Obama strengthens unions and economic democracy - where will it lead?

[Radical Activist]

An SEC ruling completed action taken in the financial reform bill that gives more power to shareholders. This change was sought by unions and other groups that engage in corporate accountability campaigns.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2512409920100825

Shareholders won more power on Wednesday to shake up corporate boards in the United States after the financial crisis exposed weaknesses in how companies were managed. The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to adopt a rule that gives shareholders an easier way to nominate company directors.

Activist shareholders who want more say on how companies are run have long sought the ability to place their nominees' names on company proxy statements.

Thinking a few steps ahead, could this change set up the legal framework necessary for worker-owned and managed corporations? What if a union is able to effectively elect a company's board of directors? What if the majority of a company is owned by its employees who hold democratic elections for its governing board?

Which will be the first company or union to follow the example of the South American worker-owned factory movement?
http://www.zcommunications.org/factory-in-the-hands-of-workers-by-marie-trigona

How much impact this law will have depends on whether the progressive movement can recognize this opportunity and seize it. It could be a minor reform that puts mild pressure on a few corporate boards. Or it can be a step that leads to more dramatic change in response to a popular movement. It will take a lot more work than calling the White House to beg for top-down change.

[Better Today]

1. Then I read this other article about UAW and think, "maybe not so much".

Unions seem to be not looking to members' needs so much as corporate needs. Even if they put union members on the board, those members will simply be drawn into the corporate mindset, not the other way around, unfortunately.

Link to DU post of mentioned UAW article is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9042255

[Radical Activist]

2. UAW has been too cozy with Detroit CEOs for a long time.

But that doesn't support all of your negative predictions. Yes, those are problems that need to be guarded against. That's true with any political or economic system. I can't agree with your defeatist attitude that implies we shouldn't even try.

[HughMoran]

19. Interesting the sort of accusations we have to deal with here

:think:

[Better Today]

22. "all your negative predictions" ??? You mean my one concern? What's

with exaggerating what I typed? What's with misconstruing concern about a legitimate issue into a "defeatist attitude?" Is it required for you to disregard by use of strawmen any posts that don't support your desire to see this president as perfect?

[pampango]

3. That's an interesting reservation about putting union members on boards of directors.

In Germany union representation on boards is one of the reasons that their economy and manufacturing sector are so strong, but that is tied to European ethos of a strong social safety net, strong unions, progressive taxation and effective national health care.

It would seem that union representation on boards here could be a significant part of making our society more equitable, but without other changes in our system might not have the same effect it does in Germany.

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100807-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html

"Germans, with their powerful unions, rarely go on strikes because they have a real voice in their employment.

In Germany, Geoghegan finds the true "other"—an economic model with more bottom-up worker control than that of any other country in the world — and argues that, while we have to take Germany’s problems seriously, we also have to look seriously at how much it has achieved. Social democracy may let us live nicer lives; it also may be the only way to be globally competitive. His anecdotal book helps us understand why the European model, contrary to popular neoliberal wisdom, may thrive well into the twenty-first century without compromising its citizens' ease of living — and be the best example for the United States to follow."

[JDPriestly]

6. I lived in Germany years ago. It is just amazing what they with their

system have accomplished. Remember, the former West Germany swallowed the former East Germany, with all of its structural and human problems, whole and still has thrived. East Germany was a real mess with aged factories and other horrible conditions (although it was probably the most industrialized country in Eastern Europe).

I was very favorably impressed with the German system of training workers through apprenticeships while still affording opportunities for social mobility. I believe that the opportunities for social mobility have increased in the past 20 or so years.

German workers have a lot of rights (as do most European workers) that American workers would not even dare to dream of. Yet, German manufacturing is second to none in terms of quality.

When I lived in Germany, it seemed to me that the country was more hostile to new ideas than the United States. But I think that has changed now. I have the impression that Europeans in general are more open to dealing with technological change than are Americans. For one thing, the German education, which, at least when I was there, taught kids how to do things, how to think practically in solving real problems, prepared people to accept new technology. The tables have turned on Americans in this respect.

Thanks in great part to our obsession with fundamentalist theology, many Americans are absolutely ignorant with regard to science and especially to the reality of global warming. Europeans are not so much in denial about what is really going on in the environment.

The German social fabric is complex and based on a lot of ancient traditions. It would be impossible to try to replicate such a system here. But we should still look to Germany for ideas that we could incorporate into our system. The inclusion of employees elected by their peers to represent employees on the boards of directors of large corporations would be an easy thing to require here. It is required by statute in Germany, just in case there is confusion on this point. That is the starting point not only for improving the status of workers in our society, but also for improving the ethical and moral conduct of our major corporations.

What goes on in the secrecy of the board meetings of America's large corporations is unacceptable.

[Radical Activist]

7. Interesting book review.

It's a shame information about economic models in other countries is kept entirely out of the corporate press.

I may pick up his book. Although I did support Quigley in that election (he has been a great progressive Congressman so far).

[JHB]

10. Let's remember who played a big part in writing that German constitution...

Americans. Specifically, New Dealers running the postwar reconstruction efforts.

Or, by today's political rhetoric, radical, fanatic communists. :sarcasm:

[Radical Activist]

11. Germany got New Deal democracy

and America got fascism courtesy of the grandson of Hitler's American banker. I would enjoy the irony if it weren't so tragic.

[rpannier]

13. Damned commies are everywhere

Except in America -- Dash it all!

[ipaint]

4. Seems it is going to be very difficult if not impossible at bigger companies

because of the restrictions. Smaller companies, maybe.

"Yet while the SEC rule is good for investors in principle, it remains to be seen how good it will prove in practice. The biggest concern is the stringent restrictions on who may nominate directors. To run a slate of candidates, shareholders must own at least three percent of a company’s stock for a minimum of three years. Trouble is, shareholders rarely, if ever, own that large a stake in big companies.

For instance, the 20 biggest public retirement funds own only 2.8 percent of Goldman Sachs (GS) — combined. The 10 largest pension funds hold less than 2.5 percent of Bank of America (BAC). Of the 20 largest U.S. companies by market cap, the smallest investment a shareholder would need to have in a company to qualify to nominate a director is $3.5 billion.

Shareholders would’ve benefited more if the SEC had stuck with its original proxy-access proposal, which established a tiered ownership threshold with shorter holding periods. Under that plan, shareholders would’ve needed to hold only one percent of the biggest companies for a year to nominate boardmembers. The minimum stake for midsize companies was set at three percent, while shareholders would’ve needed to own five percent."

http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/sec-8220proxy-access-8221-rule-won-8217t-really-help-shareholders-manage-big-companies/7233

[Radical Activist]

5. The chances for significantly reforming a company of that size

are slim in any case. Godman Sachs? No, of course not. The next tier of companies and smaller ones are where real changes can happen.

[ipaint]

8. I doubt it.

The restrictions will prevent any real change. The kind of change desperately needed in this country isn't going to come from those most invested in the current system in government. They are there to protect the interests of big business.

The SEC chose the more restrictive policies with that in mind.

[Radical Activist]

9. Yes, I know the talking points.

Nothing passed ever matters, Obama is a corporatist, it all sucks, a little progress is no progress at all, woe is me, blah blah blah.
I already acknowledged that this is a small step that may not accomplish much on its own if we don't push for more. Almost all progress in American history has been accomplished step by step. Recognizing a step forward usually aids the push for more. Politicians like positive reinforcement and the public like to feel that progress is possible.

[ipaint]

16. Back at ya. Sensible pragmatism and giving in will solve everything...

eventually. 30 years and counting and all we do is move to the right while repub lite dems dangle that "ultimately attainable" goal just far enough out of reach for it to never be achieved.

Not buying it. I'm not that gullible, ignorant and desperate for that american dream they sell their bullshit with.

[HughMoran]

21. Having everybody at each other's throats distracted by constant fighting will

We're making great progress!!

(if losing any chance to pass anything remotely liberal was our goal)

[ipaint]

32. We lost any chance of passing anything remotely liberal when obama set up backroom negotiations with

pharma. Leading by example.

The message was clear.

[HughMoran]

59. What a crock

I'm bored to death with these "...and when Obama did this, the earth stopped spinning on it's axis" hogwash statements.

[Radical Activist]

23. This is a move to the left

not a move to the right. If you can't tell the difference between making progress and giving in then I'm sure you'll continue to find failure everywhere you look.

[ipaint]

33. You can spin it as a move to left but really it's running in place. When restrictions prevent

the intended purpose of the bill, well... all you have left is spin.

[Radical Activist]

36. Well, the AFL-CIO President disagrees with you.

I'll take his word over your perpetual cynicism about all things Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/sec-backs-labor-on-corporate-board-votes/

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the approval a "historic step in empowering long-term investors" and added that the labor federation has sought the change for "close to 70 years." Labor groups funneled millions of dollars into a campaign to enact the financial-reform measure, in part to secure the new rules.

"Universal proxy access is a fundamental shareholder right enjoyed in most developed nations around the world, so we are very happy to see the United States achieve parity on this," said Lisa Woll, chief executive of the Social Investment Forum, which pushes for "socially responsible" and "environmentally sustainable" investments by businesses.

[ipaint]

52. Good for him.

The changes as the result of this law will be insignificant. If this was going to open the door to widespread employee/union ownership then it would have died the same death as the public option and strict regulations on derivatives.

A captured government does not allow laws to written that have the potential to significantly empower workers and weaken the bottom line (profit hoarding) of businesses. We unfortunately have a captured government. You want to pretend otherwise that's your choice.

[Radical Activist]

53. I'm working to capture it back

while you shit all over everything. Have fun but I'll keep working. Read comment 24 if you still don't get it.

[ipaint]

60. You keep telling yourself that...lol nt

[Radical Activist]

61. I will. And you can keep screaming into the dark at your imaginary friend

named Chad. :rofl: :crazy:

[HughMoran]

20. Interesting that we're constantly responding to right-wing talking points lately

:think:

[Radical Activist]

38. Interesting that some posters would rather agree with teabaggers than agree with Obama.

They're united in common hatred.

[HughMoran]

58. Yes, though my fascination with this "agree with treabagger" phenomenon has faded

:boring:

[TheKentuckian]

18. Yet you somehow feel the "reform" is of consequence

It isn't logical when you look at the percentage of the economy controlled by who you accept as untouchable.

You admit they cannot be changed but are fine with allowing the dangerous dynamic to march on.

Dude, the top six banks and the health care industry alone is over 70% of the economy

The law is effectively "let's not and pretend we did". Three percent for a vote isn't change, very rarely will such people not be on the board even of smaller publicly traded companies.

We are talking about something that is statistically null as an advancement. The model is empty and designed to avoid any change in perverse incentives that are a danger to the broader economy.

[Radical Activist]

26. You don't get it. Read post 24.

[TheKentuckian]

54. I don't agree with the potential for impact, there is no shift in mentality

You assert one but there is no indication that any such thing will lead anywhere besides diffusing the pressure for actual effective measures.

The law has no effective or even effective symbolic power to control excesses. To the contrary the spin will be excesses must be approved by major shareholders and we are sticking our noses in where they don't belong leaving us to explain a bunch of nuance that makes the average person's eyes roll back and we are left where we are.

[Radical Activist]

55. "there is no shift in mentality" I didn't claim a shift had already occured.

It just happened last week. How could there have already been a shift in mentality? Everything you wrote is baseless fortune telling.
If all we do is shit all over everything then I'm sure it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that no further steps are taken.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

57. Fortune telling is not truth.

Just imagination. Dismissing a positive step forward is a pretty effective tactic to discourage the country from taking the next step forward. Good job working against the movement!

[TheKentuckian]

62. It takes very little imagination to see how hogtied the fucking bill is, just eyes.

You are claiming a function based exclusively on God knows what.

Your asserting something as what you know it logically cannot be is nothing but either happy bullshit or willful work to defuse the reform movement from within.

Good entails it having some fucking ability to have impact on at bare minimum a token or representative fashion but you refuse to accept (though you will admit it, strangely enough) that the rule impacts virtually no one that it is pretending to.

What possible percentage of publicly traded US based companies have folks that own three percent that don't already sit on the board directly or by direct proxy?

You've constructed a solution that cannot impact the problem. That's not being negative or using a crystal ball that is reality. It doesn't improve anything because it has been designed not to, I didn't wish for that, I didn't advocate such a flawed framework so fucking blame me for saying what is up.

None of the companies that are grossly perverting rational incentives are by definition affected, in fact few companies are structured in a way that the law can be expected to have impact. Most likely small businesses with an elderly or pushed out founder or widows, children, and ex's, that are still going to get voted down.

The real corporations that are the problem are far down the line and you have already even admitted it. Why are you mad that I won't pretend this is something it isn't and more importantly why is pushing not only hypothetical but way off into improbable in such a passionate way?

Why are you pushing so hard on something you well know is more fantasy than optimistic estimation.

All this lame twisting and backhanded accusing and not once have you envisioned how you traveled from A to B just that we must have a cult like belief it will and if someone points out the blatant logical flaws that we are essentially harshing your buzz.

That's some weak old bullshit but good luck with it. As for me I have no reason to feel shame and have no use for guilt, these tactics tell me all I need to know. Your desperate projection and comfort with distortion is crystal clear.

[Radical Activist]

63. Do you know why conservative hate-radio is nothing but cynicism and anger?

It's because they know that cynical, angry, hopeless people will never do anything. It makes listeners completely passive in their disgust, which means they present absolutely no threat to corporate power.

You accused me of "willful work to defuse the reform movement from within." I suggested in the OP and in comment 24 how this can be a starting point for larger change if we make an effort to push for the next steps forward. But you prefer to abort that effort before it begins with cynicism and bile. That is how you destroy a movement from within.

[TheKentuckian]

65. We didn't do anything at all but rather set up a situation were we can pretend we did so we don't

actually do something.

I don't know what is complicated or negative about that (other than the level of effort put into absolutely doing nothing that will change these shitty incentives)?

Instead of blaming the ineffectiveness of the legislation you want to pretend that it is the people who are pointing at the lack of clothes the Emperor has for his being naked.

Your idea that it doesn't matter as long as we wish big o wishes and have faith is not sensible. There is no step, I have no idea why that is so hard to grasp.

Yeah, let's keep pushing for shit that has no chance of working because the structure doesn't match reality. It is always awesome to start off with something that cannot succeed because you can keep building on it because it will pick up momentum is talking like you are high.

You can build off of small successes but not something that precludes function at all. You don't even know if you have a useful strategy at all, it is built off the assumption that a broader group of folks with an interest in a corporation will push for and get more rational compensation but you've set up conditions that do not even begin to test the idea.

I'm sorry but your logic sucks all around here and your browbeating silly. You know very well that I'm right about the potential for impact and you have no evidence that your principle is even sound and at this rate won't test it in any meaningful way for many years (if the creek don't rise and this tactic is pushed for despite no rational expectation of results) as the insanity continues.

Insanity is not pragmatic. Nor are hopes truth.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

40. just the corps the big boys want to take over.

[rpannier]

12. I read the article and it's interesting

I was going to point out an obvious flaw, but you addressed it in another post (above)
I was not clear on how the voting would work.
I'm sure your votes are based on percentage of stock owned at the time of vote. I think it would be daft to say someone who owns 3% shares has the exact same voting power as someone who has 15%.
In many companies, large and mid-sized, retirement pensions are some of the largest share holders.
I'd be curious as to how those would play out in terms of voting.
If the Illinois Teachers Retirement System owns 11%, who votes for them? What if they don't vote? (Is that a de facto vote for the existing board?)

I realize the article can't cover all the side issues involved.
But, I'll be curious to see how this plays out.
It could be a very good thing, or produce no change. And I don't say no change as a criticism of the bill, or its intentions. I say it as how the rules of voting, proxy's, non-votes, etc are decided -- which will most likely be decided by the Courts (if I read the article correctly)

Thanks for posting.
It's an interesting read with some good/positive information
I find it disturbing that people un-rec'd it
But, Meh, people do what they do.

[Radical Activist]

24. Those are good questions.

By itself, I don't expect this bill to accomplish much beyond putting a little extra pressure on some corporate boards. It might help a little in the corporate accountability campaign of a union or environmental group.

What's more significant to me is that it introduces the principle that shareholders can have a larger voice in who runs a company and how it operates. Americans are unfamiliar with ideas like having an employee representative on the board of directors, employee owned and managed companies, or having competitive board elections that mean something. Once you establish that principle it opens the door to more significant changes. People talking about those major changes won't sound like aliens from outer space anymore.

This is one of the few parts of financial reform that Obama argued for in the popular press even a year ago. It's important to him. It would be in keeping with his style to assume he's trying to introduce the start of something that leads to more fundamental long-term change. After all, Saul Alinsky spent the last years of his life working to unite the working class and middle-class shareholders in corporate accountability campaigns.

[blindpig]

14. If that is the case....

Let's see him spearhead an effort to repeal Taft-Hartley.

[Radical Activist]

34. Then get to work on the Senate.

Obama and the House aren't the roadblocks.

http://blog.oup.com/2009/03/president-obama-shareholders-workers-let-everyone-vote/

In recent remarks to the leadership of the AFL-CIO, President Obama and Vice President Biden affirmed their support of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Act is a priority of labor unions, a central element of the Democratic coalition. If enacted into law, the Act would effectively eliminate union recognition elections. Instead of secret ballot elections in which workers choose whether to belong to unions, the Act would amend federal law so that unions can achieve recognition based solely on public “card counts.”

[blindpig]

35. No, this is about Obama, as per the OP

Writing to the whores of DC is an exercise in displacement behavior.

Has he ever said anything about Taft-Hartley?

[Radical Activist]

37. You want to make everything about Obama, don't you?

I'm amazed you aren't familiar with the Employee Free Choice Act. It does invalidate Taft-Hartley. That's the whole point of the bill. As the link above shows, Obama supports it.

Displacement behavior is getting angry at Obama for agreeing with you instead of pressuring the US Senators who don't.

[blindpig]

44. Hey, it was your OP

Hell, I'm not mad at Obama, he is who he is, and if not him then someone else...

Does the Employee Free Choice Act re-legitimize the secondary strike? Best I can tell it does not. Without that, an absolutely necessary tool of solidarity, your claim does not hold water.

[Radical Activist]

46. You disagree with Obama even when he agrees with you.

Come on. That's kind of fucked up. Admit it. Don't you have any thoughts about Obama sharing your goal of repealing Taft-Hartley? What are your plans to make the Senate get on board with the position that you and Obama share?

[blindpig]

48. My plan? I am not so full of myself.

But it is obvious that only well organized mass action will get the attention of the ruling class.

But back to the topic at hand, what of secondary strikes? Without that capability unions must fight with one hand tied behind the back. Without that provision the EFCA is just a bit better than 'feel good' and nothing like a repeal of Taft-Hartley. Has the President come out and said that he wanted to repeal Taft-Hartley?

If you think this is about personalities, about who one does or doesn't like then you haven't got a clue.

[Radical Activist]

51. I would think you could look something up instead of asking me three times after I answered.

Obama does favor repeal of taft-hartley, and that's what EFCA is designed to do.

You wrote: "But back to the topic at hand..."

No, that wasn't the topic at hand. What you meant is, "back to my latest red herring to avoid admitting that Obama already agrees with the position I took two comments ago."

If this were about issues it wouldn't be so difficult for you to admit when Obama agrees with you. Why not do that before changing the subject? And if this is so important to you then why don't you already know that Obama spoke in favor of repealing Taft-Hartley during the campaign?
You're right that mass action is required for change, but whining to dear leader Obama to hand it down for us is not effective mass action.

Once again, why are you letting the Senate off the hook for their obstruction of repealing Taft-Hartley and passing EFCA? That's what you're doing when you make everything about Obama, even when he's already on your side. You're letting Lieberman, Nelson and all the other Senate conservatives off the hook. You wrote that my comment about the Senate was "an exercise in displacement behavior." That's the best example of projecting behavior that I've seen on DU all week.

[blindpig]

67. I find no evidence of Obama saying he would repeal Taft-Hartley

I think you are making shit up.

You are, as usual, trying to have it both ways.

To say that I am letting the Senate off the hook implies that I believe that there is redress to be had there. There would have to be representatives of the people in the legislature for that to occur, I see none. Maybe some day...

[Radical Activist]

69. And we're back to your nihilistic attitude that nothing good can happen.

Eventually, that's at the core of all your pissant posts around here. At least you've acknowledged that, not only are you incapable of admitting when Obama agrees with you, but now you've added that it's a waste of time to pressure the Senate as well. Why are you here again? To spread good cheer that all is lost and change is hopeless? To make converts to revolutionary Marxism or the Green Party? Seriously, what's the point because you're doing exactly what right wing trolls do to discourage and demotivate the movement.

It's amazing that even when Obama agrees with you on an issue, like he does on this one, you immediately go looking for an escape hatch. Some little detail that proves he isn't righteous enough. And not so you can actually work on that issue. Oh no, it's only to score another little point against Obama before you go back to discouraging anyone from doing anything. Is that about right? If it were about issues then you might actually care that Obama co-sponsored EFCA and is still pushing for it.

It's very telling that a google search for this reveals that the tactic of repealing taft-hartley instead of passing EFCA is a pet issue for the Green Party and Ralph Nader. Why not just let people know you're here to campaign for the Green Party by spreading disappointment in all Democrats? At least come at it from a point of honesty and integrity.

[blindpig]

72. Because I'm not.

The Green Party is a suburban middle class plaything that I expect nothing from.

You keep telling me that I agree with Obama, implying that I'm some sort of hypocrite, yet the issue which I raised in my initial reply, that of Taft-Hartley, is not addressed. As I said, EFAC is not commiserate with repeal of T-F, it does not address the matter of secondary strikes. There is good stuff there to be sure and I will take it but don't make it to be what it ain't, it is better than nothing but inadequate.

[Radical Activist]

73. What then?

You think everything is a waste of time short of Marxist revolution? I really don't mind having that debate with someone but you have to be honest about what you believe if you're going to have an honest debate. Stop the pretense of acting as though Obama could ever do anything that will satisfy you. Are you just here to throw a wrench into the works? Not stating honestly where you stand is a tactic for intellectually weak cowards.

[blindpig]

74. How can I have a honest debate

with someone who lies about Obama saying that he wanted to repeal Taft-Hartley?

[Radical Activist]

75. How did I know you'd dodge.

Oh that's right, because you're too much of a coward to explicitly state where you stand and defend it. It's easier to throw shit at the wall than to defend your own viewpoint, isn't it?

[bvar22]

15. I read the linked atricles,

and could not find a single mention of President Obama,
and yet, you credit him with strengthening "unions and economic democracy".

Perhaps you can enlighten me about the role President Obama played that earned him the victory claimed in you post title?

[Radical Activist]

25. Google old news articles.

This is one of the few parts in the financial reform bill that he personally spoke to the press about even a year ago. This part was important to him for some reason.

[rucky]

17. Worker-owned is the best way to move forward in our recovery.

We should all focus on this model - research how it revived Argentina's economy, study the model, get people together, write business plans, apply for grants/funding, get backers. We have plenty of skilled people who are not working. We have plenty of empty commercial and industrial space. What's stopping us?

[Radical Activist]

27. What's stopping us?

Good question. I read an article about the Chicago Republic Windows sit-down strike. They were aware of what's going on in Argentina and discussed it during their strike. They decided against it because they didn't feel there was a support structure for that kind of company in the US.

I don't know what it would take but I can think of two next steps I'd like to see.
1) Use the recently passed bill to spread the idea that shareholders have a right to be a part of setting the direction and leadership of a company. We have to break through the mindset that all decisions should be left to the board and CEO without oversight. The idea of economic democracy is foreign to most Americans so anything that encourages the concept is going to help.

2) We need some kind of tax incentives for companies that are majority owned by its employees and have democratic board elections.

Beyond that, we need to start setting up that support structure for the next group of striking workers who want to try it. I don't know how that's done.

[Touchdown]

28. This is more about shareholders than union members.

Although a step in the right direction, It's a little premature to say it strengthens unions.

[Radical Activist]

29. They can be one and the same.

Especially in companies where union members own stock in the company, or the retirement fund does. It gives another tool for unions using public campaigns to pressure shareholders. To me, it looks like a small step in the direction we need to be headed.

[Touchdown]

30. No. They can't.

Unions are made up of workers. Stock holders are owners.

While some stock holders are also union members, the goals of the two are very different from each other.

[Radical Activist]

31. There's no law against workers owning theirr company.

Some companies operate that way. And now, there's no law against a union retirement fund which owns stock in a company using that shareholder power in attempts to benefit the workers.

[Touchdown]

39. That wasn't what you were originally arguing.

"No law that says..." is a far cry from "Obama strengthens unions..."

What strengthens unions is union membership, membership dues, influence in government and bargaining power in corporations. That is achieved through legislation like card check, EFCA, and anti-employee surveillance laws, wither local or national. And yes, there is a number of state and local laws that prevents a union from influencing company policy through shareholder votes, which is why most companies only issue non-voting shares to employees. Those laws are usually called "Right to work" statutes, which not only limit a union's influence in the workplace, but hamper lobbying, campaigning, finance, voting, and many other draconian rules.

While this legislation may give stock holders a bit more say in how a company is run, it does not strengthen unions per se. You can argue that it strengthens individual union members, but the organizing body has no immediate benefit.

Employee owned companies are not a panacea to corporatism.

[Radical Activist]

42. Quotes from the AFL-CIO President are the basis for my claim.

There are many ways that unions exert pressure on a company. One of them is through corporate accountability campaigns, and this law will help those efforts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/sec-backs-labor-on-corporate-board-votes

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the approval a "historic step in empowering long-term investors" and added that the labor federation has sought the change for "close to 70 years." Labor groups funneled millions of dollars into a campaign to enact the financial-reform measure, in part to secure the new rules.

[Touchdown]

43. Ok.

He didn't say what you said. He said "historic step in empowering long-term investors". You said "Obama strengthens unions"... something Trumka did not say.

Don't get me wrong. This is good. And I understand why the AFL wanted this for 70 years. It leads to a more democratic business structure, and could possibly lead to better conditions in the workplace. But "strengthening unions"? That is a stretch.

[Radical Activist]

45. I don't know why you're so obstinate about denying

the existence or importance of corporate accountability campaigns by unions. Are you not familiar with them? If you search the issue a little you can find quotes about why this law strengthens unions. It gives them another tool to pressure corporations they're battling.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Corporate_campaigns

Beyond that, if a union can ask its employees and allies to vote for certain board of directors candidates who are more union friendly...you don't see how that strengthens the union?

[Touchdown]

47. I'm not denying anything

I'm in a union. We campaign for corporate accountability all the time. Corporate accountability is great.

It doesn't "strengthen unions" though.

On your "beyond that" I am legislative chairman of my local. I can argue, put fliers on desks, cold call my members, and make arguments on each candidates. In the end, they are going to vote the way they want to. And a few of my fellow union members are Republican, 2 I know for a fact are Freepers, and more than I can count who are teabaggers.

Unions are like any other organization. We have diversity in people and opinions. It takes all kinds. We are not a monolith or a voting bloc. Being organized, we can try, but I can't turn everybody's head.

And... there's no way the BOD at AT&T will allow anybody else, especially the CWA to influence who runs the company. They'll liquidate the assets first. The only reason why AT&T is still union is because it's the oldest phone company on the planet, and it lived through the socialist movement and got unionized.

[Radical Activist]

49. Unions are stronger when they have more tools to work with.

This bill also makes shareholder resolutions easier. Its seems really straightforward. You like corporate accountability campaigns. This bill makes them easier. It's a tool unions use to pressure companies. Therefore it strengthens unions by giving them another tool to leverage power, unless you think corporate campaigns don't actually accomplish anything.

Would unions be stronger without corporate campaigns? Are you suggesting the head of the AFL-CIO is spending time testifying on bills that don't benefit unions in any way?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-set-to-ok-rule-giving-shareholders-new-powers-2010-08-25?reflink=MW_news_stmp

However, opponents of the new rules, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that the changes will empower labor unions and environmentalist investor groups in behind-the-scenes conversations at the expense of shareholder value. Tom Quaadman, vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. argues the measure will also be costly and disruptive to companies.
"We are concerned that proxy access will allow certain shareholders to have a louder voice than others and harm the very investors this rule purports to defend," said Tom Quaadman, vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/25/investors-boardroom-pay

Unions in the US are keen to flex their muscles on Wall Street. Labour organisations were a driving force behind a rebellion that unseated the chairman of Bank of America last year. They are challenging the notoriously well-paid chief executive of Occidental Petroleum, Ray Irani, who has taken home $857m (£121m) in remuneration over a decade.

[Radical Activist]

50. "The SEC's Sop to Unions"

Unions are strengthened by any tool they can bring to the bargaining table. Like this...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451343422958522.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It's no coincidence that only unions and cause-driven, minority shareholders want this coveted access. They would use it to advance their own labor, social and environmental agendas instead of the corporation's goal of maximizing long-term shareholder wealth. The rule will give them pressure points with which to hold companies hostage until their pet issues are addressed. Many corporate managements and boards will acquiesce to avoid a contested director election.

Transparency and fairness will suffer because the rule invites abuse. Institutional representatives admitted—at a public 2007 SEC roundtable on the proxy process—that they already use the machinery of shareholder proposals as leverage to accomplish private objectives behind closed doors. In other words, they threaten to propose a proxy measure and see what the company will give up to keep it off the proxy ballot. The company may even adopt some or all of the proposal, even though the measure would likely fail in a shareholder vote. This rule adds another powerful tool to that arsenal of threats.

[Touchdown]

76. Ok. I give up. You obviously want to push this narrative and have invested a lot of emotional energy

on it. You can have your little meme. I'm done trying to reason with you.

[Radical Activist]

77. It's kind of a stretch

to say you've "reasoned" at all. You haven't supported your claim that this doesn't matter or made any response to the links I quoted. If unions can use this as another pressure point, as both sides seem to agree they can, then it strengthens their position. Simply contradicting me isn't an argument.

[Touchdown]

78. Whatever gets your rocks off, go ahead and believe it.

I'm done with you.

[Scurrilous]

41. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ibegurpard]

64. I would ask teacher's unions their opinion of your OP title

[Catshrink]

66. Still at it, I see.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

68. K & R!

[Radical Activist]

71. Thanks! That brought it back up to nine

for at least the fourth time. lol

[Hekate]

79. Kick. Very interesting and TY for the info.

[flamingdem]

80. This is fascinating, bookmarked, thanks! nt