UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

Democracy at Work Exploring Seattle's Worker Cooperative Economy

Matt Wildey

6/4/2015

The U.S. economy is usually associated with free-market capitalism, which has been widely criticized for

creating extreme inequalities in society and reinforcing an unsustainable global system. Capitalisms grasp on the economy often seems so all-encompassing that alternatives to its economic model are met

with scrutiny of their impossibility. This research draws upon the work of J.K. Gibson-Graham to

contribute to the more realistic alternative of creating diverse economies through the Marxist and feminist

lens of postcapitalism. This research contributes to dialogue surrounding diverse community economies,

highlighting worker cooperatives as a sector of the economy that gives the highest level of empowerment

to workers in a business. This is part of an effort to dislodge the hegemony of global capitalism in the

economy in search of a politics of possibility. Specifically, this research focuses on the state of and

capacity for development of the worker cooperative sector of a community economy in Seattle. The

economy in Seattle is in a unique dualist state between rampant neoliberal economic politics and

progressive, community focused politics. This research explores three worker cooperatives in Seattle as

case studies to better understand Seattles community economy. I conducted a mixture of interviews and participant observation in order to be able to describe and analyze each individual co-op. Separate, these

co-ops are worker empowering businesses but together, these co-ops represent a growing (worker)

cooperative movement within Seattles community economy.

Wildey|2

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my Geography Honors peers Anisa Jackson, Jeff Koss, and Julia Hanley as well as our

instructor Kathryn Gillespie, PhD for their constant support throughout the year. I also want to thank

Professor Sarah Elwood for her direction and advice early in the project. Finally, I want to acknowledge

Morgan Wright for moral support and dialogue throughout the year.

I also want to thank the members of each cooperative or organization that was willing to work with me

throughout the year including:

Anshika Kumar

Alix Goldstein

Ashraf Hasham

Camila Ruiz

Devra Gartenstein

Scott Davis

Joe Stormer

Members of the (AS)UWSFC

Note: Though this research draws from the help of the people above, I am responsible for any errors or

omissions.

Wildey|3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Figures and Tables .................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Global Capitalism ................................................................................................................................... 5 Diverse Community Economy ................................................................................................................ 6 Cooperatives: An Alternative Approach ............................................................................................... 10

Cooperative Values ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Cooperative Principles ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Worker Cooperatives................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Seattles Community Economy ............................................................................................................. 15 Worker Cooperatives in Seattle .................................................................................................................................................. 16

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Participant Observation ......................................................................................................................... 19 Qualitative Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 21

Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 23 Patty Pan Cooperative ........................................................................................................................... 23 Black Coffee Co-op .............................................................................................................................. 28 CounterCulture Cooperative ................................................................................................................. 36

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 39 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Personal Reflection ................................................................................................................................. 43

UW Student Food Cooperative History...................................................................................................................................... 43 Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 50

Interview Questions .............................................................................................................................. 50

Figures and Tables Figure 1: The Iceberg. Drawn by Ken Byrne for the Community Economies Collective in 2001. Found in

many works of Gibson-Graham including A Postcapitalist Politics (2006). ............................................... 9

Figure 2: 10 Reasons Co-ops Rock! Poster from The Toolbox for Education and Social Change

(http://store.toolboxfored.org/10-reasons-co-ops-rock-poster/)................................................................. 13

Figure 3: Cooperatives in the Economy. Data in YES! Magazine retrieved from National Cooperative

Business Association and Research on Economic Impact of Cooperatives, 2009, University of Wisconsin

.................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4: Black Coffee Co-op's Safer Space Agreement .......................................................................... 31

Table 1: Key words of economy and community economy. In Gibson-Graham (2006, pg. 87) ................. 7

Wildey|4

Introduction

Capitalism as an economic model has been widely criticized for numerous reasons including creating

wealth inequality, disenfranchising workers, unsustainably using natural resources, and perpetuating

social oppression (Harvey, 2010, 2014; Hahnel, 2012; Gibson-Graham, 1993, 1996; Kovel, 2002;

Fluxman, 2009; Butgereit & Carden, 2011). By drawing upon the work on J.K. Gibson-Graham, I will

explain how framing this research through a lens of postcapitalism towards a community economy, using

an expanded Marxist and Feminist geographical framework will allow me to dislodge the hegemony of

global capitalism in the economy in search of a politics of possibility (Gibson-Graham, 2006). I will

begin this paper by first discussing some relevant critiques of capitalism as an economic model. Then, I

will discuss diverse community economies as a reconstructive framework. Within diverse community

economies, I will discuss how cooperative business offers an alternative to the capitalist system through

values-based workplace democracy. I will focus on a form of cooperative which returns the most power

back into the hand of the laborer: the worker cooperative. Then, I will situate this research geographically

in Seattle because of the dualism between a progressive, community oriented culture and the neoliberal

corporate takeover (Brown & Morrill, 2011).

The guiding question of this research is: What is the state of and capacity for development of the worker

cooperative sector of a community economy in Seattle? The research analyzes three worker cooperatives

in Seattle through a combination of participant observation and interviews. Following a detailed

explanation and justification of these methodologies, I will explain my findings about how these

cooperatives are creating a worker cooperative economy in Seattle. I will then give concluding remarks as

well as a personal reflection on my process of doing an undergraduate thesis. This paper concludes with a

list of resources that one might find helpful when researching cooperative movements.

The aim of this research is to dislodge the hegemony of capitalism as an economic system, in search of

new pathways for the common good. It is not intended to present the best approach for the economy,

Wildey|5

but rather deepens the academic conversation on the topic. This research utilizes a feminist

poststructuralist approach to research that all knowledge is partial, and any knowledge claiming to be

comprehensive is asserting unwarranted dominance. (Hay, 2000). This is a challenge to a positivist

approach, requiring objectively reproducibly, which is important to the structure of this research. By

expressing partiality, I acknowledge that the descriptions of the case studies I present are only a small part

of a larger economic structure.

Literature Review

Global Capitalism

Many researchers have written academic work focused on highlighting issues created by the capitalist

market economy that has a dominant role in the global economy (see for example Harvey, 2010, 2014;

Hahnel, 2012; Gibson-Graham, 1993, 1996; Kovel, 2002; Fluxman, 2009; Butgereit & Carden, 2011).

Many of these researchers engage with Karl Marxs 19th century critiques of capitalism to argue on his

behalf (Fluxman, 2009), to evaluate his solutions proposed (Butgereit & Carden, 2011), or to put his work

into a modern and strongly relevant context (Harvey, 2010, 2014, Gibson-Graham, 2006).

Hahnel (2012) describes capitalism as:

a system in which production is organized and carried out in enterprises owned by stockholders who demand that their corporations maximize their profits. Productive resources are privately owned, and who gets to use

different resources, categories of labor, and produced goods and services is decided through market exchanges.

Those who own shares of stock and resources need do not work. A minority of employees do the empowering

and relatively pleasant tasks of organizing and directing the work process, while all the dangerous, tiring, boring

tasks are done by everyone else. People are compensated based on how much productive property they own (or

dont own), and on how much bargaining power they have (or dont have) in the labor market. In capitalism those who own the productive resources appropriate the lions share of the benefits of social economic activity while shouldering few of the burdens; managers and professionals are relatively well rewarded for performing

most of the empowering and desirable tasks, and ordinary workers do most of the undesirable tasks while

receiving much less economic benefits (pg. 13)

I quote Hahnel in such depth because he really concisely covers the neoliberal system which I am arguing

against. Hahnel (2012) is specifically taking an economic-based approach in this description of

capitalism, specifically focusing on the plight of the worker within a free market system as well as the

extreme inequalities and classism created and perpetuated by capitalism. Essential to this critique of

Wildey|6

capitalism is understanding how Marxs critique of capital accumulation and control of surplus within

capitalism has taken over our economy. Gibson-Graham (2006) offer a critique to Marx:

Despite Marxs critical theory of capitalism and his inspirational role as an anticapitalist political agitator, however, his distinctive theoretical legacy has not been immune to the hegemonic

displacements and condensations of capitalocentrism. His language of economic difference based

on modes of production and exploitation has been (mis)interpreted by many as a historical stage

theory of economic evolution in which capitalism is situated as the pinnacle of development and

all other forms of economy are represented as precapitalist or forms of primitive capitalism (pg. 59).

Gibson-Graham (2006) offer an alternative approach to viewing the economy as a diverse economy,

rather than through the lens of the dominant, hegemonic capitalocentric discourse. I will discuss this in

the next section.

Before moving on, I want to acknowledge other issues created by capitalism that I will, regretfully, not be

discussing in depth in this research. Hahnel (2012) argues that this economic structure has created mass

and inequitable over-consumption of natural resources and environmental degradation, which sacrifices

the ability of future generations to reach their desires. Additionally, there are distinct negative

implications of capitalism on other marginalized identities such as women, people of color, people with

disabilities, trans* and queer communities, or any other socially marginalized identity (Wright, 2006;

Purkayastha, 2012). I want to acknowledge the challenges faced by these groups, especially the distinct

nuances of intersectionality for different people. Harvey (2014) brings up a good point that the issues I

will discuss are not of higher importance than these wars against discrimination and oppression and that

allies need to form over common interests. Furthermore, I argue that, by addressing the issues of

capitalism through the methods I have chosen, many of these issues not explicitly discussed will begin to

be confronted as well.

Diverse Community Economy

This research engages with geographical theories of Marxism, Feminism, and Community Economies.

From the Marxist perspective, alternatives are needed from capitalism because the producer or laborer is

Wildey|7

separated from their production and does not have control of the surplus that they create. Feminist

geographers have long argued that work is often only conceptualized in certain ways, and that

mainstream definitions undervalue informal, domestic, or reproductive work (England & Lawson, 2005).

Community Economy is an economic model contributed to by Gibson-Graham that seeks to merge

concepts and ideas from these two theories and situate any research as positive and action oriented

(Gibson-Graham, 2006). This is an economic model based on equitable social profit in local, diverse

economies (see Table 1).

ECONOMY COMMUNITY ECONOMY A-spatial/global Place attached

Specialized Diversified

Singular Multiple

Large Scale Small Scale

Competitive Cooperative

Centered De-centered

A-cultural Culturally distinctive

Socially Disembedded Socially embedded

Nonlocal ownership Local ownership

Agglomerative Dispersed

Integrated Autonomous

Expert-oriented Oriented to local market

Privileges short-term return Values long term investment

Growth oriented Vitality oriented

Outflow of extracted value Recirculates value locally

Privately owned Community owned

Management led Community led

Controlled by private board Community controlled

Private appropriation and distribution of surplus Communal appropriation and distribution of

surplus

Environmentally unsustainable Environmentally sustainable

Fragmented Whole

Amoral Ethical

Crisis-ridden Harmonious

Participation in a spatial division of labor Locally self-reliant Table 1: Key words of economy and community economy. In Gibson-Graham (2006, pg. 87) citing Bernard and Young

(1997), Crouch and Marquand (1995), Meeker-Lowry (1995), Ife (1995), Pearce (1993), Power (1997), and Wildman

(1993)

J.K. Gibson-Graham are distinguished for their conceptualization of the diverse community economy,

first widely discussed in their 1996 work, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It). They argued that that

Wildey|8

the performative effect of these representations was to dampen and discourage non-capitalist initiatives,

since power was assumed to be concentrated in capitalism and to be largely absent in from other forms of

economy (Gibson-Graham, 2008, pg 615).

Because of the directly anti-capitalist nature of The End of Capitalism, they were criticized for their work

being too idealistic. In order to dislodge, what they define as capitalocentrism (the hegemonic discourse

of capitalism as the most powerful economic system in place with no functional alternatives) in a new

manner, they wrote A Postcapitalist Politics (2006), which intends to broaden the scope of Marxism and

Feminism toward the reframing of an economic ontology. This reframing takes form in highlighting and

representing the diversity within the economy, especially those sectors that lie outside of commonly

theorized capitalism. They utilize the concept of an iceberg to show that what is commonly thought of as

the economy is the wage labor produced for a capitalist market, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, with

a wide variety of economic activity that happens underneath the water (see Figure 1). They construct the

language of diverse economies through diversity in kinds of transactions, types of labor, and forms of

enterprises. Researching and bringing together the marginalized sectors of the economy, they argue, will

be a start to the necessary dislodging of capitalisms hegemonic control. Not only that, but they argue is

highly ethical to perform creative research to produce a ground of possibility where none formally existed

(Gibson-Graham, 2008).

Wildey|9

Figure 1: The Iceberg. Drawn by Ken Byrne for the Community Economies Collective in 2001. Found in many works of

Gibson-Graham including A Postcapitalist Politics (2006).

The Community Economies Collective (CEC) and the Community Economies Research Network

(CERN) are international collaborative networks of researchers share an interest in theorizing,

discussing, representing and ultimately enacting new visions of economy (CEC, 2009). These networks

specifically grew out of the feminist critique of capitalism and the political economy offered by Gibson-

Graham. The direct purpose is to create knowledge surrounding diverse economies, rather than

representing economies as dominantly capitalist. The website of the CEC is clearly exemplary of the

research possible representing the economy as diverse. It offers academic research from books, academic

articles, PhD dissertations, and Masters Theses as well as conference papers. Where many academic

repositories have research hidden behind a veil of restricted access through payment, the majority of

research in the CEC is publicly available, which is a clear attempt to make the discussions available to a

broad community. Research ranges from growing food communities in the Philippines (Hill, 2013), to

Wildey|10

urban housing economies in Moscow (Pavlovskaya, 2004). These research groups developed to connect

and coordinate the work of researchers and activists as a process of interdependent support.

Despite some groundwork for framing diverse economies, the CECs scope is fairly limited by the small

number of research sources. A clear, yet surprising gap, in this conversation surrounds cooperatives as

part of the diverse economy. Other researchers have widely discussed cooperatives, especially in South

America where the cooperative movement has gained a stronghold within worker factories (Freeman,

2005; Dinerstein, 2007; Ranis 2006). While this research regarding Argentinean worker cooperatives is

useful to show strong alternative economic possibilities, there still seems to be a large gap in academic

conversation regarding cooperatives as part of diverse community economies. My research seeks to fill

this gap.

This research will focus on the cooperative movement, which combines many of the components of the

community economy into democratic business management. Specifically, I will focus on worker

cooperatives as a more empowered form of workplace. I will argue that this form of business has potential

to contribute to an economy that addresses many of the issues created by capitalism. I will further argue

that these exist as very real alternatives that have many positive benefits. Hahnel (2012) argues that we

must create an economy that no longer punishes people who behave in socially responsible ways and

rewards people for behaving in socially irresponsible ways (pg. 106). I argue that worker cooperatives

address this challenge, and are a form of positive reinforcement of socially responsible business. Before

moving on to my contribution to this research, I want to explain what cooperatives are as a whole, and

specifically what worker cooperatives are. Then, I will define uniquely situate my research geographically

in the city of Seattle.

Cooperatives: An Alternative Approach

A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their social, economic,

and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise (ICA,

Wildey|11

2015). These businesses are driven by values, not just profit, and are focused on building a better world

through cooperation. Though they can take a wide variety of forms, cooperatives internationally agree to

a set of core values and principles that align them towards this better world. These values and principles

are listed below.

Cooperative Values

Cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and

solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty,

openness, social responsibility, and caring for others (ICA, 2015). It is these values and the following

principles that distinguish cooperative business from other business models. It is important to note that

many non-cooperative organizations are based on values and may even utilize some of the principles.

However, it is the combination of a specific value-set with these seven principles that sets the cooperative

movement, as a whole, in a position to have a more direct, positive impact on the communities of the

world. This is because these values are at the forefront of the work of the business, and address

components of community economy in a more holistic way. Since these values include equality, equity

and solidarity, for example, there is a clear attempt to address issues created within the capitalist model.

The principles listed below guide cooperatives towards a form of business that is people focused, not

profit focused.

Cooperative Principles

1. Open and Voluntary Membership Cooperatives are open to all persons who voluntarily are willing to accept the

responsibilities of membership, without discrimination.

2. Democratic Member Control Members actively participate in setting policies and making decisions, which can vary

between equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and other levels of organized or

elected democracy.

3. Members Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control the capital of their

cooperative.

4. Autonomy and Independence Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members, not

by external sources.

Wildey|12

5. Education, Training, and Information Cooperatives provide education and training for their members in contribution to the

development of their cooperative, as well as the general public regarding the nature and

benefits of cooperation.

6. Cooperation among Cooperatives Cooperatives strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local to

international structures.

7. Concern for Community Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies

approved by their members (ICA, 2015)

These values are central to what makes the cooperative structure a distinct alternative to the

hypercapitalist neoliberal economic structure that seems to control most of our economy. For example, by

having democratic member control (Principle 2) and members economic participation (Principle 3), the

decisions that get made for the business are reflective of the goals of the members, rather than far away

shareholders that care only for their personal profit. This also creates a more democratic system where the

hierarchies of power tend to be far less focused in a few individuals in a business. Of course, there is

potential for the use of these values and principles to create businesses that only address specific

principles in a token way. For example, a large consumer cooperative like REI has thousands of members,

but retains a hierarchical structure that so closely resembles other outdoor equipment stores, and many

people may not even realize that REI is a cooperative. On the other hand, there are countless examples of

businesses that address the majority of these values and principles and are contributing to the community

economy. Many small businesses function similarly in management structure and values-based decision

making, but arent a cooperative because of the business ownership. While these distinctions are

necessary to bring up, it is still clear that the values and principles that co-ops adhere to have the potential

to create a strengthened, more viable and thriving system for the participants and their community (see

Figure 2 for accessible reasons).

Wildey|13

Figure 2: 10 Reasons Co-ops Rock! Poster from The Toolbox for Education and Social Change

(http://store.toolboxfored.org/10-reasons-co-ops-rock-poster/)

Wildey|14

Worker Cooperatives

There are four main types of cooperatives (listed in Figure 3) and countless forms within those types.

Overall, nearly 30,000 cooperatives in the United States account for two million jobs, $75 billion in

wages and benefits, and more than $500 billion in total revenue. Consumer cooperatives, including credit

unions, represent the vast majority of these. (Kelly, 2013).

Figure 3: Cooperatives in the Economy. Data in YES! Magazine retrieved from National Cooperative Business

Association and Research on Economic Impact of Cooperatives, 2009, University of Wisconsin

1. Consumer Cooperatives (92%): Owned by the people who buy the goods or use the services. This includes housing cooperatives and credit unions. REI is the nations largest.

2. Producer Coop (5%): Farmers and others banding together to market their products. Organic Valley and Land OLakes are examples.

3. Purchasing Coop (2%): Small businesses pooling resources to be competitive with large chains. Best Western hotels and Ace Hardware stores are examples.

4. Worker Coop (1%): Owned and democratically governed by employees. There are only about 300 in the nation.

It is clear the cooperatives are already a viable part of the US economy. This is important to my argument

because I intend to show that cooperatives are not a far off idea, but are very possible alternatives to

capitalism that can happen now. In particular, I have focused my research on worker cooperatives. This

form of cooperative is the most distinct from capitalism, and most closely follows a socialist model of

worker control. In a consumer cooperative, members have a small economic buy-in, but still dont take an

extensive role in the decision-making. The ownership of the cooperative is owned by the consumer.

Consumer

Producer

Purchasing

Worker

Wildey|15

Worker cooperatives offer all the benefits of the values and principles of the larger cooperative

movement, while also addressing the issue of who has control over the products of labor. In a worker

cooperative, workplace power hierarchies are replaced by a system of democratic governance. These

distinctions make research on worker cooperatives particularly relevant and important to discursive

representations within diverse community economies.

Seattles Community Economy

After having a better understanding theoretically of what cooperatives look like on paper and how they

can have an impact on dislodging capitalisms hegemony, it is necessary to look for specific examples

within a certain geographical area. This research is spatially situated within the City of Seattle. The city

has a particularly strong culture of activism (for example, WTO protesting in 1999 (see Bleiker, 2002),

environmental awareness and social equity (see McKendry & Janos, 2015), and liberal politics (see

Morrill, 1995). One example clear example of Seattles progressive political culture is the fact that all

current members of Seattles city council are part of the Democratic Party except one member, Kshama

Sawant, who is part of the socialist party.

Additionally, Seattle already has a base of cooperative business. Seattle is home to the nations largest

cooperative: REI as well as a host of other cooperatives. Cooperatives that address specific interests and

needs of the communities seem to thrive in Seattle. For example, Flying Bike Brewery, the nations

second cooperative brewery, is being built in Seattle and has garnered paid ($150) membership from over

1000 individuals in only two short years- without even having a brick and mortar establishment. Through

these examples, it is clear that Seattle has a strong progressive culture that is open to the cooperative

movement, making Seattle a prime geographical location in which to conduct research on an alternative

economic approach such as cooperatives.

There are a number of organizations that are in place to support cooperatives in the Seattle region. For

example, the organizations listed below represent the broader cooperative movement in Seattle. These

Wildey|16

organizations help create a climate that is conducive and supports individual cooperatives and the

cooperative movement as a whole.

SLICE (Strengthening Local Independent Co-ops Everywhere) - A Seattle based association of co-ops

with the mission to foster the development of a cooperative economy rooted in democratic ownership, social justice, and ecological accountability. (www.slice.coop)

Northwest Cooperative Development Center - A nonprofit organization devoted to assisting new and existing cooperative businesses, from daycare centers to credit unions. (http://nwcdc.coop/)

Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (CIE) - a program of Pinchot University. It offers accessible and

affordable first step entrepreneurship and worker cooperative training, one-on-one consulting and other support. It specifically focuses on empowering people in low wealth and underserved communities to

start and grow profitable businesses, create jobs, and build sustainable community resilience and wealth.

It is funded through a $115,236 grant through the Small Business Administrations PRIME program with the purpose of helping educate and train small business owners and to build community wealth.

(http://cie.pinchot.edu/)

Despite a progressive culture and the foundations for a strong cooperative movement, Seattle is also

characteristically defined by corporate neoliberalism, which places profit over (marginalized) community

interests in support of free market capitalism. This can be seen in many ways including the fact that large

multinational corporations like Amazon, Starbucks, and Nordstrom have their headquarters in Seattle.

Seattle is an international hub of the technology industry and is one of the fast growing cities in the

United States. This has spurred an unprecedented level of capitalist economic growth that has led to many

sociopolitical issues in Seattle, in particular gentrification and heightened wealth disparities for example

(see Mars & Lounsbury, 2009; Brown & Morrill, 2011). The dualism at play between Seattles intense

capitalist boom and its activism-based sustainable culture makes studying Seattles community economy

particularly poignant and relevant.

Worker Cooperatives in Seattle

The cooperative culture that exists in Seattle does not imply that there is an extensive list of cooperatives.

SLICEs website has a list all cooperatives they are aware of in Seattle. This list, while not necessarily

fully up-to-date, contains over 20 different cooperatives of all types. However, when considering

specifically worker cooperatives, there are actually very few businesses on the list.

Wildey|17

Of course, there are likely many organizations in Seattle that act similarly in structure to a worker

cooperative and are just not labeling themselves in that manner. This will be discussed later. The line

between worker cooperative and other forms of business is relatively blurry, but generally speaking, there

are two currently operating worker cooperatives in Seattle: Patty Pan Cooperative and Equal Exchange.

There are also a few other worker cooperatives that are currently not in business, including two that I

have researched: Black Coffee Co-op and CounterCulture Cooperative.

I have chosen to focus my research on the three Seattle-based worker cooperatives (Patty Pan, Black

Coffee, and CounterCulture) for multiple reasons. First, the majority of sales in these worker cooperatives

is situated in Seattle. Equal Exchange was founded and maintains business also in Boston, which has its

own inherently different sociopolitical economic scene and is not the focus of this research. Second, these

cooperatives represent unique examples of different stages of the life of a business. Patty Pan is currently

in operating practice. Black Coffee operated for two years, closed, and is currently looking for a new

location. And CounterCulture is in the formation stage, having never processed a transaction. Choosing

these three cooperatives allows me, as a researcher, to delve into three distinct, case studies of the

community economy in Seattle.

The Patty Pan Cooperative operates a Seattle Farmers Market booth and sells their famous quesadillas

made with local vegetables. The cooperative also holds community meals called Humble Feasts, to bring

together the local community around good food and at an affordable, or humble, price. For the past 15

years, the Patty Pan Grill was owned by Devra Gartenstein, but as the organization grew, the members

decided to turn it into a cooperative. Black Coffee Co-op was a caf that served specialty coffee and tea

and vegan food while also being a space for community events and independently produced literature.

They were located in Capitol Hill for two years, but have recently closed due to rental prices and hope to

open in a new location when one can be found. CounterCulture Cooperative is a group of founders who

Wildey|18

aim to start a sustainably-minded worker cooperative coffee shop that can also function to hold events for

the community. The project began in 2014 and is currently in planning stages.

Methodology

The purpose of the research is to contribute to deepening the academic understanding of the worker

cooperative economy. Im using the term worker cooperative economy similar to how Gibson-Graham

frame the community economy, but just more specifically applied to the economy formed from worker

co-ops. Gibson-Graham describe a community economy as an interdependent and diverse form of

economy that values ethics of cooperation and relationships. I will reference this term, as well as worker

cooperative economy, which I define as the sector of the community economy that is conducive to worker

cooperatives.

In order to better understand the economy as a diverse economy of which capitalism controls only part, I

drew upon the research methodology used by Gibson-Graham (2006) for the theoretical underpinnings of

my research. This methodology outlined by Gibson-Graham took six steps.

1. Tracking practical economic knowledge by convening focus groups with key participants in the local economic development conversation.

2. Acknowledging the positives and negatives of existing representations 3. Generating new representations via a community economic audit of nonmainstream, traditional

or undervalued economic activities. (pg. 132) a. Interviews within the non-capitalist sector

4. Documenting inspiring examples of community economic enterprises or activities. 5. Creating spaces of identification in which community members can imagine participating in a

community economy.

6. Acting on identifications within the community economy in which groups begin to build enterprises, orgs, and community economic practices.

With this theoretical and practical background, I decided that it would be best to focus on one area of the

methodology. This led me to focus on deepening the academic knowledge surrounding the community

economy by documenting inspiring examples of community economic enterprises. In order to best do

this, I focused on two main forms of methodologies: Participant observations and qualitative interviews. I

Wildey|19

chose these methods multiple reasons. Participant observation allowed me to study processes,

relationships among people and events, and the organization of people and events within a sociocultural

context. I was able to gain access to phenomena (especially in the case of the CounterCulture Co-op) that

are best viewed from an insider perspective (Jorgensen, 1989). Qualitative interviews allowed me to gain

knowledge about each case study, but in a way that allowed both the researcher and the participant an

opportunity to interpret the questions and responses (Mishler, 1986). Both of these methods allowed me

to build relationships with the different cooperatives, not just use them to collect data, which is one way

that I have attempted to connect my research methodology with the community economy framework. The

next section details these methods.

Participant Observation

As mentioned, I used participant observation to study the relationships among people and events with an

insider perspective (Jorgensen, 1989). I conducted participant observations in two different settings. The

first setting was at an event hosted at the University of Washington titled: Worker Cooperatives:

Democracy in the Workplace. This event was held on February 26, 2015 at 4:30pm and was hosted by the

Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies. The agenda of the event was as follows:

4:30-5:45 Screening of Shift Change: Putting Democracy to Work

5:45-6:15 Question-and-answer discussion with filmmakers Melissa Young and Mark Dworkin

6:15-7:30 Food and a panel discussion with cooperative worker-owners

This event was an opportunity to dive into the world of worker cooperatives. During the film screening, I

focused on building a base of questions that could be used in the rest of the event and for the interviews I

conducted later in the research process. The second part of the event was an informal question and answer

time that moved quickly because of a few dominating community questions. The third part of the event,

which was my main research focus, involved a panel of five members of the worker cooperative

community in Seattle. These panelists included: Devra Gartenstein and Juliana de Groot from Patty Pan

Co-op, Scott Davis from Black Coffee Co-op and Equal Exchange, Jim Mayerstein from BicienVia (the

most successful bike delivery service in Mexico City), and Shevanthi Daniel-Rabkin (Lead Program

Wildey|20

Manager for the Worker Co-op Program at the Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Pinchot

University). During this event, I took down observations that centrally focused on common themes of

cooperative struggle and success for the different cooperatives.

The coordinator of the event, Joe Stormer, a student in the CHID department, had heard that I was

researching worker cooperatives in Seattle and invited me to help out with the event. I specifically had

asked if the event was going to be filmed, because I was interested in using it for my research. He gave

me the opportunity to film the events question and answer and panel sections. However, due to technical

difficulties during the event, no video was captured. Unfortunately, due to this, I was unable to record as

many handwritten notes as intended, but I still was able to capture the essence of the event.

The second setting in which I conducted participant observation was at three meetings of the

CounterCulture Cooperative1 (CCC). This cooperative is in the unique stage of just being formed and

there are only four members who are working on the project. Prior to the meeting, I was friends with

Anshika Kumar and Alix Goldstein, both of whom are part of the four members of the CCC. When they

heard that I was researching worker cooperatives, they graciously invited me to come to one of their

meetings. This was a unique opportunity because of the stage they are at in their project and the tight

community necessary to make it happen. I was humbled that I would get to take a glance into their

meeting. On a midweek evening I went to one of the members apartments for the two hour meeting.

Because I was new to the group, I did not want to obstruct their group process with too many questions. I

wanted to keep as little of a focus on me and my research as possible, in order to allow their meeting to

continue as normal. Additionally, I intentionally went to the meeting with an open mind, only having

some of my interview questions in mind, but not looking for any specific answers during the meeting. For

these reasons, I decided that taking handwritten notes in a notebook would be most appropriate as it

would allow me to be the quiet observer for the most part. During this first meeting, I focused on

1 The name of this cooperative is not yet been finalized as of production of this paper.

Wildey|21

observing the interaction between members, decision making processes, and how the members created a

supportive space.

After this meeting, they were happy to have me come back to another meeting. I attended three other two

hour long meetings, both held at members homes. These meetings were different from the first, as only

three of the four members, plus me, were able to come. For this reason, the meeting was, instead, called a

Work Party. The members joined together in a common space to work on their unified project. During

these meetings, the members were mostly focused on the creation of their business plan. My role in these

meetings was to learn more about their background by reading the files and documents they had created

and contribute ideas where possible. My role had shifted from the first meeting, as it seemed I was now

part of the community in a way. They trusted me enough to give me access to all of the documents that

had been created for the cooperative. My observations during these meetings remained similar to the first

meeting, but were also partially self-reflective regarding my personal interest in involvement with the

project. Through participating in these meetings and observing the dynamics of the group, I was able to

begin to understand what might be like to start a worker cooperative small business in Seattle.

Qualitative Interviews

As mentioned, I conducted interviews for multiple reasons. First, this form of methodology allows me

and the participants to mutually interpret information for a better holistic understanding (Mishler, 1986).

Second, I was able to use relationships formed at the Worker Cooperative event to move to the more in-

depth questioning used in qualitative interviews.

When sitting down with members of the cooperatives, I was really curious about information regarding

decision making processes, how membership works, and how they interact with other cooperatives. The

full set of questions can be found in appendix 1. During the interviews, I used these questions as topics,

but also allowed the interviews to flow into new topics if the interviewee found certain concepts

particularly engaging.

Wildey|22

I started by interviewing Devra Gartenstein, the Founder of Patty Pan Cooperative, in Patty Pans kitchen

and restaurant just north of Seattle in Shoreline. I had previously worked with Devra through an event she

helped with in 2013 with the UW Student Food Cooperative (see Personal Reflection). This previous

connection meant connecting for an interview was relatively simple. Since Devra is the founder of Patty

Pan and has been with it for about 20 years, she was the logical choice of worker-owners at Patty Pan to

interview because of her deep contextualized knowledge of the organization.

I commuted from Seattle to Shoreline to meet with Devra2. When I arrived at 9:40, one of the other

worker-owners, Juliana, let me into the kitchen. The business was not open as a restaurant and the

production in the kitchen had not yet started for the day. I was able to sit down with Devra in the dining

room attached to the kitchen. The space was quiet enough that I was able to use a voice recorder to

capture the entirety of our hour long interview. This allowed me to go back after the interview and

transcribe the entire interview and bring out common themes.

Coincidentally, I was able to set up an interview with Scott Davis of Black Coffee Cooperative directly

following my interview with Devra. I chose to interview Scott because of the connection I was able to

form at the Worker Cooperative event on February 26. Scott was a good option because he was a central

figure in BCCs creation and is still working on their progress. I biked from Patty Pan in Shoreline to a

coffee shop in the heart of Seattles Greenwood neighborhood. This coffee shop was representative of a

hip, Seattle coffee culture and was packed with people, conversations and loud overhead music. This

inhibited my ability to audio record this interview. I instead opted to take notes on my laptop, trying to

2 During this report, I have made the intentional decision to utilize the first names of the people I interacted with. This is for two reasons. First, these case studies are so specific, there is no possibility of conceling identities of the subjects. The purpose of the research is not to hide who these people are and what they are doing, but rather to highlight them. Second, by using their first names, it is a representation of the honest connection I built with them through the research. This is more representative of the goal of achieving a community-oriented economy, and using their first names is one step to building this community.

Wildey|23

summarize the majority of what was said. This allowed me to go back and analyze the interview for

common themes, similarly to the interview with Devra.

Findings This findings section is divided into three parts that each talk in depth about my experiences with the

three cooperatives, whether through interviews or observations. After this, I move into a discussion of

how the three are connected, and what relevance that has for contributing to Seattles diverse community

economy.

Patty Pan Cooperative

Patty Pan cooperative is a worker cooperative farmers market vendor that sells ready-to-eat hot food

such as tamales and quesadillas, which they produce from their kitchen space just north of Seattle in

Shoreline. I met with the original owner, and current worker-owner, Devra Gartenstein, to gain further

insight into Patty Pans business.

The interview with Devra Gartenstein provided deep insight into the workings of Patty Pan and how it fits

into both the worker cooperative economy in Seattle, as well as the rest of the economy in Seattle. This

first case study is an opportunity for this research to focus on a cooperative business which is actively in

operation. Devra started Patty Pan in 1997 and was the sole proprietor until 2013 when the employees and

Devra decided to turn it into a worker cooperative. This has created an inherently unique situation for the

organization for two main reasons.

First, Devra has the deepest knowledge of the business. Some of the members have been around for a few

years, most have previous food service background, but this experience doesnt compare to the nearly 20

years that Devra has spent with the business. There is a certain level of instinct that comes from this

amount of time at any organization. When I met with Devra, she mentioned this situation being a

Wildey|24

challenge for her in the transition to the co-op because now she has to allow other members to make

decisions where before she could rely on her previous experience to guide the business. This was

discussed as giving up the control she had before.

Second, Patty Pan is in a unique ownership situation, split among three entities. Prior to the move to the

cooperative model, Devra owned the entire business. Since transitioning to a cooperative, the membership

of the cooperative is actively working to buy the business from Devra, in the hopes that eventually it, as

an entity, will have a majority ownership of the business. Additionally, when the cooperative moved to

their current location in Shoreline, there were substantial start-up costs. Fortunately, the cooperative was

able to find a bank that would lend money to cover some of the costs. So currently, the cooperative owns

only a small portion of the business, and is in the process of paying back loans to the bank and to Devra

making the cooperative less self-autonomous and more reliant on outside sources.

Patty Pans day-to-day business operations run similarly to many other small businesses. Workers go into

work when scheduled and receive a pre-determined wage based on that work. However, there are many

features to this system that go beyond the standard wage-laborer situation. For example, most of the

people who work for Patty Pan are members of the business. This membership adheres to the cooperative

principles as being voluntary and open. The only requirements for becoming a member is having worked

through a market season and have unanimous approval from the other members. Being a member means

that you get one equal vote in decision making processes. However, for Patty Pan, being a voting member

does not necessarily mean you are a worker-owner. Once youve become a member, you have the

option of diverting some of the wage you would earn towards sweat equity in the business. It is not

uncommon for standard capitalist businesses to offer some form of equity for employees, often in the

form of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOP). Equity for Patty Pan goes beyond just minor ownership

(equity in the form of an ESOP) of the business because this equity is will ultimately be fully controlled

by the workers. These workers have put in the effort to become a member and participate in member

Wildey|25

ownership, which is the key distinction from a capitalism model where only a small group of people own

the business. Patty Pan is working towards complete cooperative ownership and the members have these

two ways of gaining personal ownership, purchasing capital shares in the business or diverting their wage

in the form of sweat equity.

Patty Pan wanted to make membership financially accessible, which is why the cost of membership

mostly comes in the form of labor. They also pay themselves well, with a scale that raises yearly. The

members of Patty Pan were lucky that the business was already profitable when it transitioned to a

cooperative, because small business startups typically have trouble making profit right away.

It is challenging as a cooperative to get a loan for the startup costs for a cooperative. The business model

does not fits conventional economics, which makes lenders weary to lend money because of the perceived

financial risk. This is because the management structure does not have a hierarchical structure that

facilitates decision making. Running a business on a more horizontal structure could be seen to cause

more challenges for cooperative startups, which could limit possible lending sources. Though all small

businesses run into the challenge of fundraising startup costs, but this challenge seems to be particularly

heightened the more the business model deviate from the capitalist norm. Devra suggested that additional

funding from the local government would be particularly helpful in fostering a cooperative economy, as

well as changing some policies to make is less difficult for cooperatives to thrive.

Compared to most businesses that focus money towards the top of a hierarchical power structure, Patty

Pan focuses their money differently. When the money is coming in, we like to spread it around as much

as possible. Since their recent remodel has been a major expense, no members have gotten any surplus

since they became a co-op because all of the profit went back into the business.

Wildey|26

Devra was excited to mention that Seattle is in an extremely unique situation right now with the Center

for Inclusive Entrepreneurship having received a grant from the Small Business Association to foster

worker co-ops in Seattle. The CIE at Pinchot University was able to hire two staff members to hold

classes for people interested in starting worker co-ops. Theyre offering support services, but also

working with Patty Pan and supporting them in their process. This is a clear example of how a grant in the

right area of the economy could empower an entire city to form worker cooperatives.

In relation to finances, Patty Pan also practices economic transactions that move beyond market cash

flows of consumer goods. Patty Pan really enjoys bartering and making trades, especially with the local

farmers at the market. Devra noted the high level of cooperative behavior among businesses, specifically

noting farmers markets as a form of informal cooperative behavior. What is unique about these examples

is that the economic transaction is not purely based on a transfer of money and goods, but also has an

important social component. She gave the example of being at a farmers market on a really cold wet day

and how having the community is vital to the experience. Everyone is there to support each other.

Support is a key feature to Patty Pans business and relationships. They focus on supporting farmers by

making sure that the farmer is the highlight of the work at the farmers market. Devra was clear that Patty

Pan is there to support the farmers, not take space away from them. Patty Pan does not always buy goods

to put into their products based on price. Often, purchases are made because of direct relationships with

farmers.

Additionally, support is found within the cooperative group. One example is the support of employees

with their life decisions. Devra mentioned the support of someone who left the business to spend more

time with family and how that was a completely legitimate reason to leave. She also mentioned how the

members of the co-op decided on a loose rule last year to make sure people dont miss their main market

more than once a season, but that they encouraged people to take time to get away.

Wildey|27

Besides supporting farmers and each other, Patty Pan also endeavors to support people of all economic

classes. Patty Pan wants to make their food accessible to as many people as possible, and one way they do

that is to offer a fifty percent discount for unemployed people. There is a sign clearly visible at the market

stall explaining this. This is addressing one issue that may have been created directly from capitalism.

At Patty Pan, creating a positive and community oriented space is particularly important as well. This

takes the form of having a positive work environment that is reflected partially by interacting with each

other and finding solutions. Patty Pan foregrounds goodness, which helps make smaller decisions on a

daily basis. By keeping the idea of creating a positive and good contribution in the back of your head with

all decisions, the community will be happier with the product. When Devra was looking for Patty Pans

new location, a neighbor forwarded her on information about the building they are currently in. The

realtor had posted an ad for the building saying that they wanted to fill the space with someone who could

help building the community around food. That is part of what Patty Pan seeks to do.

Through the interview I found two goals that Patty Pan might be working towards as a business. The first

goal involves a move towards more collectivism. Were not a collectivebecause we have a

hierarchybut I wonder how we could be more like that. When Devra framed this intra-cooperative

power structure, she talked about the giving up of personal control as being a good thing. This was

discussed when mentioning that she may have more knowledge about how a specific process should

happen. In this way, Devra framed this move towards collectivism as something that should centrally

focus on the benefit of collective process rather than simple business outcomes. Yet, she also mentioned

that this collective process needs to be in some balance with making decisions as a business. Devra still

considers Patty Pan as a business first with the slower decision making process of the cooperative coming

as a follow-up.

Wildey|28

The second goal is continuing to look for areas to grow in. As a farmers market vendor, there are only so

many markets and not an extensive margin for growth. This is why Patty Pan has sought other methods to

grow their business in other ways that could increase their stability as a business. One method was

through the Humble Feasts, which have seen a weekly core group of 30 to 40 community members

coming on a consistent basis. This is an example of how Patty Pan is seeking growth, but in areas that can

remain relatively constant in terms of income generation, such as weekly dinners or the sale of value-

added products through cooperative distributors like Equal Exchange.

Devra ended the interview by discussing cooperative structure as alternative to the hierarchical model of

capitalism. I see it as a place for experiment there is cooperative economic behavior and there is

formally created and organized co-ops. And I think formally organized co-ops, there is a lot of energy

around fostering them. But it is a really big commitment. I'm not sure that there's necessarily going to be a

critical mass of businesses that do this and change the world. But I do think that what these businesses do

like showcasing this different way of doing business can ripple out and change so many other businesses

in so many other ways. In this way, Devra is describing how cooperative business may not be the

revolution that overtakes capitalism, but how it can be an integral part of a diverse economy. She did

further explain that worker cooperatives create the highest level of ownership. Most positions people

consider work makes up only a limited sphere of your life but participation in a worker cooperative can

impact all spheres of life.

Black Coffee Co-op

Black Coffee Co-op is a group of people who operated a worker-owned caf in Seattles Capitol Hill

neighborhood from 2012 to 2014. Because of rising rental costs, BCC was unable to maintain their space

in Capitol Hill and are currently looking for locations in areas where rental prices are more reasonable. I

met with Scott Davis, a founding member of BCC.

Wildey|29

Scott is highly passionate about the idea of worker cooperatives. During the interview, he radiated a deep

sense of urgency to work towards alternative methods of economic structures, while also having the

hindsight into many challenges cooperatives face. As a founding worker-owner at Black Coffee and a

worker-owner track employee at Equal Exchange, he is immersed in Seattles worker cooperative

community. When I met with him, he was in the process of talking with real estate agents about different

properties that the co-op was looking at renting.

While BCC and Patty Pan are both cooperatives and share many values and practices, they are both also

utilize unique business practices. BCC was an idea that Scott had to combine countercultural ideas within

the popular setting of a coffee shop. Scott was able to pull others into his idea. Similarly to Devra, this

required Scott to pull himself out of an authority role.

The purpose of the creation of BCC was to run as a worker co-op as an anti-capitalist model. BCCs

structure supports this alternative model in many ways. As with any other worker cooperative, there was

no sole owner of the business. Originally, the members wanted to minimize the division of labor between

members. They wanted each member to know how to do everything, thus minimizing possible hierarchies

of power. They planned to incorporate skill-sharing between members to make this possible, but over

time ended up settling on a division of labor.

Members considered the method through which they would pay themselves. Did they want to be paid

hourly? In an effort to challenge the status quo to which earning wages is associated, they considered

alternative payment structures. These alternatives, even if they didnt materialize, represent legitimate

concern for practicality but also the need to create a new political economy.

Scott mentioned the goal was to experiment with a new system as there is too much friction being

experienced with the current system of capitalism. He described the idea as being a combination of

Wildey|30

dissatisfaction with the status quo and the belief that something else was possible, that focused on

empathy for the world.

The business tried to maintain autonomy as a business but also as individuals in the co-op. They

recognized many of the challenges of the consensus process (see Singer and Vannucci (2009)),

particularly the time that must be put into decision making. They wanted to maintain enough room for

individual autonomy and decision making, especially in everyday tasks. For this reason, they made

decisions by consensus in meetings and specifically structured decisions as guidelines for members to

follow in making individual decisions. Consensus-based guidelines for individuals to act on, gave

individuals some rules to fall back on in particular situations. Scott mentioned that the toughest decisions

the members made were around what warranted not welcoming someone into the caf.

Scott said that the most important thing achieved by the co-op was how it offered something that doesnt

typically exist in a capitalist system so focused on building profits. It offered private space that provided

a lot of public good free of charge. That is why people loved it. What was so compelling was the

noncapitalist structure. Scott was inspired by the number of people who said they were saved by what

the space offered, and that they were going to commit suicide otherwise. That public community space is

what this cooperative was able to offer. This directly relates to how BCC made community support a

central focus.

BCC has a very clear Safer Space agreement which details how they expect people to behave in the

caf in order to make the space accessible to everyone (see Figure 4). The goal of this was specifically to

cater to people who are commonly discriminated against and allow them to feel comfortable in the space.

Scott mentioned Trans* and street people as two examples.

Wildey|31

Figure 4: Black Coffee Co-op's Safer Space Agreement

The goal of the caf was to offer private public space that could be inhibited by the community. There

was a need when BCC started for this type of available space, especially in the heart of Seattles cultural

neighborhood of Capitol Hill. The Occupy Seattle movement was in full swing, contributing to the active

Wildey|32

political scene in Seattle, and BCC offered a community space at a low/no cost for events to be hosted.

The BCC was both excited and impressed with how much the community trusted them. Individual

members began building close relationships with different members of the community.

Besides offering space, part of the goal of BCC was to offer an educational component by disseminating

alternative literature. Members of BCC worked closely with Left Bank Books, an anarchist collective

bookstore that has existed in Seattles Pike Place Market for the last 40 years. Through guidance from

Left Bank, BCC was able to operate a small printing press that could produce information specifically for

the public about anarchism and other alternatives to capitalism. This printing press was also available for

anyone with idea that wanted to see it come to life, as whatever was printed could be distributed through

BCC.

Relationships are really important to BCC. The business tried to keep costs down in many ways, but

didnt sacrifice in the quality of their food, sourcing baked goods from local vegan cafes and coffee from

the direct trade coffee roaster Kuma Coffee. Ideally, BCC would prefer to work with other worker

cooperatives, specifically small local businesses. They prefer radically minded business and tried to

market themselves towards that direction. This made it more difficult to work with certain Seattles

cooperatives like Central Co-op, a longstanding grocery cooperative also in Capitol Hill, because they

were trying to market themselves differently. This meant that the main community organizations that

BCC worked with were active political and community groups. These groups are framed as Allies and

Resources and Coffee Comrades on BCCs website. Using these terminologies seems to create an

even closer community bond between organizations following alternative models.

The relationships BCC had with outside organizations were important, but so were those relationships

within the group. To become a founding member, BCC required a certain number of volunteer hours.

They considered the model used by a similar caf collective in Portland, Red and Black, in which new

Wildey|33

workers needed to work 111 hours in order to begin to earn equity. When starting the co-op, the members

were asked for at least a one year time commitment to the project, with two years being more ideal.

Because the members were going to need to make themselves available for the co-op 40 hrs/week, there

was extensive work put into building trust between members prior to opening the caf doors. At the first

meeting at Scotts house, nobody knew each other before the meeting. Most knew how coffee shops

work, and some were aware of collective business practices, but there was so much they needed to figure

out. Members spent months regularly socializing and figuring out every different component of the

business possible. However, what is clear is that the most important component to this was the sense of

trust being built between the members. When experimenting with such an alternative, trust is so huge.

One way that the members built trust besides spending time together was that all original agreements

were made verbally. The lack of legal safeguards was really scary and maybe a little idealistic but the

members wanted the least amount of the system interfering with their process. In this way, the

agreements were more based on personal relationships.

In dealing with discipline of members, the collective membership always tried to give the benefit of the

doubt to the person in question. If that person dealt with a particular situation in the caf and carried out

an action that other members didnt agree with, all members tried to understand the situation from the

point of view of the person handling the situation. Other situations of discipline included issues of a lack

of communication and members slacking off. There was a very intentional focus on maintaining

healthy, non-judgmental relationships. Maintaining these relationships, even through discipline, require a

lot of care. However, members still held each other to a high standard and required those responsible for

issues to create the solutions. Scott described it as being the best boss youve ever had. One that

considers all circumstances.

Relationships within the group were important to the interpersonal nature of the group. These were

helpful when considering the financials of the business. Financing and liability of starting a business is

Wildey|34

difficult. Starting any business is a big leap of faith, but starting any alternative business takes that

challenge a step further. Cafes need a small amount of startup money, but need labor upfront. Black

coffee was able to get off the ground because of one bulk loan along with some crowdfunding. No

members were asked to contribute their own money to the project, as BCC was able to fund the majority

of startup costs through the single loan received from a credit union and through connections to people

with wealth.

BCC has a unique financial situation. Scott described the members specifically as not employees but as

owners who make dividends. The business followed all the rules. There is the definite sense that paying

the rent, taxes, and utilities, etc comes first and the owners come last. This created a situation where most

members had to work second jobs to support themselves and other members were in and out of being

homeless. After paying all of the business costs, the surplus that got doled out to the members, plus tips,

may have equaled close to the minimum wage.

Besides having challenges with money, BCC faced a number of other challenges. One example was not

having legal agreements between members. This may have been a mistake when creating BCC, so they

have since started to formally legalize the agreement of membership process. This seems to represent a

struggle of being able to hold all members to the same level of ideals.

There seemed to be some kind of struggle between how BCC presented itself to the community and how

the community received them. For example, many community members were excited about the caf and

its goals and were interested in volunteering. The founding BCC members chose not to offer volunteer

positions for two main reasons. First, it would decrease the level of trust that had been built up between

members. Second, the membership saw this as an additional form of hierarchy. Though the members had

carefully and intentionally made this decision in order to protect themselves from a more radical critique,

they experienced some scrutiny from community members who wanted to be welcomed more. This

Wildey|35

represents a challenge of the dichotomy of appealing to the mainstream community and appealing to the

radical community.

Another example of this challenge was the communitys belief that BCC was making a profit. Some

people began to take the space offered by BCC for granted, and began hosting events out of BCCs

capacity. This represents an underlying narrative of capitalism because people assumed that since the caf

was actively running, there was extra money.

Despite the fact that co-ops are meant to cooperate, this was still a challenge for BCC. Existing as an

alternative form of business within a capitalist system meant that there was still heavy influence and

undertones in much of their work because they needed to pay the bills. It would be wonderful to be able

to mutually support all cooperative business movements, but sometimes these businesses must be

regarded as either clients or competition. This challenge was even more difficult because BCC was not

in a place to offer financial support or other forms of help to other cooperatives. BCC was most able to

offer space to people who supported their politics.

Scott also offered a unique perspective on the cooperative movement. He suggested that there are very

distinct differences between the different types of co-ops, specifically between consumer co-ops and

worker co-ops. He suggested that consumer co-ops are just a way to democratize the capitalist system we

already have and that they are not trying to challenge the current economic model. This model is just

trying to further satisfy the consumer by offering goods through a democratic model. On the opposite end

of the cooperative spectrum, the worker cooperative, even in its least radical form, is quite a challenge to

the current way of doing things. Worker co-ops displace the ownership of capital that creates power

dynamics, focusing the ownership of the means of production and surplus labor on the workers.

Concisely, this difference is between democratizing the workplace for the worker versus the consumer.

Wildey|36

CounterCulture Cooperative

The CounterCulture Co-op (CCC) is a group of four people who are in the process of planning and

developing a structure to open a worker-owned cooperative coffee shop. They have been meeting for over

six months to set up the foundation for this business. The CCC has had the opportunity to utilize both

Patty Pan and BCC as resources in the development of their initial structures and plans. Because of the

shared nature of the businesses centrally being coffee shops, CCC has based many of their goals on what

BCC was able to achieve. The CCC is in a process of shaping the ideals which will hopefully have a

chance to experience in practice. This process means that the results I present here are based on these

ideals, rather than practices like I was able to present for Patty Pan Cooperative and Black Coffee Co-op.

The CCC hopes to serve locally roasted, internationally certified fair/direct trade coffee, paying close

attention to the balance between cost and egalitarian values. But they intend to move beyond being a

standard coffee shop to offer something much more to their community. In fact, the community itself has

been a central focus of discussion. When members were discussing the location for the caf, an important

key factor was the community. One possible component of this was finding a location near where at least

one member lives, in an effort to create a more place-based hyper-local economy. The goal is to create a

relationship with the community that is mutually beneficial. The community can support the caf

monetarily, and the caf can offer the community equitable service that contributes to the neighborhoods

sense of community.

Similarly to all co-ops, part of what makes the CCC so unique from other businesses is their focus on a

mission statement and values that offer a direct alternative. The process co-ops need to go through to

intentionally create these values is equally part of their unique qualities. The creation of a mission

statement and values was not taken lightly by the members of CCC, and they deliberated for many

meetings to come to consensus on the decisions.

Wildey|37

The mission statement that the CCC has drafted is reflective of this alternative approach. Our vision is to

establish a worker-owned cafe in Seattle and with it a culture of trust, transparency, and cooperation. We

will be a living model and resource for alternative economies that serve the community and the

environment. Our empowered workplace will create a safe space where empathy, service, and kindness to

others are the greatest currency. We will help strengthen and grow the cooperative movement through

lived values, democratic decision-making, and education. We are stronger together, and hope that you

will join us in realizing this vision.

The members discuss their co-op contributing to a movement that subverts the oppressive system of

capitalism by offering an alternative approach to business focused on trust, transparency, cooperation, and

worker empowerment. The members want to maintain a very intentional culture of trust that extends

mutually between community members and between worker-owners. Thought the CCC has not had had

extensive opportunity to engage with community members, they have begun the process of building trust

and support as an internal group, a necessary part of building the worker cooperative.

At the beginning of each meeting, each member would be invited to share an update with the group.

Because the members are such a tight group of friends, they are able to share updates that include many

aspects of their personal lives, including struggles they might be currently having. I saw multiple

instances when one member had recently experienced some form of struggle and the other members in the

group verbally acted as a support system for that struggle. Additionally, when this struggle got in the way

of a task one member was supposed to accomplish, the other members accepted this person in a caring

way, rather than chastising them for their issue.

Since much of what the core team is doing is a learning process, the members may not all have the

capability to accomplish all tasks initially. One example of this was when one member had set themself

Wildey|38

the task of outlining the businesses financial plan, only to realize they didnt have the capability to do this

on their own. The rest of the members supported this member by graciously accepting to do this task as a

group, rather than as individuals.

The members also show clear reverence for collective decision making. I went to four meetings total, two

of which were only called work parties because not all members were there and those that were present

did not want to make decisions without the rest of the group. Even at one of the official meetings I was at,

the members didnt make decisions when one member was in the bathroom. Three members agreed on

the name for the business, but waited to make it official until the other member came back. When that

member expressed issue with the chosen name, the members were not upset by this, but saw it as an

opportunity to find a name representative of an idea all four members were happy with.

The CCC has not yet started fundraising, but they are well aware of the challenges. Their plan is to seek a

loan for a significant part of their businesss startup costs, and then supplement this with crowdfunded

support. Unlike the other two co-ops researched, the CCC is considering requiring an upfront payment to

be an official worker-owner, which would allow for the establishment of complete financial autonomy

right from its inception. This also allows the worker-owners to retain more transparent control than in

typical free market business controlled by far-off shareholders. The ideals that the CCC are creating are

examples of the hope in alternatives that can exist in the community economy. But to exist as an actual

alternative to a capitalist structured economy, the CCC must take some next steps.

The fourth meeting that I observed was mostly focused on how the CCC could benefit from the Worker

Cooperative Academy that is being hosted by the Center for Inclusive Entrepreneurship. The members

brought in Mieka Briejer of the CIE to discuss the option of the CCC taking part in their academy. This

academy, funded through the grant from the Small Business Administration, has allowed the CIE to offer

a free month long academy to groups interested in starting a worker cooperative in Seattle. The sessions

Wildey|39

are led by experts are geared specifically towards the development of the individual cooperative business

idea. The sessions include business and marking skills, finance and operations planning, and ownership

structure, governance, and preparation of legal documentation. The co-op plans to utilize this unique

moment in Seattles worker cooperative economy of the availability of this academy to delve deeper into

the plans they have already developed, learn new skills, and take the next steps for the creation of their

caf.

Discussion

What I attempted to represent above is how three different worker cooperative businesses in Seattle make

up situated examples of the worker cooperative economy in Seattle. Through description of each

cooperative own its own we can see the level of empowerment workers can experience. However, by

representing these three businesses together, we can get a more unified representation of a growing

community economy exemplified through the diversity added to the economy through worker

cooperatives.

By bringing together these three unique examples, we can see some common themes arise that can give us

more insight into the state of and capacity for development of the worker cooperative movement in

Seattle. Many of the different features that unite these cooperatives into one movement are not unique to

the Seattle area. There are challenges these cooperatives face that a co-op in most other areas of America

would surely also face. For example, each of these co-ops have felt a significant challenge existing as an

alternative business within a capitalist structure. They experience a tension between needing to run the

business that is economically able to support itself and wanting to implement an alternative approach that

focuses on values different from economic viability. This challenge is not one that cannot be overcome

however. In fact, both Patty Pan and BCC represent compelling examples of how the use of community

relationships and solidarity can allow a business to source quality local and ethical goods along the values

Wildey|40

of the co-op and still maintain viability. Though, this example could be applied to any small business.

What is unique for these worker cooperatives is that the decisions they make regarding the balance

between economic viability and alternative approach is agreed upon by all workers. Furthermore, this also

suggests that a worker co-op has to choose either economic viability or their alternative approach, and

that they cant have both. However, this is an effort to show two things. First, worker cooperatives can be

both economically viable and expressive of an alternative. Second, the conceptualization of profit does

not boil down only to profit in the form of money. These businesses also value the social profit of

building supporting relationships within a community.

Another challenge faced by these co-ops that would likely extend to co-ops in o