The union already thinks like a portfolio manager so this isn't really a change. Most of what I've read from the union is that this wasn't even a big point of contention. Really how is this so different from members of this list who have investments for their future retirements? I'll accept that I must either own land (something I oppose in principal) or must pay rent (something else I oppose in principal) since there is not much open in the way of other viable options. One could live on a boat and anchor offshore never renting a slip but how realistic is that? I do oppose the idea of capital ownership of corporations and unlike ones living arrangements it is relatively easy to put this into practice by simply not tying my fate to those of the capitalist class directly by purchasing capital shares of ownership. Indirectly of course our economy relies on this arrangement so we all benefit or suffer to some degree by this arrangement but to do so indirectly is quite different than to do so directly. I've never understood how one could be anti-capital while maintaining a portfolio. A bit like being an anti-slavery slaveholder.
John Thornton