ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Race to the Bottom

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate Governance

: The Race to the Bottom

Access and Unions: A Reply to Eugene Scalia

By J. Robert Brown

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Wall Street Journal published the following letter today:

 

 

Shouldn't Owners Control?

In his op-ed "The New Labor Activism" (Jan. 23), it is clear that Eugene Scalia does not like shareholder activists. He calls on the Labor Department to investigate activism by unions and to look specifically into their efforts to "monitor or influence management." He concludes that union efforts to gain greater access for shareholders to the director nomination process would "advance a cherished union goal," but it is not something "retirement funds should bankroll."

Mr. Scalia is wrong to suggest that beneficiaries of retirement plans will not benefit from access. The only meaningful way a director can be removed is when the nominating committee of the board decides not to renominate. Renomination depends not upon promoting the interests of shareholders but upon maintaining good relations with management.

Mr. Scalia picks on union retirement plans, but his analysis applies to all pension and retirement plans. He is essentially taking the position that pension plans should not be actively involved in monitoring management. Pension plans, in other words, should be seen and not heard.

In the end, Mr. Scalia asks entirely the wrong question. Pension plans have fiduciary obligations, under Erisa, on behalf of their plan beneficiaries. It is not hard to understand why this duty would compel pension plans "to monitor and influence" management. What he ought to be asking, if he is truly concerned about fiduciary obligations, is why more pension plans do not follow the path of unions and fight even harder for shareholder access? In other words, there is a role for the Labor Department here, but it is the examination of pension plans that still take a largely passive approach to managerial oversight. How can that be in the best interests of beneficiaries?

J. Robert Brown, Jr.
Professor
Sturm College of Law
University of Denver
Denver

Full post as published by The Race to the Bottom on January 28, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0039 secs (from cache 10/31/26 09:05:44)