Promoting Colonialism at Home, by the National Citizens' · Monitoring Proje,ct, 1985, 106 pp., $5 from: The Working Group for Community Development Reform 1615 Broadway, Suite 1006 Oakland, CA 94612 What do these cities-Ahgusta, Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama; Great Falls and Missoula, Montana; Fresno, San Francisco, and Santa Monica, California; New York, New York; Richmond, Virginia; and Springfield, Missouri-have in common? Urban "renewal," or for low-income locals, urban removal. Promoting Colonialism at Home: The Re-' lationship of Subsidized Economic Development to Ten Low-Income Communities documents renewal projects in these cities, with research done by local citizens groups. The results overwhelmingly establish the failure of the pro:- jects to improve the quality of life for city residents, and display how they work tO destroy the support structures of low-income communities. Cities spend millions in programs to attract new industries and subsidize them with gtants and building costs, usually with the rationale that new jobs will be created to keep the cities healthy. Promoting Colonialism at Home documents high city estimates of numbers of new jobs expected, versus low numbers of jobs which actually materialize. · Those jobs that are created are poorly matched to the skills of local residents and mostly go to skilled non-residents, or are low;paying, dead-end positions. Not only do residents not gain jobs, many lose th~m. Local industry which employs most locals is pushed out when land values and rents increase, as large companies buy up land. Low-income residents.themselves are pushed out as housing is lost to large firms' space requirements, and re.sidential rent'rises. Population drop, median income changes (which can accompany either gentrification or worsening unemployment), decreases in number of occupantowned housing, and drops in availabili-: ty of affordable housing are documented. By putting these into the context of the cities studied, Promoting Colonialism at Home demonstrates the direct ·relation between worsening conditions in lowincome neighborhoods and municipal programs to attract large businesses~ The iponitoring groups recommended ACCESS: Economics ways to reverse this pattern and foster healthy urban communities. One recommendation was to redirect public funds · to aid _small businesses, which have · local loyalties and less tendency to relocate than large; externally owned businesses. · "One indication of the potential of small businesses for job creation was identified in Santa Monica. The Pico Neighborhood Association's jobs program had no success placing people with large f~ that were recipients of public subsidies and which had entered into .hiring agreements. On the other hand, the response from local firms which had nothing to gain from the city was overwhelming. Over 85 percent of the program•s placements were with these small businesses." Another recommendation was for cities tO secure enforceable commitments when large companies do. receive subsidies, as well as making sure that new jobs will match local skills, or that training programs will be offered. This report is valuable in raising consciousness of city officials and the public. The citizens groups are working to change local city policy, but perhaps this report will also influence other American cities. -JM Employee Ownership in America, Corey Rosen, Katherine Klein, and Karen Young, 1986, 255 pp., $19.95 from: Lexington Books D.C. Heath and Company 125 Spring Street Lexington, MA 02173 Employee Ownership in America is the first book to provide an overview of employee ownership th~t is simultaneously broad, factual, and· insightful. The authors describe an ambitious research project conducted between l982 and 1984, which attempted to measure the success of 37 employee- owned firms ranging in size from lS to 7080 employees. What did they find? They may disappoint advocfltes of more democratic strains of worker ownership with their conclusion that monetary reward and manage·ment's commitment to employee ownership are stronger determinants of employee satisfaction than structural elements such as minority versus majority ownership and voting rights. (HowSummer 198·6 RAIN Page 25 company terminates the plan or sells the factory without allowing its nonvoting "owners" any say in the matter.) The authors describe different schools of thought on emplOyee ownership. One school, the "purists," see ·democracy and not earnings as the critical value in employee ownership. The purist approach "has a strong ideological appeal to many people but the process it propose's is a slow one at best. Its emphasis on fully realized democratic companies turns away many businesspeople who might be willing to share .ownership, but not yet control." Although half a loaf may be better than ~one, the moral of the tale won't satisfy the purist's sense of ethics. Employee Ownership in America is not only uniquely informative, it is also quite entertaining. The stories of employee-owned firms that succeeded make for enjoyable reading. Seven firms that scored high on the measures of employee satisfaction are profiled in depth. They include a chain o.f bowling alleys, a manufacturer of industrial weld fasteners, a construction company, a chain of retail home supply centers, a ball-bearing man,ufacturer, a T-shirt embellisher founded by a former Yippie, and a printing firm that prints Mother Jones and U.S. News and World Report. (An appendix contains highly 'informative snapshot profiles of 37 firms.) One thing that comes through in this chapter is that the businesses that are minority employee-owned but controlled in ·old-fashioned hierarchical ways have nonetheless cultivated strong feelings of loyalty in their employees. They treat employee~ with respect, ·pay them well, give them ample opportunities to grow in skills and responsibilities, and challenge them repeatedly. It is the ability of these firms to command the ·loyalty ,of ·working people that presents the greatest challenge to the fledgling employee ownership movement. Nonetheless, given the intrinsic worth of democracy, and ·the failure of capitalist firms to serve the needs of the growing ppor class, this is a challenge that the democratic branch of the worker ownership movement should gladly accept. --Scott Androes Scott Androes, ·a former RAIN intern, has a degree in economics and lives and works in Portland.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz