Why Should I Vote My Proxies?

by admin on December 8, 2009

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

{ 2 comments }

Myths of War Crimes Tribunals

by admin on December 7, 2009

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...]

{ 2 comments }

Global Investment Watch Return?

by admin on December 6, 2009

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.

{ 1 comment }

labor_unions1The 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.

{ 0 comments }

images2Recently 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.

{ 2 comments }

QBE Pulls out of Burma

by on May 14, 2009

burma_map_sepia1Recently the Burma Campaign UK, a group that works for the promotion of human rights, democracy and development in Burma, announced a major victory. QBE Insurance has announced it has cancelled insurance it provided to Burma and is to cease providing insurance to companies operating in the country. QBE is the largest managing agent at Lloyd’s of London and describes itself as “Australia’s largest international general insurance and reinsurance group”.

In a statement to the Burma Campaign UK, Frank O’Halloran, QBE’s Chief Executive said: “QBE has reviewed its various portfolios around the world and has cancelled the few incidental Burmese exposures on multinational insurance policies which could have a direct or indirect benefit for the current ruling party in Burma… QBE does not provide insurance for any business owned in Burma.”

“Foreign insurers provide a financial lifeline to Burma’s brutal regime. They insure the projects that make the regime billions of dollars a year. These billions don’t help the people of Burma, they entrench military rule and fund campaigns of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Burma” said Johnny Chatterton, Campaigns Officer at the Burma Campaign UK. “QBE’s welcome decision shames insurers like Catlin and Atrium that continue to help fund the Burmese regime.”

{ 0 comments }

images1An innovative idea is taking root in many European cities. An alternative currency called NU allows citizens to use a card in connection with energy-efficient upgrades. Once someone gets rolling with it, they accumulate more and more credit that can be used to buy further green goods. It is a sort of reward system that is a true benefit to those who take advantage of it. And this, in turn, benefits the environment.

The NU system represents synergy between government, the private sector and individuals. It is an experiment that shows a great deal of promise, thanks to the dedication of many Europeans. Now, don’t many Europeans already dry their clothes outside, drive efficient cars if they drive at all…and haven’t they been taking cloth bags to go shopping forever? Yep!

We need some NU right here in The United States of Over-Consumption.

{ 0 comments }

michele-bachmann_1Bachmann is giving Ann Coulter a run for her money. B for bizarre. B for bending the truth. B for…bingo! Of course Obama is responsible for the Swine Flu outbreak. Thank you Congresswoman Bachmann for pointing that out, or at least insinuating it, you dominatrix of insinuation!

And now, in the words of HuffPost reporter Arthur Delaney, you are insinuating that Obama has had “premature fiscal ejaculation.” At a recent rally she said, “During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed.” She then told the crowd that April 26 was National Debt Day, which conservatives commemorate as the moment government spending outpaces revenue. As Bachmann explains, “The government spent its wad by April 26. Every dime government spends after April 26 throughout the rest of this fiscal year is borrowed money.”

This is getting kinky. Now what nice Christian fundamentalist lady politician speaks of orgies and wads? Heavens, children across the land are going to be experimenting with orgies and wads.

Thanks for the entertainment MB!

“God calls us to fall on our faces and our knees and cry out to Him and confess our sins.”
- Michele Marie Bachmann

{ 1 comment }

Yesterday Société Générale chairman Daniel Bouton said he will resign from the French banking behemoth, saying repeated attacks on him were a threat to the bank’s health. Bouton stated “Like any manager, I have certainly made mistakes, but the strategy adopted by Société Générale has made it one of the finest banks in the euro zone. The repeated attacks against me personally in France for the past fifteen months affect me, but most of all, they risk harming the bank and its 163,000 employees,” Bouton added, saying it was “better for me to withdraw, proud of having led a wonderful company.”

Bouton was Société Générale’s chief executive in January 2008 when the bank announced one of the world’s largest trading scandals masterminded by trader Jerome Kerviel, which caused a massive loss. He stepped down as CEO last May but had remained as chairman. President Nicolas Sarkozy for top executives to face the “consequences” of the huge losses.

Kerviel maintains that his superiors were aware of his risky transactions but looked the other way while he was earning big money for the bank, intervening only when he started to lose. The bank, however, insists that it was not aware of Kerviel’s activities.

Bouton was the subject of public outrage more recently, when the bank disclosed that he will benefit from a pension of euro730,000 (US$965,000) per year when he retires. The issue of executive compensation has become a big issue in France after a series of revelations that managers at loss-making firms were pocketing bonuses.

{ 0 comments }

U.S. unemployment rates are closing in on 10%. U.S. banks have received billions in bailout funds. Jobs at these banks are still being sent overseas…huh? Is it just me, or does it seem like keeping jobs in the U.S. should be a requirement for getting bailed out? The following piece by John Aidan Byrne appeared in yesterday’s New York Post.

US banks that have taken billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts are still shipping thousands of jobs overseas.

Earlier this month, Bank of New York Mellon, which received $3 billion in TARP funds, opened its third call center in Pune, India, where it now employs 1,300 people.

Doug Brown, who wrote “The Black Book of Outsourcing,” said Bank of America, with $52.5 billion of TARP funds in the kitty, has expanded its India-based payroll to 5 percent of its 301,000 employees in 2009, about 15,000 people.

The moves, which have outraged unions, are 100 percent legal. Congress didn’t put into the TARP law any restrictions on shipping jobs overseas.

Citigroup, which got $50 billion in TARP funds plus $300 billion in government guarantees, plowed ahead with a program last fall to add as many as 1,000 call-center employees in the Philippines — weeks after it got its first round of taxpayer relief.

Representatives for Citigroup and Bank of New York Mellon declined to comment on their outsourcing arrangements. A Bank of America spokesman said the firm has not announced any facility openings outside the US since last year.

{ 0 comments }