The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
The recent SCOTUS decision in Knox v. SEIU (which I discussed here) says that when a union wants to charge non-members special fees for things like politicking, it has to get affirmative "opt-in" consent from the non-members. (In "agency shop" states like California, even those who don't join the union are forced to pay fees to the union for the privilege of being represented in collective bargaining).
And now, from the faculty lounge at Harvard Law School comes the predictable response: on NPR, professor Benjamin Sachs argues that "If we give union members the right to opt out of, to refuse to fund union political speech, we ought to give shareholders the right to opt out of funding corporate political speech."
First, the issue in Knox was not "union members" but non-members, who are forced to pay fees to a union to which they don't want to belong.
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference that, one would have thought even a Harvard professor could grasp. A shareholder can choose which companies to invest in. But that's not the case with workers in states that are either agency shop or closed shop. Every state worker in California is forced to either join a union, or pay annual fees to a union. There are 28,000 nonunion workers paying fees to SEIU. The Supreme Court did not disturb the union's right to an annual confiscation of "dues," but it simply said that if the union wants to raise additional funds for political advocacy, etc. it has to ask the non-members to opt-in.
Thirdly - and this I'm sure will be too arcane a question for the ivory tower - how on earth do you implement a shareholder "opt out?" Shareholders don't pay annual dues or special assessments. They own a percentage of a corporation's equity, the value of which fluctuates from day to day. Is there a mechanism whereby a shareholder can withhold "his" portion of corporate political spending?
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
From his Harvard bio: From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C.
Did the NPR piece happen to mention this obvious bias?
Also, what's to stop the unions from raising general dues and using the "excess" to fund their political interests?
Oct '11
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
Wow. Yeah, there already is an "opt-out" option for shareholders. It's called selling your shares.
May '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
Actually that method is already in place. If a shareholder doesn't like the company's political methods he may "opt" to do one of three things:
Jun '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
If you buy shares in a company, you've already endorsed the management. The way you remove that endorsement is to sell your shares.
Dec '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
He probably wasn't very good at playground insults as a child either.
Jan '11
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
Gasp! Once again, a prescient academic has blown the lid off one of the hypocrisies of conservative thought!
Well, that's if you skip over the difference between a free decision and one that's imposed by fiat. And if you ignore the legal details of the case. And if you're speaking to people who are so impressed with your credentials that they won't catch the distinctions.
Those things just take away the excitement from a really good zinger.
Jan '11
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
I kind of agree. I don't think a union or corporation should be allowed to use dues or profits for political purposes. That doesn't inhibit either the union, corporation, industry, or any group from starting a PAC. PAC funds should be given consciously, not as a result of an intermediate relationship.
Jun '12
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
If you don't like what a corporation does with your money, don't give them your money... i.e. don't buy their stock or their products.
There's no further restriction on the freedom of speech needed.
Aug '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
EJ Hill has listed everything I was going to say. As corporations are relatively democratically constructed entities, one can use those practices to their advantage. If a person -- or group of people -- don't like the practices or the political speech of their corporation, they can buy sufficient stock to change the board and the policies of the company.
Too many people forget that in publicly owned companies, the managers of the company are only agents of the company. The owners of the company are the shareholders.
One wonders if employees -- instead of organizing in unions and "paying dues" -- instead used every penny they paid in dues to purchase company stock, what ownership of many union companies would look like.
May '11
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
You don't have to be very smart to be a Harvard law professor anymore.
Jun '12
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
If Obama, who can't tell the difference between an inhalator and a breathalyzer, can make it, so can any lefty that's got enough brain power to keep breathing.
Jun '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
I was gonna say exactly the same thing.
Jul '10
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
Adam Freedman:
And now, from the faculty lounge at Harvard Law School comes the predictable response: on NPR, professor Benjamin Sachs argues that "If we give union members the right to opt out of, to refuse to fund union political speech, we ought to give shareholders the right to opt out of funding corporate political speech."
(emphasis added)
I suspect the bolded stuff tells me everything I need to know about Benjamin's views on rights. They're trinkets to be doled out as "we" see fit.
Re: The Left's Counterattack: Free the Shareholders!
Highlama: From his Harvard bio: From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C.
Did the NPR piece happen to mention this obvious bias?
No, they didn't! Thanks for pointing that out, it's priceless.