks, it can facilitate a smoother process in collective bargaining. This, said Bastien, would be a significant victory.