|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 126 | 01 March 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I Don’t Like Sprouts
Interview: Clean Hands Corporate: Out of Asia Unions: Tears, Real And Crocodile, At The Ansett Wake Economics: Labour’s Capital: Individual Or Collective? History: Mardi Gras: The Biggest Labour Festival? International: Driving A Hard Bargain Review: In Bed With a Sub-Machine Gun Satire: Whitlam Forgives Kerr: "At Least He Didn't Dismiss A Rape Victim" Poetry: Dear Mother
The Soapbox The Locker Room Week in Review
 More on Harry BridgesWell Done, SplitterRepeating History
|
|
|
Editorial I Don’t Like Sprouts
But even if sprouts didn't turn my stomach, the message would: for beyond the stereotype that older Australian are cute and dopey, is an even uglier sub-text, we need to squeeze our money for every cent it is worth. Smart money management, so the accepted wisdom goes, is about allowing funds to invest our money in all manner of environmental and ethical dubious ventures in order to squeeze a couple of extra cent in the dollar. We get a few extra sprouts and never ask a question about where they came from - which is invariably off the back of some exploited residents of the third world, an ecological disaster or the shedding a local workforce. Close the eyes and eat the sprouts. But the lack of control over our retirement savings doesn't have to be. With union input in industry super funds there is the potential to place some ground rules around the investment of workers' savings. And as the decision by giant US super fund Calpers pulling out of four south-East Asian nations because of their human rights records shows, pension funds can make an ethical stand. There are several barriers to this policy being taken up by Australian funds, not the least their conservative interpretative that funds invest with the 'sole purpose' of maximizing profits. But beyond the law, there is the inherent caution of fund trustees. On one level there is justification in prudence - workers don't want their savings frittered away on marginal ventures. But at the same time, many would be appalled to find their funds pressuring management to maximise profits in a way that, for instance, led to their own job being cut. Funds offering eco-choice packages to members in an important first step, maybe followed by labour-choice where trustees would also pay regard to the employment practices of companies they invest in. Other funds are considering going further, screening all investments to meet a socially responsible test, deeming that any investment that is not ethical is not sustainable. As Susan Ryan points out, the change is slow and will only occur if driven by individual fund members placing pressure on their trustees. The decision by BHP workers to take a stand over their employers' push to transfer their super fund to a private outfit with no employee representation, is a step in the right direction. We need to recognise that our super doesn't just give us financial security, but also a stake in the global economy. If we don't like the way it operates, we have the right - as stakeholders - to ensure that we don't retire on a pile of blood money. I don't want sprouts, I just want to know that my savings are being invested in a socially responsible and ethical way. Peter Lewis Editor
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
