Talk:Labour policy

From EcoReality

This proposal was discussed on April 26. Here is the old content:

Proposed Labour policy - April 18, 2008

Comments by Jan in italic green...

Comments by James in italic purple...

Each resident/member is required to work one hour per day on co-op administration and/or operations.

Non resident members are required to work 10 hours per month on co-op administration. Any hours worked on the farm by a non resident member will be considered WWOOF labour, not counting towards the 15 hour monthly requirement.

Hours must be worked on approved operational and administrative tasks. Tasks get approved by submitting a project page to the wiki, as determined (and recorded) in operational meetings or by a steward determining an immediate need and consulting with the project manager.

Who is this "project manager" of which you speak? That's new terminology! Do you mean steward?

I agree project manager is not the correct term. It could be labour steward or project steward. This person would be responsible for budgeting, managing and documenting all of the projects required on the farm and the labour performed by various people (members, work parties, WWOOFers, interns etc)

Should a member not work the required hours in one month, they will be required to pay $15 per hour for the hours short to the co-op. This is due on the 15th of the following month.

Hours must be recorded monthly and sent to the finance steward no later than the 15th of the following month.

I think there should be a new stewardship created (as above) rather than this being handled by the finance steward

A member may choose to bank hours for a maximum of 6 months with a maximum of 42 hours being carried over. Should a member choose to bank hours, they must inform the Finance steward who will keep track of the banked hours. Should a member be taking time off or planning on using the banked hours they must inform the project manager in advance. A member cannot bank hours that have already been used for rental subsidy.

We've only been banking hours on approval of members. This should not be a member's choice. It can potentially blow the labour budget of a project. I suggest keeping it simple: "Community labour is intended to be performed in the month required. In special circumstances, a member may request beforehand that their hours be 'banked' for some period of time. This request will be approved (or not) by the steward of a particular project, or by the members if the excess labour is of a general nature." With these safeguards, the maximum will be set up-front, rather than having an arbitrary number.

It looks like combining the ideas is the way to go. There should be a possible banking option for members who have planned travel or other commitments where they are unable to do their hours within a calendar month

Should a member work over the monthly hour requirement, they can log these hours until the end of the fiscal year at which time they may submit them to the co-op in exchange for Class B shares (to be approved by members).

No. That's not how Class B shares work. But I can see that my comments on the proposed labour policy discussion page could have been misinterpreted.

Any time we issue shares, it must be for capital projects, not on ongoing operations (see finance), and should be approved beforehand, not at some future date, when things will have been forgotten. Again, this sort of stuff dilutes share value and blows project budgets. The amount of labour must be under the control of project stewards, not at the whim of people doing stuff that may or may not be needed! Stewards will have budgets, not individuals. In sociocracy terms, approval comes from the next highest "circle."

Correction noted. This is one area with no clear answer and may be left vague until members have time to brainstorm a solution.

Proposed Labour policy discussion - April 4, 2007

• Members will hold quarterly meetings to discuss projects and their priorities, their costs (financially and how much labour is required). Projects will be prioritized based on their feasibility (financial and labour), their return to the co-op either in eitehr goods or revenue, their ongoing costs and their alignment with the co-ops values and vision.

  We already have a mechanism for project proposals that has been presented to the group, but only two people have been using it: Category:Projects. I don't see any value in sequestering projects to "quarterly meetings" when they are coming up all the time. --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

• At monthly meetings, members review which projects are a priority and how much labour is budgeted will be reviewed. Each member will voice their intention of which project(s) they will participate in that month.
• Set a monthly labour requirement for each month based on what all members can feasibly do. These hours must be performed on approved projects only, and in the approved budget for hours. Any hour overage on an approved project must be approved by members (or project manager if the farm chooses to have one. It could be a revolving role or one member’s stewardship).
  • James suggests maximum 20 hours per month per person

    This is well below what seems to be widely practiced in the field of one hour per day. I sugges 30 hours a month is more appropriate and nearly doable by everyone. Even if it isn't doable by some, the difference between 20 and 30 can bring needed income to the community. --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

• Set an hourly amount that may be paid to the co-op by a member in lieu of hours worked, should they choose to work less hours in a month.
  • James suggests $10 per hour

    If the goal is to be egalitarian about the time-value of money, then I think a higher amount is warranted. Some of us will gladly provide services worth many times that amount, and those of us who will be doing simple work will feel uplifted by a higher amount. I suggest we continue with the already-agreed-upon $15 per hour. --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

• Set an optional labour budget where a member can work over their required hours on approved projects and bank labour hours for future consideration.
  • James suggests 20 hours for this additional option

    If additional labour is "banked," why have a limit? This discourages people from working more than 40 hours a month! --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

• Decide on what “future consideration” is for optional overtime hours.
  • Options include:
  • Point system where hours count towards points which count towards the first choice of a building site or home on the future piece of land.

    This seems pretty far-fetched. When we're worried about getting the peas in, I don't think anyone is motivated by a vague promise of some future building site. --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

  • Share adjustment for a slightly larger percentage of ownership (more class A shares).

    We cannot do that without officially changing our rules, which requires application to Victoria. I am steadfastly against any proposal that dilutes equity. That means that any such proposal must only apply to hours worked toward capital projects, but wait -- we already have a mechanism for that that everyone's agreed on: Class B Shares! --Jan Steinman 10:29, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

  • Partial financial compensation in the event that the co-op generates revenue far and above their budget (predetermine the threshold in the budget where members can redeem overtime labour hours for money).
• Document all hours worked. Include what the project was, what the budget labour hours were and how many hours it took.
• Members are free to volunteer to work on non priority or non approved projects once their required hours have been worked. These hours are still to be logged for reference.
• Members are encouraged to work on more approved projects should they choose to volunteer over and above their required hours.