HERE exist at present in Algeria, five different types of Co-operativesss 5 1. Consumer Co-operatives: Most of these are small co-operatives, each serving the members of a certain union, e.g., one serving the members of the Union of Post and Telephone Workers. There are general consumers’ co-operatives in existence also, which are, however, small organisations. Membership shares are expensive, ¢.g., 75/- in one case and can be paid in instalments. These co-operatives do not pay divis owing to the lack of skilled administrative staff, but rather aim at selling cheaply. The A.G.M. elects the board which in some co-ops is honorary and in some paid full time. The shops which we saw looked like L.C.S. grocery shops, some small and old fashioned and some modern. 2. Artisan Co-operatives: Such as makers of carpets, builders, plumbers, carpenters, etc., exist in two stages: (a) those where only sale or service contract to the public is on a Co-operative basis, while equipment, material, etc., are owned privately and (b) where equipment, material, etc., are also owned by the co-operative and the members contribute their labour only. It is hoped that propaganda and example will induce independent artisans to join and stage “a” cooperatives to develop into stage “b”. 3. Farmers’ Co-operatives: The individual farmer owns his field and cattle and uses the Co-op. as sales organisation, like in Denmark. This system is specially in use with regard to tobacco plants. Some Coops. share out the profit as divi to members, others — owing to the lack of administrative staff — do not pay divi and aim at paying maximum prices to members. 4. Producer Co-operatives: Set up by workers in any trade who possess some money which they put in as loan capital. Irrespective of difference in capital invested, there is one vote for one man and equal share in profit (Interest being paid separately on capital). 5. “Auto-Gestion” (Workers’ Self- Management): This is by far the most important application of co-
operative principles in Algeria. It comprises a large sector of the whole economy including large farms and big industrial enterprises. When the French owners or directors of the industrial or agricultural establishments left the country, in many cases together with their French or foreign specialists, supervisors, administrators, ¢tc., the Algerian workers were faced with the necessity to carry on somehow in order to earn their daily bread. Thus the Algerian form of Workers’ Self Management was created, which was regulated later on in a law, according to which, there is a General Assembly of workers comprising the permanent workers of the enterprise. This assembly elects annually the Workers’ Council whose members serve normally three years and of whose members a third retire annually. This meets at least once a month and decides on matters of policy, on the admission of new workers, and examines the accounts and elects the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee consists of 3-11 members of whom one third retire every year. It has practically the same function as the board of directors in private indudstry. It elects a president for one year and it decides on methods of sale, production, purchase, engagement of seasonal workers, etc. The government appoints a “director” who represents the state inside the enterprise, and watches over the legality of the business activities. He is a specialist and is working full time as the head of the administration. His position, therefore, is comparable to that of a town clerk in a Metropolitan Borough Council. He has one vote on the Executive Committee, and is obliged to catry out majority decisions faithfully, even if he has been defeated on a vote.
The Members of the Council of Management and of the Executive Committee and the president are carrying on their normal duties as workers, It is laid down by law that they must not receive any remuneration for higher duties. They are being paid for the time spent in exercising their functions at the rate
by Councillor J. Spencer
of their normal job. It is considered
undesirable to re-elect persons on
retirement from their committees as
it is thought that the functions
should rotate as much as possible to
spread the understanding of the
higher problems.
The director can only be relieved
of his functions as a result of a
grave fault or obvious incompetence
or on the request of the Council of
Communal Enterprises and Self
Management.
I asked the president or a member
of the Executive Committee of each
“Auto-Gestion” we visited, whether
the independent position of the
“director” does not lead sometimes
to tensions, At all occasions but one,
we were assured that the director
was working most amicably with his
elected colleagues. At one co-opera-
tive, however, a member of the
Executive told me that workers in his
trade were rather backward and un-
educated and that it was difficult to
reconcile their ideas with those of
the specialist of a different back-
ground. But he assured us that every
issue was finally settled constitution-
ally.
Share-out of Profit: According to
the law, the profit of any “Auto-
Gestion” is shared out as follows:
One third to the State, one third re-
investment, one third to the mem-
bers. It is left to the discretion of
the members, that means, to the
decision of the Workers’ Council,
whether the workers’ share is to be
divided equally “one man one share”
or according to skill, that means, in
proportion to the wages drawn. I
found that different management
councils have used their discretion in
one way or the other. Similarly the
workers’ councils decide which use
is to be made of the funds for re-
investment and frequently proceed
with purchase from the profit as
they go along, without waiting for a
balance sheet. Considering the pres-
ent emergency and the urgent need
to repair war damages and to expand
production, the government is en-
couraging re-investment by the offer
of foregoing the state’s share in the
profit, if the workers decide to re-
invest their share. Here again, the
decision of the workers’ councils
differ from place to place.
THE WEEK — Jan. 27, 1965
The Brainwashers N article in the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review gives us a disturbing glimpse of the way new organisation capitalism works. The article by Edgar H. Shein is entitled “How to break in the college graduate.” | Apparently the big U.S. companies are finding that the young graduates they recruit are “too theoretical, idealistic and naive”; apparently these young people ask themselves, “Will I be able to maintain my integrity and individuality? Will I be able to lead a balanced life, to have a family, and to pursue private interests?” They also ask “Will I learn and grow?” Will the job not only provide an opportunity to use my _ present talents and background, but will it also afford me an opportunity to learn new things and develop new talents?” According to the author, such attitudes come up against the “Organisational realities,’ which demand the following: —the necessity for “Loyalty and commitment—to place the goals and values of the organisation ahead of his own selfish motives and, if necessary, sacrifice some part of his personal life.” —“High personal integrity and strength—to stick to his own point of view without, however, becoming a deviant or a rebel (he must know how to compromise when necessary)” The new recruit to the company must “come to terms with . . . seemingly unethical behaviour and apparently irrational behaviour on the part of high level managers.” He must also “come to terms with his own disillusionment.” * The author then outlines various “induction” and “integrative” strategies by which the new recruit can be “broken in.” The author suggests that the supervisors responsible for “breaking in” the new recruit have much to learn from psychologists expert in the “emotional problem of late adolescence.” I would like to quote one more sent-
BOOKS
ence simply as an example of the style the article is written in — a strange combination of dehumanised pseudo-scientific jargon and transparent euphemism, which is typical of writing of this sort:
“To implement such goals would require three to five days of intensive training in which lecture inputs on the problems of inducting a college graduate into the organisation are combined with extensive opportunities for free and guided groups discussion among the. supervisors themselves.”
The author concludes:
“My basic argument in this article is that the expectations and needs of the college graduate and the expectations and needs of the organisation are sufficiently out of line with each other that a considerable danger exists of both parties landing in the trap of self-defeating induction and training programme. . . The challenge is to recognise the great potential of the college graduate and to create organisational circumstances for him that will utilise rather than defeat the very qualities which make him valuable—his education and his youthful enthusiasm and idealism.”
The recent militancy of Berkeley students leads one to think that the big capitalist concerns are going to find “the challenge” more difficult to digest than this. a