Union wants Pennsylvania school pension fund to divest private prison stocks | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Union wants Pennsylvania school pension fund to divest private prison stocks

Deb Erdley
816990_web1_web_jail

The American Federation of Teachers, or AFT, is calling on Pennsylvania’s $56.2 billion school employees’ retirement fund (PSERs) and 23 other large pension funds to consider divesting their stock in private prison corporations.

A new AFT report found that PSERs is among two dozen public pension funds that own a combined $75 million in investments in CoreCivic and GEO, the nation’s largest public prison corporations, Governing magazine reported.

The union cautioned that such investments not only support private prisons, which lack the oversight mechanisms of the federal prisons and include immigration detention centers, but also expose the pension funds to public relations and legal issues that could affect the value of such investments.

PSERs spokeswoman Evelyn Williams said she had yet to hear of any specific calls for divestment to PSERs. She said the pension fund does not invest or divest based on concerns about social issues.

“Those investments are part of the SP 400 index … meaning anyone that passively invests in the SP400 index would hold those investments just like PSERs,” Williams said. “The few times we have divested — like Sudan and Iran — in the past required legislation to be passed.”

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.