The New York Times Tackles Nannygate at the Slope Food Co-op...
The Times has an in-depth investigation into a rumor posted on Fucked in Park Slope last week about how some members of the Park Slope Food Co-op have their nannies working their shifts. So does it happen, and is it kosher? “‘As much as people think we are Big Brother and watch people, we don’t…
The Times has an in-depth investigation into a rumor posted on Fucked in Park Slope last week about how some members of the Park Slope Food Co-op have their nannies working their shifts. So does it happen, and is it kosher? “‘As much as people think we are Big Brother and watch people, we don’t know these things,’ [Ann Herpel, the co-op’s general coordinator] said when asked how big the problem was. ‘But I don’t think it is one of our major problems.’ She said the most likely situation is one in which a nanny is a member of the co-op in her own right and agrees to work her employer’s shift, and therefore would not be easily detected.” We may never know.
try again.
“The work requirement stems from its philisophical basis.” = because.
that place is grody!!!
cuz youve been in it how many times?
lamar latrell ahhahahah
*rob*
“Funny, I never knew Rob was white.”
I believe he claims to be a proud black female lesbian trapped in a white man’s body.
Funny, I never knew Rob was white.
I always pictured Lamar Latrell when I read his posts.
it also sounds like some people are just jealous that other people have nannies and maybe they can’t afford to.
on the other hand if someone can an afford a nanny i dont understand why they would even shop at the co-op, that place is grody!!!
*rob*
I get the philosophy behind the work requirement. It’s probably not something I would want to be a part of but I don’t think they are bad for having it. I do think they could be more flexible about substitutes and paying for shifts without selling their soul, but it is not my call to make.
I do have one question for members/insiders. It seems to be like the time required is high given the number of members compared to the tasks to be done. Do you feel that there is an element of “make-work” just to keep the time requirement what it has always been?
“because”? Then change the name from ‘coop’ to ‘Sams club’ or ‘BJs’. You pay a membership fee and get better prices, right? Thats not what it is, sorry. The work requirement stems from its philisophical basis. If one doesnt like it, then dont join. Simple.
“So, the slope coop managers may be pains in the ass, and it may be a pain to do the shifts, but its important to maintain those rules to ensure the original intent of the coop.”
Like I said there is no logical reason for the work requirement other than “because”…