I was shocked to read that Calpers, the California Public Employees 
Retirement System, was planning to make treatment of workers one of its 
criteria in voting shares. Calpers had been the leader among 
institutional shareholders in promoting the downsizing agenda. When I 
interviewed their chief investment officer a few months ago, I asked him 
to comment on the irony of a public pension fund leading such an 
anti-worker campaign, his reply was that they only care about better 
results, not how they're achieved. I wonder if other folks had asked 
equally pointed questions. I also wonder about the details of what 
Calpers means - does it imply, for example, that a group of core workers 
can be nurtured while peripheral/contingent ones are exploited out of view?

I plan to follow this up with Calpers very soon. I'll report on the 
results, and would welcome hearing form anyone else with opinions on the 
matter.

Treacy: Your Calpers Chief Investment Officer is being consistent! Was
        there not a recent report out that showed those firms that had
        engaged in massive downsizing had not shown any increase in labor
        productivity?  I know of one computer service firm that made all
        their engineers, "contractors" instead of employees.  Now that the
        market for computer engineers has picked up their "contractors" are
        leaving.  Many of their customers have already left because they did
        not like the kind of service they were getting from the disgruntled.
        
        Like reinventing the wheel every generation or so managers have to learn 
        the hard way that if you want anything done above the burger flipping 
        level it requires people who know what they are doing and are willing to
        share their knowledge with others in the organziation.

        The next wave of union organizing is going to come from workers getting
        more and more invasions into their health habits from employers who want
        to cut health care costs.  As workers realize that if they last more 
        than a few years, their aging gets the firms least cost underwriting
        profile out of whack and puts their jobs in jeoprody.  Computers have
        lowered the cost of this kind of employee monitoring.  
        [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Doug

Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)

Reply via email to