Connecting Human Rights, Politics and Capital

This is a picture of one of my kittens, Beanie. She is cute, lovable and needs your help. She was found in a bush on a busy street here on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, flea bitten and underfed. She is now a healthy cat but is being terrorized by my other cat, Binkley. SAVE BEANIE!

No, not really. Beanie can take care of herself. But I bring this up in response to a recent article about how we as readers psychologically respond to compelling social issues bombarding us every day.

New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting piece in Outside Online that was published this month. His “Advice for Saving the World” makes the argument that people concerned with humanitarian problems are more likely to respond to compelling stories about individuals, not to larger problems. From a writer’s perspective, this is a particularly interesting insight given that I have always been baffled by readership interest and response to various posts I have published here at Global Investment Watch.

Kristof notes that in the context of altruistic responses to humanitarian problems, we are psychologically tuned to respond where we see a direct impact on our efforts. “Recent research in social psychology offers a couple of central lessons. The first is a bit surprising: We intervene not because of stories of desperate circumstances but when we can be cheered up with positive stories of success and transformation. For example, one experiment found that people are quite willing to pay for a water-treatment facility to save 4,500 lives in a refugee camp with 11,000 people in it, but they are much less willing to pay for the same facility to save 4,500 lives when the refugee camp is said to have 250,000 inhabitants. In effect, what matters is saving a high proportion of people, not just a large number of lives. Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon who has pioneered this field of research, notes that saving a large proportion of a group is very satisfying, while saving a small proportion seems like a failure—even if it’s a high number.”

From my perspective, it’s interesting to note which of our pieces seem to resonate most with our readers. A piece by one of my colleagues about conservative pitt bull Michelle Bachman has been the most popular article at Global Investment Watch. Similarly, an article about Turkish factory workers and U.S. retail giants, received similar reader attention.

Coming back to my kitten Beanie. Would you care more if Beanie were part of the larger homeless kitten problem in America or are you more concerned about her particular problems with her older and bigger sibling?

Popularity: 1% [?]

In a recent newscast, an al Jazeera reporter notes that the situation in Guinea is continuing to deteriorate as its current leader recuperates in a Moroccan hospital after a recent assassination attempt. In an attempt at shifting blame for the massacre of more than 100 civilians in September, factions within the Guinea military are positioning themselves while putting the population at risk from the collapse of the rule of law in that west African nation.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The west African nation of Guinea is facing a crisis that is precipitated by its own natural wealth and sustained, in part, by economic interests out for a piece of the action. Whether the people of Guinea can survive the current crisis remains uncertain. In a post on the International Crisis Group blog today, Richard Moncrieff notes that this problem has become acute as events in recent weeks make clear.

On September 28th of this year, the West African country Guinea was the scene of an anti government demonstration dissolved by the government of Captain Mousa Dadis Camara. The demonstrators were protesting the decision of Captain Camara to run for President in the January 2010 elections. NowPublic

Many of the demonstrators also held placards which stated “Army out of power”.The response of the government was to use tear gas, batons, and live ammunition with the result of being a reported 157 people killed in which 50,000 people participated in the demonstration.

Then earlier this month, Captain Camara was flown to Morocco for treatment after he was shot by his top aide, fuelling worries of a power vacuum. General Sekouba Konate, Guinea’s vice-president and defence minister, became the country’s de facto leader after returning from Lebanon early on Saturday.

Whatever the immediate aftermath of the shooting of junta leader Moussa Dadis Camara, this latest spate of violence clearly demonstrates the dangers of military rule for Guinea, and the sub-region. ICG

Part of what happened is clear enough. Certain members of the presidential guard, who were involved in the massacres of 28 September, obviously felt threatened by the United Nations commission of inquiry, which was wrapping up its first field investigation into those killings. Toumba Diakite, the leading red beret who shot Dadis Camara, probably feared being made to carry the can.

The core members of the military junta are violent and volatile thugs, who drink to excess and roam the streets of the capital, Conakry, armed to the teeth. And it is not the first incident of this sort. In early October, another argument about responsibility for the 28 September events ended with shots being fired in the main military camp.

Guinea has had a history of authoritarian rule since gaining its independence from France in 1958. Lansana Conte came to power in 1984 when the military seized the government after the death of the first president, Sekou Toure. Guinea did not hold democratic elections until 1993 when Gen. Conte was elected president of the civilian government. He was reelected in 1998 and again in 2003, though all the polls were marred by irregularities. History repeated itself in December 2008 when following President Conte’s death, Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara led a military coup, seizing power and suspending the constitution as well as political and union activity. Guinea has maintained some semblance of internal stability despite spillover effects from conflict in Sierra Leone and Liberia. As those countries have rebuilt, however, Guinea’s own vulnerability to political and economic crisis has increased. Declining economic conditions and popular dissatisfaction with corruption and bad governance prompted two massive strikes in 2006, and a third nationwide strike in early 2007. CIA World Factbook

Guinea possesses major mineral, hydropower, and agricultural resources, yet remains an underdeveloped nation. The country has almost half of the world’s bauxite reserves. The mining sector accounts for more than 70% of exports. However, long-run improvements in government fiscal arrangements, literacy, and the legal framework are needed if the country is to move out of poverty.

Investor confidence has been sapped by rampant corruption, a lack of electricity and other infrastructure, a lack of skilled workers, and the political uncertainty because of the death of President Conte in December 2008.

Guinea is trying to reengage with the IMF and World Bank, which cut off most assistance in 2003, and is working closely with technical advisers from the U.S. Treasury Department, the World Bank and IMF, seeking to return to a fully funded program. Growth rose slightly in 2006-08, primarily due to increases in global demand and commodity prices on world markets, but the standard of living fell. The Guinea franc depreciated sharply as the prices for basic necessities like food and fuel rose beyond the reach of most Guineans. Dissatisfaction with economic conditions prompted nationwide strikes in February and June 2006.

There are two likely outcomes to the situation in the short term, and neither looks good. If Dadis Camara pulls through and retains control of the situation, he could become more paranoid and his clampdown on civil society and human rights activists could harden. On the other hand, if he loses control there are four or five strong men ready to take over, and each will probably be prepared to fight for power.

Popularity: 3% [?]

After announcing that Global Investment Watch is back up and posting articles again, I received a number of emails from readers commenting on our return. All of your emails were very much appreciated. Thanks you.

John Richardson

Popularity: 3% [?]

The title of this post is a question I hear when I talk about proxy voting and corporate governance to individuals not “in the game” so to speak. Among those in the field of corporate governance and shareholder activism, the answers come rapid fire: “Good corporate governance improves shareholder value,” “Executive compensation is out of control and needs to be reeled in,” ” Voting is a fiduciary duty.” and so on. But when the question is posed to individual investors, there is silence, at best. More likely, I hear comments like, “I throw mine away,” or “It doesn’t matter. If I really don’t like what a company is doing, I sell my shares and move on.” While these comments are anathema to the views of those of us involved in the field of corporate governance, the rest of the investing world couldn’t care less.

It strikes me that the problem lies, in part, with the way many investors view voting and investing in general: They are in it for the money. Okay, some investors have a conscience, want to make sure that their companies “do the right thing” and so on, but at the end of the day, most investors just want a return on their investment. Herein lies the problem: There is a real disconnect between investing and proxy voting. To my knowledge, nobody has made a compelling case to individual investors to vote their proxies as part of the investment process.

This problem is demonstrated in the numbers. Voting by individual shareholders, always a low figure (in the low double digits, I believe) has plummeted in recent years as more companies deliver proxy materials to their shareholders via the Web. I recently heard a number bandied about suggesting that individual voter turnout at American corporations hovers around 5%.

Am I wrong here? Can anybody make the case for why proxy voting provides value for individual investors? The tired, “corporate governance is good” arguments are fine but they don’t motivate shareholders to act. What’s in it for Joe Hubcap to open the blue plastic package and read and understand a torpid proxy statement then make a decision about the issues when dinner is getting cold and American Idol is about to start?Why Should I Vote My Proxies?W

Popularity: 5% [?]

In today’s Washington Post, writer Belinda Cooper, the editor of “War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg,” and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and an adjunct professor in New York University’s global affairs program, has written an interesting op-ed piece entitled, “5 Myths about putting the world’s worst on trial.” I am posting this article verbatim because is serves to make several interesting points. [click to continue...]

Popularity: 5% [?]

If you have been paying attention, Global Investment Watch has been on a bit of a hiatus for the last seven months. Why you ask? Burn out really but other matters at JMR Portfolio Intelligence have kept us busy these last months. Starting Monday, December 7th, we hope to return to a more regular posting schedule here at GIW. We hope that you, our readers, continue to follow us and, in turn, we hope to keep you informed about the issues we consider important in the area of human rights.

Stay tuned.

Popularity: 5% [?]

The following article by Steven Greenhouse appeared in Tuesday’s New York Times:

—

A new study by a Cornell University professor of 1,004 union organizing drives has found that employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of the campaigns and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent.The study, to be released Wednesday, also found that employers fired pro-union workers in 34 percent of the campaigns. And it asserted that management’s antiunion tactics had helped pushed down the unionization rate to 12.4 percent, from 22 percent three decades ago.

Titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” the report is likely to be heavily cited, quoted, praised and denounced in the debate over whether Congress should enact legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The study found that “the aspirations for representation are being thwarted by a coercive and punitive climate for organizing that goes unrestrained due to a fundamentally flawed regulatory regime.”

The author of the study, Kate Bronfenbrenner, is director of labor education research at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations and has often been criticized by business groups for her pro-union positions.

Randel K. Johnson, vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits at the United States Chamber of Commerce, noted that numerous unions and pro-labor groups helped finance the study.

“Kate’s long been allied with the union movement and has issued studies in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act the last few years,” Mr. Johnson said. “She is certainly not an objective source.”

Ms. Bronfenbrenner said her research had been reviewed and approved by her peers. “I am an objective scholar,” she said. “There are no neutrals in this field of academia. I used the highest, methodological standards possible.”

She said her study was based on a random sample of 1,004 unionization elections from early 1999 to late 2003 and relied on a review of National Labor Relations Board cases and documents, as well as surveys of 562 lead union organizers.

In 63 percent of the elections, the study found, supervisors used one-on-one meetings to interrogate workers about whether they or co-workers supported a union. (It is illegal under federal law to interrogate workers about such matters.)

In 54 percent, she found, supervisors used the meetings to threaten workers.

Her study found that employers used 10 or more types of antiunion tactics in 49 percent of unionization drives, up from the 26 percent she found in a similar study 12 years ago.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Recently the DC-based group International Labor Rights Forum informed those concerned with global labor rights, that IKEA, Wal-Mart, Target and Kohl’s are passively watching as union-busting is taking place at a Turkish supplier factory.

The following background has been provided by the ILRF:

Menderes Tekstil in Southwestern Turkey produces bed linens for the home. Over the last years, four Menderes workers died due to work-related injuries. In the most recent accident, on November 20, 2008, one employee died when he fell into the funnel of a coal boiler. Workers reported that the boiler had no safety measures to prevent such an accident. After the tragic accident, the factory management reportedly ordered three colleagues of the victim to climb into the funnel to retrieve the body. Again, no safety measures were taken, and the three had no protection against toxic gases inside the boiler. They suffered respiratory poisoning and had to seek treatment in a nearby hospital.

In March 2008, the national Turkish textile workers union TEKSIF started organizing workers at the factory. Since then, the Menderes management called the union leaders into their offices one by one, and gave them the choice between denouncing the union or being sacked. Turkish law prohibits dismissals or transfers as retribution for union organizing.

In August 2008 workers and union representatives started protests outside the Menderes factory. The protests lasted for 190 days and were aimed at gaining acceptance of their union. Despite these actions, the company has continued to harass the unionists and has refused any dialogue with the union.

Meanwhile, eight court cases of wrongfully dismissed employees are currently before the magistrate. However, the judicial process could take years before producing any verdict.

More information about ILRF’s communication with Wal-Mart, Kohl’s and Target, visit ILRF’s Menderes Tekstil Factory Profile.

The ILRF and the CCC urge these companies to use their influence and insist that their Turkish supplier enters into a direct dialogue with trade union TEKSIF.

Popularity: 100% [?]