So, I’ve always been a big admirer of the work the AFL-CIO and Change To Win do in the arena of capital strategies–meaning, trying to use the significant resources unions have, mainly in the pension funds that labor has a role in guiding, to force a change in corporate behavior. It isn’t the only thing we need to do–and there are some limitations (not the least of which is that the direction of many pension funds is often controlled and set by professional managers and union trustees feel bound by the edict to extract maximum returns on investment for the pension participants–a policy that isn’t always in step with the goal of beating up on a corporate bully).

   But, here’s a good example of what can be done. In March 2008, Rite Aid distribution workers in Lancaster, California voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. Not surprisingly, Rite Aid carried out a vicious anti-union campaign–and that campaign has continued after the election and even after the company agreed to a settlement over the dozens of labor rights violations it committed during the election campaign.

   So, the AFL-CIO is basically asking a simple question: if Rite Aid is behaving like this, why should unions continue to include Rite Aid in the union-sponsored plans that make decisions on who to use as a provider for pharmacies? Speaking as someone who lives in a city with Rite Aid stores, I’m not going to patronize a single one while this continues. But, better yet, here’s the letter John Sweeney has sent out about the issue.

   Good work. Kick their asses.