Work Reform

17394 readers

1528 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kat_angstrom@lemmy.world

814

An American city has been without power for 2 weeks, unacceptable. (lemmy.today)

submitted 4 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/workreform@lemmy.world

95 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I don't know how it all works, but I did see on Vanguard there's an option to change how vanguard votes on your behalf. There's the default of "maximum profit", but there's also "long term stability" and "ethical" (not the exact names). I don't think every company has options like that, but they probably should, if we're going to keep this kind of thing around at all.

If you use vanguard, go see what your options are.

Edit: think I found it https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/about-our-funds/proxy-voting-across-funds/investor-choice.html#policy-options

Egan-Jones Wealth-Focused Policy [...] This policy by rule rejects proposals based on environmental, social, or political considerations unless they directly contribute to revenue generation at the company receiving the proposal.

None of them look super good though

[–] BenevolentOne@infosec.pub 6 points 4 days ago

This might be the most evil thing I've learned about this year.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This policy by rule rejects proposals based on environmental, social, or political considerations unless they directly contribute to revenue generation at the company receiving the proposal.

The fact that it exists and they're making a whole thing of letting you opt out of doing that, tells you a lot about what the standard practice in the industry is.

None of them look super good though

Yeah there's no option for genuine environmental or social activism, just one that follows some other investment company's ostensibly ethical voting strategy. Again, this speaks TONS about the Epstein class running these funds, that they're scared that giving such an option might result in people actually taking it.