Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Ah, I see. That’s an interesting distinction. One might argue that union members are even better protected than shareholders then? I’m not sure what to make of it, frankly.
|
There's at least an argument that given that your duty is owed to a broad class of members, rather than one entity whose interests can be reasonably determined, you shouldn't be donating to political parties at all. Sure, you may be able to say that many of your members will be benefited by a donation to the party that's most pro-union (or whose policies are favourable to workers in your union's industry), there is no one-size-fits-all policy. People, including union members, have diverse interests, and it's entirely possible that there's a proportion of your members who would be better served if the other guys were in office - say, for example, they'd see a net benefit because of different child care policies or tax policies that happen to land squarely in their favour. That's not even getting into whether members' political preferences and ideologies also qualify as relevant interests for these purposes.
I'd say it's pretty reasonable to conclude that if you owe the duty to all of your members, you shouldn't be permitted to make a political contribution that will favour some of them at the expense of others (even if the "others" are in the minority).