ReportWire

Tag: compensation and benefits

  • Shein discloses it found 2 cases of child labor in its supply chain last year

    Shein discloses it found 2 cases of child labor in its supply chain last year

    [ad_1]

    Fast-fashion giant Shein said it discovered two cases of child labor in its supply chain last year.

    In its annual sustainability report, Shein disclosed this week that it found minors under age 15 employed by manufacturers that make products for the company. Shein, which mainly sources its products from China, did not say where it found the child labor cases.

    The company said it suspended product orders from the suppliers when it discovered the violations. Both cases were resolved “swiftly” and involved remediation steps, such as ending contracts with underage employees and paying them any outstanding wages, Shein said. The online retailer resumed working with the manufacturers after they beefed up screening for new hires.

    The disclosure comes as some advocacy groups – such as Amnesty International UK – are pushing back on a possible listing of Shein on the London Stock Exchange due to labor and environmental concerns.

    The company, which was founded in China but is now based in Singapore, had also reportedly attempted to file a confidential IPO application to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year.

    Shein said in its report that it updated its policies around labor violations in October 2023.

    Before, suppliers engaging in practices like child or forced labor had their orders suspended and were given 30 days for remediation. Now, the company says it will “immediately proceed to terminate” ties with suppliers who engage in these violations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is ‘price gouging’ and why is VP Harris proposing to ban it?

    What is ‘price gouging’ and why is VP Harris proposing to ban it?

    [ad_1]

    With inflation and high grocery prices still frustrating many voters, Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday proposed a ban on “price gouging” by food suppliers and grocery stores, as part of a broader agenda aimed at lowering the cost of housing, medicine, and food.

    It’s an attempt to tackle a clear vulnerability of Harris’ head-on: Under the Biden-Harris administration, grocery prices have shot up 21%, part of an inflation surge that has raised overall costs by about 19% and soured many Americans on the economy, even as unemployment fell to historic lows. Wages have also risen sharply since the pandemic, and have outpaced prices for more than a year. Still, surveys find Americans continue to struggle with higher costs.

    “We all know that prices went up during the pandemic when the supply chains shut down and failed,” Harris said Friday in Raleigh, North Carolina. “But our supply chains have now improved and prices are still too high.”

    Will her proposals do much to lower prices? And what even is “price gouging”? The answers to those and other questions are below:

    What is price gouging?

    There is no strict definition that economists would agree on, but it generally refers to spikes in prices that typically follow a disruption in supply, such as after a hurricane or other natural disaster. Consumer advocates charge that gouging occurs when retailers sharply increase prices, particularly for necessities, under such circumstances.

    Is it already illegal?

    Several states already restrict price gouging, but there is no federal-level ban.

    There are federal restrictions on related but different practices, such as price-fixing laws that bar companies from agreeing to not compete against each other and set higher prices.

    Will Harris’ proposal lower grocery prices?

    Most economists would say no, though her plan could have an impact on future crises. For one thing, it’s unclear how much price gouging is going on right now.

    Grocery prices are still painfully high compared to four years ago, but they increased just 1.1% in July compared with a year earlier, according to the most recent inflation report. That is in line with pre-pandemic increases.

    President Joe Biden said Wednesday that inflation has been defeated after Wednesday’s inflation report showed that it fell to 2.9% in July, the smallest increase in three years.

    “There’s some dissonance between claiming victory on the inflation front in one breath and then arguing that there’s all this price gouging happening that is leading consumers to face really high prices in another breath,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

    In general, after an inflationary spike, it’s very hard to return prices to where they were. Sustained price declines typically only happen in steep, protracted recessions. Instead, economists generally argue that the better approach is for wages to keep rising enough so that Americans can handle the higher costs.

    So why is Harris talking about this now?

    Probably because inflation remains a highly salient issue politically. And plenty of voters do blame grocery stores, fast food chains, and food and packaged goods makers for the surge of inflation in the past three years. Corporate profits soared in 2021 and 2022.

    “It could be that they’re looking at opinion polls that show that the number one concern facing voters is inflation and that a large number of voters blame corporations for inflation,” Strain said.

    At the same time, even if prices aren’t going up as much, as Harris noted, they remain high, even as supply chain kinks have been resolved.

    Elizabeth Pancotti, a policy analyst at Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy group, points to the wood pulp used in diapers. The price of wood pulp has fallen by half from its post-pandemic peak, yet diaper prices haven’t.

    “So that just increases the (profit) margins for both the manufacturers and the retailers,” she said.

    Did price gouging cause inflation?

    Most economists would say no, that it was a more straightforward case of supply and demand. When the pandemic hit, meat processing plants were occasionally closed after COVID-19 outbreaks, among other disruptions to supply. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lifted the cost of wheat and other grains on global markets. Auto prices rose as carmakers were unable to get all the semiconductors they needed from Taiwan to manufacture cars, and many car plants shut down temporarily.

    At the same time, several rounds of stimulus checks fattened Americans’ bank accounts, and after hunkering down during the early phase of the pandemic, so-called “revenge spending” took over. The combination of stronger demand and reduced supply was a recipe for rising prices.

    Still, some economists have argued that large food and consumer goods companies took advantage of pandemic-era disruptions. Consumers saw empty store shelves and heard numerous stories about disrupted supply chains, and at least temporarily felt they had little choice but to accept the higher prices.

    Economist Isabella Weber at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, called it “seller’s inflation.” Others referred to it as “greedflation.”

    “What a lot of corporations did was exploit consumers’ willingness” to accept the disruptions from the pandemic, Pancotti said.

    Is banning price gouging like instituting price controls?

    During the last spike of inflation in the 1970s, both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations at times imposed price controls, which specifically limited what companies could charge for goods and services. They were widely blamed for creating shortages and long lines for gas.

    Some economists say Harris’ proposal would have a similar impact.

    “It’s a heavy-handed socialist policy that I don’t think any economist would support,” said Kevin Hassett, a former top economic adviser in the Trump White House.

    But Pancotti disagreed. She argued that it was closer to a consumer protection measure. Under Harris’ proposal, the government wouldn’t specify prices, but the Federal Trade Commission could investigate price spikes.

    “The proposal is really about protecting consumers from unscrupulous corporate actors that are trying to just rip the consumer off because they know they can,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dr. Bronner’s CEO Salary Cap Based on Lowest Employee Wage | Entrepreneur

    Dr. Bronner’s CEO Salary Cap Based on Lowest Employee Wage | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Dr. Bronner’s estimates that a bottle of its soap is sold every two seconds — but the 150-year-old, family-owned business stands for more than just the products it puts on the shelves.

    A social media post from Dr. Bronner’s last week revealed an internal aspect of its business: the soapmaker limits the salary of its highest-paid executives to five times the lowest-paid, fully vested employee. (Fully vested means someone who is full-time and has been with the company for at least five years.)

    “An ethical company should pay a fair salary and good benefits and enable people to make ends meet on the wages they receive,” CEO David Bronner said, adding, “We’re really trying to set an example of just being reasonable.”

    Dr. Bronner’s 2023 earnings report details that the company generated over $170 million in revenue in 2022, with 86.7% of its sales conducted in the U.S. The soapmaker had 311 total U.S. employees and about 73% of its managers were promoted from within.

    Dr. Bronner’s starting pay for regular, non-temporary employees in 2022 was $24.85 per hour while temporary employee wages started at $21.30 an hour, per the report.

    If a full-time employee stayed at the 2022 starting pay for five years, on a forty-hour workweek schedule, they would make $47,712 per year.

    That would cap pay at the top of Dr. Bronner’s at $238,560, per Entrepreneur‘s calculations.

    Related: Here’s Why Most CEOs Don’t Take Pay Cuts to Avoid Layoffs

    The midpoint salary of a CEO last year was around $1.3 million — over five times the estimated salary of Dr. Bronner’s top-paid employee — according to a June study from the Associated Press.

    The study tracked CEO pay at S&P 500 companies and found that in half of the firms, “it would take the worker at the middle of the company’s pay scale almost 200 years to make what their CEO did.”

    The midpoint pay package for CEOs, factoring in salary, bonuses, and stock awards, was $16.3 million overall.

    Related: These CEOs Have the Biggest Pay Packages in the U.S., According to a New Report

    In addition to a salary cap, Dr. Bronner’s covers childcare up to $7,500 per family, offers a healthcare plan with no out-of-pocket costs, and provides employees with an organic, vegan meal every day.

    Anything the company has left over goes to charitable organizations and other causes. Bronner said in the Instagram video that he lives an “awesome” life and feels “enriched” by the joyful atmosphere in the office.

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    [ad_1]

    Even though the median U.S. CEO pay package last year was nearly 200 times more than a worker in the middle of their company pay scales, Elon Musk’s record-setting Tesla compensation dwarfs them by comparison.

    Tesla shareholders on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring Musk’s 10-year pay plan, valued by the company in April at $44.9 billion. It was worth more early in the year, but Tesla’s stock value has fallen about 25% since then.

    The all-stock package, approved by the board and shareholders in 2018, rewards Musk for hitting milestones that include raising Tesla’s market value, pretax income and revenue.

    It had been tossed out by a Delaware judge in January who said the process for approving it was “deeply flawed.” The court ruled that Musk controlled the company’s board, and shareholders weren’t fully informed.

    But the company said Musk deserves the pay because he turned Tesla into the top-selling electric vehicle maker in the world, increasing its market value by billions.

    Even with the reapproval vote, Musk won’t get access to the stock options just yet. Tesla is expected to ask the judge to revisit her decision in light of the vote, and if she doesn’t, the company probably will appeal the ruling to Delaware’s Supreme Court. The whole process could take months.

    No matter the outcome, Musk’s package — the largest award to a CEO of a U.S. public company — is far above what’s been granted to other chief executives. Here’s how the package compares:

    WITH THE MEDIAN CEO PAY

    The median pay package for an S&P 500 U.S. CEO last year was $16.3 million, according to data analyzed for The Associated Press by Equilar. If you multiply that by 10 to get $163 million for a decade of work, Musk’s earnings still would be 275 times greater.

    In her January ruling that struck down the package, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote that Musk’s package, then worth about $56 billion, was 250 times larger than the median peer CEO’s pay plan.

    WITH INDIVIDUAL CEOS

    The top earner in the AP’s survey was Hock Tan, CEO of artificial intelligence company Broadcom Inc. His package, mostly consisting of stock awards, was valued at about $162 million, when given to Tan at the start of fiscal 2023. Thanks to a surging stock price, Broadcom in March valued Tan’s pay package, plus older options he hadn’t yet cashed in, at $767.7 million. That’s an amount easily eclipsed by Musk’s potential haul of 304 million shares worth almost $45 billion.

    Other CEOs at the top of AP’s survey are William Lansing of Fair Isaac Corp, ($66.3 million); Tim Cook of Apple Inc. ($63.2 million); Hamid Moghadam of Prologis Inc. ($50.9 million); and Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix ($49.8 million).

    Technically, Musk got no compensation last year because he didn’t get any stock options. But he stands to get even richer if his pay package goes through.

    WITH TESLA WORKERS

    It’s difficult to calculate what Musk’s annual pay would have been last year. The company says he got nothing. But if his compensation package makes it through the courts, his pay will be in the billions. According to the company’s proxy filing this year, the median annual pay of a non-CEO Tesla employee last year was $45,811.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    [ad_1]

    Even though the median U.S. CEO pay package last year was nearly 200 times more than a worker in the middle of their company pay scales, Elon Musk’s record-setting Tesla compensation dwarfs them by comparison.

    Tesla shareholders on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring Musk’s 10-year pay plan, valued by the company in April at $44.9 billion. It was worth more early in the year, but Tesla’s stock value has fallen about 25% since then.

    The all-stock package, approved by the board and shareholders in 2018, rewards Musk for hitting milestones that include raising Tesla’s market value, pretax income and revenue.

    It had been tossed out by a Delaware judge in January who said the process for approving it was “deeply flawed.” The court ruled that Musk controlled the company’s board, and shareholders weren’t fully informed.

    But the company said Musk deserves the pay because he turned Tesla into the top-selling electric vehicle maker in the world, increasing its market value by billions.

    Even with the reapproval vote, Musk won’t get access to the stock options just yet. Tesla is expected to ask the judge to revisit her decision in light of the vote, and if she doesn’t, the company probably will appeal the ruling to Delaware’s Supreme Court. The whole process could take months.

    No matter the outcome, Musk’s package — the largest award to a CEO of a U.S. public company — is far above what’s been granted to other chief executives. Here’s how the package compares:

    WITH THE MEDIAN CEO PAY

    The median pay package for an S&P 500 U.S. CEO last year was $16.3 million, according to data analyzed for The Associated Press by Equilar. If you multiply that by 10 to get $163 million for a decade of work, Musk’s earnings still would be 275 times greater.

    In her January ruling that struck down the package, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote that Musk’s package, then worth about $56 billion, was 250 times larger than the median peer CEO’s pay plan.

    WITH INDIVIDUAL CEOS

    The top earner in the AP’s survey was Hock Tan, CEO of artificial intelligence company Broadcom Inc. His package, mostly consisting of stock awards, was valued at about $162 million, when given to Tan at the start of fiscal 2023. Thanks to a surging stock price, Broadcom in March valued Tan’s pay package, plus older options he hadn’t yet cashed in, at $767.7 million. That’s an amount easily eclipsed by Musk’s potential haul of 304 million shares worth almost $45 billion.

    Other CEOs at the top of AP’s survey are William Lansing of Fair Isaac Corp, ($66.3 million); Tim Cook of Apple Inc. ($63.2 million); Hamid Moghadam of Prologis Inc. ($50.9 million); and Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix ($49.8 million).

    Technically, Musk got no compensation last year because he didn’t get any stock options. But he stands to get even richer if his pay package goes through.

    WITH TESLA WORKERS

    It’s difficult to calculate what Musk’s annual pay would have been last year. The company says he got nothing. But if his compensation package makes it through the courts, his pay will be in the billions. According to the company’s proxy filing this year, the median annual pay of a non-CEO Tesla employee last year was $45,811.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Profit drops at Warren Buffett’s firm but thousands still want to hear from the investing guru

    Profit drops at Warren Buffett’s firm but thousands still want to hear from the investing guru

    [ad_1]

    OMAHA, Neb. — Warren Buffett’s company reported a steep drop in earnings Saturday because the paper value of its investments fell and it sold off part of its massive Apple stake, but the tens of thousands of shareholders filling an Omaha arena to hear Buffett answer questions at the annual meeting later can take heart that Berkshire Hathaway’s many businesses performed well.

    Berkshire reported a $12.7 billion profit, or $8.825 per Class A share, in the quarter. That’s roughly one-third of the $35.5 billion, or $24,377 per A share, that Berkshire reported a year ago.

    But those figures were heavily swayed by a large drop in the paper value of Berkshire’s investments. That’s why Buffett encourages investors to pay more attention to the conglomerate’s operating earnings that exclude the investment figures. By that measure, Berkshire’s operating earnings jumped 39% to $11.222 billion from last year’s $8.065 billion as its insurance companies led a strong performance.

    The three analysts surveyed by FactSet Research had predicted operating earnings of $6,701.87 per Class A share.

    Buffett did sell off nearly $6 billion in stocks during the quarter, including trimming about 13% of Berkshire’s massive Apple stake. The investment in the iPhone maker is still the biggest one in the $364 billion portfolio at $135.4 billion, and Buffett said he expects Apple to remain the biggest investment for years — even up to when his successor takes over.

    But the estimated value of Berkshire’s Apple stake suggests that Buffett sold off more than 100 million shares. Buffett has said he invested in Apple’s stock because of how devoted consumers are to the iPhone and other Apple products.

    Apple CEO Tim Cook, who is at the Berkshire meeting, told CNBC that he still considers it a privilege to have Berkshire as a major shareholder, and he knew about the sales before Berkshire disclosed them Saturday.

    Berkshire reported a $2.6 billion underwriting profit at its insurers, up from $911 million a year ago.

    BNSF railroad’s profits did disappoint and drop 8% to $1.143 billion, but most of its many other companies delivered solid results, including a 72% jump in operating profits at the utility unit that added $717 million to Berkshire’s total.

    Berkshire’s revenue grew 5% to $89.87 billion in the quarter. The two analysts who reported estimates to FactSet predicted $87.044 billion revenue.

    With no major acquisitions in sight, Berkshire’s massive cash pile continued to grow to a record $188.993 billion in the quarter. Berkshire even spent $2.6 billion repurchasing shares during the first three months of the year, but its companies that include Geico insurance, BNSF railroad, several major utilities and an assortment of dozens of others keep generating mountains of cash.

    “We’d love to spend it but we won’t spend it unless we’re doing something with very little risk that will make us a lot of money,” Buffett said.

    Tens of thousands filled the arena eager to vacuum up tidbits of wisdom from billionaire Warren Buffett, who famously dubbed the meeting ‘Woodstock for Capitalists.’

    But a key ingredient is missing this year: It’s the first meeting since Vice Chairman Charlie Munger died.

    The meeting opened with a video tribute to Munger recounting his life and highlighting some of his best known quotes from the meetings over the years that drew applause, including classic lines like “If people weren’t so often wrong, we wouldn’t be so rich.” The video also featured old interviews with Buffett and Munger talking about their epic friendship.

    The video also featured several of the classic skits the investors made for meetings over the years with hoiliday stars like a “Desperate Housewives” spoof where one of the women introduced Munger as her boyfriend and another video where Jaimie Lee Curtis swooned over Munger.

    As the video ended, everyone in the arena gave Munger a prolonged standing ovation to thank him for being what Buffett called “the architect of Berkshire Hathaway.

    For decades, Munger shared the stage with Buffett every year for the marathon question and answer session that is the event’s centerpiece. Munger routinely let Buffett take the lead with expansive responses that went on for several minutes. Then Munger himself would cut directly to the point. He is remembered for calling cryptocurrencies stupid, telling people to “marry the best person that will have you” and comparing many unproven internet businesses in 2000 to “turds.”

    He and Buffett functioned as a classic comedy duo, with Buffett offering lengthy setups to Munger’s witty one-liners. Together, they transformed Berkshire from a floundering textile mill into a massive conglomerate made up of a variety of interests, from insurance companies such as Geico to BNSF railroad to several major utilities and an assortment of other companies.

    Munger often summed up the key Berkshire’s success as “trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.” He and Buffett also were known for sticking to businesses they understood well.

    “Warren always did at least 80% of the talking. But Charlie was a great foil,” said Stansberry Research analyst Whitney Tilson, who was looking forward to his 27th consecutive meeting with a bit of a heavy heart because of Munger’s absence.

    That absence, however, may well create space for shareholders to get to know better the two executives who directly oversee Berkshire’s companies: Ajit Jain, who manages the insurance units, and Greg Abel, who handles everything else. Abel will one day replace the 93-year-old Buffett as CEO. Abel and Jain are sharing the main stage with Buffett for the first time this year in the spot Munger used to occupy.

    The first time Buffett kicked a question to Abel, he mistakenly said “Charlie?” out of habit.

    Morningstar analyst Greggory Warren said he hopes Abel will speak up more this year and let shareholders see some of the brilliance Berkshire executives talk about. Ever since Munger let it slip at the annual meeting three years ago that Abel would be the successor, Buffett has repeatedly reassured investors that he’s confident in the pick.

    Experts say the company has a solid culture built on integrity, trust, independence and an impressive management roster ready to take over.

    “Greg’s a rock star,” said Chris Bloomstran, president of Semper Augustus Investments Group. “The bench is deep. He won’t have the same humor at the meeting. But I think we all come here to get a reminder every year to be rational.”

    ___

    For more AP coverage of Warren Buffett look here: https://apnews.com/hub/warren-buffett. For Berkshire Hathaway news, see here: https://apnews.com/hub/berkshire-hathaway-inc. Follow Josh Funk online at https://www.twitter.com/funkwrite and https://www.linkedin.com/in/funkwrite.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Uber and Lyft delay their plans to leave Minneapolis after officials push back driver pay plan

    Uber and Lyft delay their plans to leave Minneapolis after officials push back driver pay plan

    [ad_1]

    MINNEAPOLIS — The ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft said they will delay their planned exit from Minneapolis after city officials decided Wednesday to push back the start of a driver pay raise by two months.

    The Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to implement the ordinance on July 1 instead of May 1. Some council members said this gives other ride-hailing companies more time to establish themselves in the market before Uber and Lyft potentially leave, and it gives Minnesota lawmakers a chance to pass statewide rules on pay for ride-hailing drivers.

    Council member Robin Wonsley, the lead author of the ordinance, said the delay would lead to better outcomes for drivers and riders, and lay a stronger foundation for a more equitable ride-hailing industry statewide. She called the current industry model “extremely exploitative.”

    Under the ordinance, ride-hailing companies must pay drivers at least $1.40 per mile and $0.51 per minute — or $5 per ride, whichever is greater — excluding tips, for the time spent transporting passengers in Minneapolis.

    The change aims to ensure companies pay drivers the equivalent of the city’s minimum wage of $15.57 per hour after accounting for gas and other expenses. However, a recent study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry found that a lower rate of $0.89 per mile and $0.49 per minute would meet the $15.57 goal.

    Uber and Lyft representatives say they can support the lower rate from the state’s study but not the city’s higher rate. Uber says it would end operations in the entire Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area — a seven-county region with 3.2 million people — while Lyft would only stop serving Minneapolis.

    Lyft said the city’s rate “will make rides too expensive for most riders, meaning drivers will ultimately earn less. This is unsustainable for our customers.”

    Uber also warned of decreased demand, saying even the state study’s rate would still “likely lead to lower hourly pay since drivers will spend more time in between rides waiting for passengers,” company spokesperson Josh Gold said.

    Some state legislators have proposed preempting, or overriding, the city ordinance with a state law.

    Uber and Lyft previously pulled out of Austin, Texas, in 2016, after the city pushed for fingerprint-based background checks of drivers as a rider safety measure. The companies returned after the Texas Legislature overrode the local measure and passed a law implementing different rules statewide.

    At the Minnesota Legislature, Democratic House Majority Leader Jamie Long of Minneapolis said he hopes ongoing negotiations between state and city officials can help resolve the dispute.

    “I think that we will get to a result that’s going to keep the companies operating and is going to protect the drivers,” Long told reporters. “I’m really hoping that we can avoid preemption.”

    Uber and Lyft drivers in the Minneapolis area are divided on the driver pay issue.

    Muhiyidin Yusuf, 49, supports the ordinance. Yusuf said he works as an Uber and Lyft driver for about 60 hours each week but still relies on government assistance and accused the companies of making big profits while he struggles.

    “I’m doing all of the work. But they are taking a majority of the money,” said Yusuf, who immigrated from Somalia in 2010. He’s one of many African immigrants in the Minneapolis area who work as Uber and Lyft drivers and have advocated for the rate increase in recent years.

    Maureen Marrin, a part-time Uber and Lyft driver, opposes the ordinance. Marrin said she earns an average of $40 per hour while driving and doesn’t understand how other drivers earn less than the equivalent of minimum wage.

    “I’m fortunate. I’m retired, I have another source of income, so it’s also easier for me to make more money because I can pick and choose,” Marrin said. “But I’m worried they (Uber and Lyft) are going to leave and will be replaced by something that we don’t even know what we’re getting.”

    ___

    AP writer Steve Karnowski contributed to this story from St. Paul, Minnesota.

    ___

    Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New $20 minimum wage for fast food workers in California set to start Monday

    New $20 minimum wage for fast food workers in California set to start Monday

    [ad_1]

    LIVERMORE, Calif. — Most fast food workers in California will be paid at least $20 an hour beginning Monday when a new law is scheduled to kick in giving more financial security to an historically low-paying profession while threatening to raise prices in a state already known for its high cost of living.

    Democrats in the state Legislature passed the law last year in part as an acknowledgement that many of the more than 500,000 people who work in fast food restaurants are not teenagers earning some spending money, but adults working to support their families.

    That includes immigrants like Ingrid Vilorio, who said she started working at a McDonald’s shortly after arriving in the United States in 2019. Fast food was her full-time job until last year. Now, she works about eight hours per week at a Jack in the Box while working other jobs.

    “The $20 raise is great. I wish this would have come sooner,” Vilorio said through a translator. “Because I would not have been looking for so many other jobs in different places.”

    The law was supported by the trade association representing fast food franchise owners. But since it passed, many franchise owners have bemoaned the impact the law is having on them, especially during California’s slowing economy.

    Alex Johnson owns 10 Auntie Anne’s Pretzels and Cinnabon restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area. He said sales have slowed in 2024, prompting him to lay off his office staff and rely on his parents to help with payroll and human resources.

    Increasing his employees’ wages will cost Johnson about $470,000 each year. He will have to raise prices anywhere from 5% to 15% at his stores, and is no longer hiring or seeking to open new locations in California, he said.

    “I try to do right by my employees. I pay them as much as I can. But this law is really hitting our operations hard,” Johnson said.

    “I have to consider selling and even closing my business,” he said. “The profit margin has become too slim when you factor in all the other expenses that are also going up.”

    Over the past decade, California has doubled its minimum wage for most workers to $16 per hour. A big concern over that time was whether the increase would cause some workers to lose their jobs as employers’ expenses increased.

    Instead, data showed wages went up and employment did not fall, said Michael Reich, a labor economics professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

    “I was surprised at how little, or how difficult it was to find disemployment effects. If anything, we find positive employment effects,” Reich said.

    Plus, Reich said while the statewide minimum wage is $16 per hour, many of the state’s larger cities have their own minimum wage laws setting the rate higher than that. For many fast food restaurants, this means the jump to $20 per hour will be smaller.

    The law reflected a carefully crafted compromise between the fast food industry and labor unions, which had been fighting over wages, benefits and legal liabilities for close to two years. The law originated during private negotiations between unions and the industry, including the unusual step of signing confidentiality agreements.

    The law applies to restaurants offering limited or no table service and which are part of a national chain with at least 60 establishments nationwide. Restaurants operating inside a grocery establishment are exempt, as are restaurants producing and selling bread as a stand-alone menu item.

    At first, it appeared the bread exemption applied to Panera Bread restaurants. Bloomberg News reported the change would benefit Greg Flynn, a wealthy campaign donor to Newsom. But the Newsom administration said the wage increase law does apply to Panera Bread because the restaurant does not make dough on-site. Also, Flynn has announced he would pay his workers at least $20 per hour.

    ___

    Beam reported from Sacramento, California.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Twitter executives sue Elon Musk over firings, seek more than $128 million in severance

    Former Twitter executives sue Elon Musk over firings, seek more than $128 million in severance

    [ad_1]

    Former senior executives of Twitter are suing Elon Musk and X Corp., saying they are entitled to a total of more than $128 million in unpaid severance payments.

    Twitter’s former CEO Parag Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, Chief Legal Counsel Vijaya Gadde and General Counsel Sean Edgett claim in the lawsuit filed Monday that they were fired without a reason on the day in 2022 that Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter, which he later rebranded X.

    Because he didn’t want to pay their severance, the executives say Musk “made up fake cause and appointed employees of his various companies to uphold his decision.”

    The lawsuit says not paying severance and bills is part of a pattern for Musk, who’s been sued by “droves” of former rank-and-file Twitter employees who didn’t receive severance after Musk terminated them by the thousands.

    “Under Musk’s control, Twitter has become a scofflaw, stiffing employees, landlords, vendors, and others,” says the lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California. “Musk doesn’t pay his bills, believes the rules don’t apply to him, and uses his wealth and power to run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him.”

    Representatives for Musk and San Francisco-based X did not immediately respond to messages for comment Monday.

    The former executives claim their severance plans entitled them to one year’s salary plus unvested stock awards valued at the acquisition price of Twitter. Musk bought the company for $44 billion, or $54.20 per share, taking control in October 2022.

    They say they were all fired without cause. Under the severance plans, “cause” was narrowly defined, such as being convicted of a felony, “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct.”

    According to the lawsuit, the only cause Musk gave for the firings was “gross negligence and willful misconduct,” in part because Twitter paid fees to outside attorneys for their work closing the acquisition. The executives say they were required to pay the fees to comply with their fiduciary duties to the company.

    “If Musk felt that the attorneys’ fees payments, or any other payments, were improper, his remedy was to seek to terminate the deal — not to withhold executives’ severance payments after the deal closed,” the lawsuit says.

    X faces a “staggering” number of lawsuits over unpaid bills, the lawsuit says. “Consistent with the cavalier attitude he has demonstrated towards his financial obligations, Musk’s attitude in response to these mounting lawsuits has reportedly been to ‘let them sue.’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans’ reliance on credit cards is the key to Capital One’s bid for Discover

    Americans’ reliance on credit cards is the key to Capital One’s bid for Discover

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Americans have become increasingly reliant on their credit cards since the pandemic. So much so that Capital One is willing to bet more than $30 billion that they won’t break the habit.

    Capital One Financial announced Monday that it would buy Discover Financial Services for $35 billion. The combination could potentially shake up the payments industry, which is largely dominated by Visa and Mastercard.

    For customers of the companies, it might eventually mean bigger perks and more merchant acceptance of Discover cards, and potentially lead to more competition in the payments industry. But most of the benefits will be going to the companies themselves, as well as the merchants who accept these cards.

    Why is the deal important?

    Some of the biggest issuers of credit cards are banks, like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. But Capital One and Discover are first and foremost credit card companies — like American Express, but with different clientele. They have tens of millions of customers and target their products at Americans who do not travel heavily outside the U.S. and would like to get more value out of their everyday purchases like gas, groceries and domestic travel. In other words, people who typically don’t carry premium credit cards.

    The combined company will have more loans to customers on its credit cards than JPMorgan and Citigroup combined. The merger also gives the Discover network the ability to fight on more equal footing with Mastercard and American Express in a way that it simply hasn’t been able to in its 40-year history.

    “You want the customer or merchant to choose you as a company, either for your products or for your brand, and this deal gives them plenty of opportunity to make that case,” said Sanjay Sakhrani, a payments industry analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

    Who uses Capital One and Discover?

    Capital One is one of the biggest credit card companies and banks in the country. It typically operates what is known in the credit card industry as a “barbell” business model — it issues credit cards to those with less-than-great credit as well as with super high credit, and little in between. The one group keeps a balance, bringing the company interest revenue, while the high-end customers spend heavily on their cards, bringing in fee revenue from merchants.

    Discover’s customers are fewer but intensely loyal to the company. The company consistently wins customer service awards, and its cash-back cards are considered among the most lucrative in the industry.

    But Discover suffers from a perception that because its payment network is smaller than Visa, Mastercard or AmEx, it is less desirable. Also, Discover is largely unavailable outside the U.S. as a payment option.

    Capital One executives said Tuesday that they would start allowing customers to use the Discover payment network shortly after the deal closes, which could happen by the end of the year. Capital One also plans to keep the Discover brand along with its cards, although the cards could be co-branded.

    What does this deal say about credit card spending?

    This deal, at its core, is a big bet that Americans will keep running up their credit card balances.

    Americans have been increasing their card balances quickly amid two years of high inflation. In the fourth quarter of 2023, Americans held $1.13 trillion on their credit cards, and aggregate household debt balances increased by $212 billion, up 1.2%, according to the latest data from the New York Federal Reserve.

    Consumers are also paying higher interest rates on those balances. The average interest rate on a bank credit card is roughly 21.5%, the highest it’s been since the Federal Reserve started tracking the data in 1994.

    Critics of Capital One have long said the company relies heavily on those who can least afford to be carrying high interest balances on their credit cards. Historically Capital One has had higher default rates and higher 30-day delinquency rates than JPMorgan, Citi, Discover and American Express.

    What’s so valuable about Discover?

    It’s virtually impossible to build a credit and debit card network from scratch in today’s market. Capital One executives described previous efforts to do so as a “chicken or egg” problem, where it’s hard to get merchants to sign up for a payment network when there are few customers, and vice versa.

    Chicago-based Discover may be small but its infrastructure makes it poised to grow, particularly as more transactions move away from cash. The U.S. credit card industry is dominated by the Visa-Mastercard duopoly with AmEx being a distance third place and Discover an even more distant fourth place. Roughly $6.8 trillion is run on Visa’s credit and debit network compared to the only $550 billion on Discover’s network.

    Owning Discover’s network would enable Capital One to get revenue from fees charged for every merchant transaction that runs on the network.

    It also turns Capital One into the rare credit card company that controls the cards, the payment network and the bank that issues the card. There’s only one other company that has accomplished this to scale: American Express.

    Will regulators approve the deal?

    It’s unclear whether the deal will pass regulatory scrutiny. Nearly every bank issues a credit card to customers but few companies are credit card companies first, and banks second. Both Discover — which was long ago the Sears Card — and Capital One started off as credit card companies that expanded into other financial offerings like checking and savings accounts.

    Bank regulators have signaled for some time that they want to give more scrutiny to large mergers in the financial services sector. The combined Discover-Capital One company will have more than $600 billion in assets, making it bigger than most large regional banks in the country.

    Consumer groups are expected to put heavy pressure on the Biden Administration to make sure the deal is good for consumers as well as shareholders. Left-leaning politicians like Sen. Sherrod Brown, the powerful Democratic chair of the Senate Banking Committee, are already calling for close scrutiny of the deal.

    “The deal also poses massive anti-trust concerns, given the vertical integration of Capital One’s credit card lending with Discover’s credit card network,” said Jesse Van Tol, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

    [ad_2]

    By Ken Sweet | Associated Press

    Source link

  • Tropicana Las Vegas, Sin City landmark since 1957, to be demolished for MLB baseball

    Tropicana Las Vegas, Sin City landmark since 1957, to be demolished for MLB baseball

    [ad_1]

    LAS VEGAS — When the Tropicana Las Vegas opened in 1957, Nevada’s lieutenant governor unlocked the door to what would become a Sin City landmark for more than a half-century. Then he threw away the key.

    “This was to signify that the Tropicana would always stay open,” said historian Michael Green.

    Six decades later, the storied hotel-casino that once had ties to the mob and was nicknamed the “Tiffany of the Strip,” is set to shut its doors for good to make room for a $1.5 billion Major League Baseball stadium that will be home to the relocating Oakland Athletics.

    Tropicana owner Bally’s Corp. made the announcement Monday, saying the closure on April 2 — days before the 67th anniversary of the resort’s opening — marks the beginning of preparations for demolition.

    The ballpark is a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” Bally’s president, George Papanier, said in a statement.

    “Bally’s looks forward to the development of a new resort and ballpark that … will become a new landmark, paying homage to the iconic history and global appeal of Las Vegas and its nearly 50 million visitors a year,” the company said in a news release.

    The population of Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, had just surpassed 100,000 when the Tropicana opened on a Las Vegas Strip not yet lined with the megaresorts it’s known for today, Green said. The Flamingo had been open for a decade. The high-rise Stardust debuted the following year, costing $8.5 million.

    Known then for its opulence, Green said, the Tropicana had mosaic tiles and mahogany panels throughout. There was a towering tulip-shaped fountain near the entrance. Each hotel room had a balcony.

    Behind the scenes of the casino’s opening, the Tropicana had ties to the mob, largely through reputed mobster Frank Costello, according to Green, who also serves on the board of directors of The Mob Museum in downtown Las Vegas.

    Weeks after the grand opening, Costello was shot in the head in New York. He survived, but police had found in his coat pocket a piece of paper with the Tropicana’s exact earnings figure. According to a post on The Mob Museum’s website looking back on the Tropicana’s history, the note also mentioned “money to be skimmed” for Costello’s associates.

    In the 1970s, federal authorities investigating mobsters in Kansas City charged more than a dozen mob operatives with conspiring to skim nearly $2 million in gambling revenue from Las Vegas casinos, including the Tropicana. Charges connected to the Tropicana alone resulted in five convictions.

    But the famed hotel-casino also enjoyed many years of mob-free success, Green said, and expanded in later years to include two hotel towers. In 1959, it debuted its long-running topless show “Folies Bergere,” which was featured in the 1964 Elvis Presley film “Viva Las Vegas.” Magicians Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn got their start in the show.

    A-list stars including Sammy Davis Jr., Louis Armstrong and Gladys Knight have performed at the Tropicana, and in 1998, daredevil showman Robbie Knievel made a record-breaking motorcycle jump outside the hotel, soaring to 231 feet (70 meters) over a row of limousines.

    Today, the site at the south end of the Las Vegas Strip intersects with a major thoroughfare named for the Tropicana. It is surrounded by towering megaresorts: the MGM Grand, Excalibur, New York-New York, Luxor and Mandalay Bay. Nearby are the homes of the NFL’s Las Vegas Raiders, who left Oakland in 2020, and the city’s first major league professional team, the NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights.

    Bally’s says it will no longer accept hotel bookings after April 2 and will relocate any customers who have existing reservations past the closing date.

    The ballpark planned for the land beneath the Tropicana is backed by $380 million in public funding. All 30 MLB owners in November gave their approval for the A’s to move to Las Vegas. The stadium is expected to open in 2028.

    Bally’s announcement came shortly after the Tropicana and the Culinary Workers Union, which represents about 500 workers there, reached an agreement for a new five-year contract.

    Ted Pappageorge, the union’s secretary-treasurer, said he hopes the severance package secured in the latest contract will ease what he expects to be a difficult transition for the Tropicana’s largely senior workforce, many of whom, he said, have worked at the hotel-casino for decades. Under the new contract, the employees will receive severance pay of $2,000 for each year of work.

    “In Las Vegas, hotels are bought and sold on a regular basis,” Pappageorge said. “These new projects are welcome, but workers can’t be discarded like an old shoe.”

    Rhode Island-based Bally’s had purchased the Tropicana in 2021 for $308 million.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk cannot keep Tesla pay package worth more than $55 billion, judge rules

    Elon Musk cannot keep Tesla pay package worth more than $55 billion, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. — Elon Musk is not entitled to landmark compensation package awarded by Tesla’s board of directors that is potentially worth more than $55 billion, a Delaware judge ruled Tuesday.

    The ruling by Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick comes more than five years after a shareholder lawsuit targeted Tesla CEO Musk and directors of the company. They were accused of breaching their duties to the maker of electric vehicles and solar panels, resulting in a waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment for Musk.

    The shareholder’s lawyers argued that the compensation package should be voided because it was dictated by Musk and was the product of sham negotiations with directors who were not independent of him. They also said it was approved by shareholders who were given misleading and incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement.

    Defense attorneys countered that the pay plan was fairly negotiated by a compensation committee whose members were independent, contained performance milestones so lofty that they were ridiculed by some Wall Street investors, and blessed by a shareholder vote that was not even required under Delaware law. They also argued that Musk was not a controlling shareholder because he owned less than one-third of the company at the time.

    An attorney for Musk and other Tesla defendants did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    But Musk reacted to the ruling on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that he owns, by offering business advice. “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware,” he said. He later added, “I recommend incorporating in Nevada or Texas if you prefer shareholders to decide matters.”

    Musk, who as of Tuesday topped Forbes’ list of the world’s richest people, had earlier this month challenged Tesla’s board to come up with a new compensation plan for him that would give him a 25% stake in the company. On an earnings call last week, Musk, who currently holds 13%, explained that with a 25% stake, he can’t control the company, yet he would have strong influence.

    In trial testimony in November 2022, Musk denied that he dictated terms of the compensation package or attended any meetings at which the plan was discussed by the board, its compensation committee, or a working group that helped develop it.

    McCormick determined, however, that because Musk was a controlling shareholder with a potential conflict of interest, the pay package must be subject to a more rigorous standard.

    “The process leading to the approval of Musk’s compensation plan was deeply flawed,” McCormick wrote in the colorfully written 200-page decision. “Musk had extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf.”

    McCormick specifically cited Musk’s long business and personal relationships with compensation committee chairman Ira Ehrenpreis and fellow committee member Antonio Gracias. She also noted that the working group working on the pay package included general counsel Todd Maron who was Musk’s former divorce attorney.

    “In fact, Maron was a primary go-between Musk and the committee, and it is unclear on whose side Maron viewed himself,” the judge wrote. “Yet many of the documents cited by the defendants as proof of a fair process were drafted by Maron.”

    McCormick concluded that the only suitable remedy was for Musk’s compensation package to be rescinded. “In the final analysis, Musk launched a self-driving process, recalibrating the speed and direction along the way as he saw fit,” she wrote. “The process arrived at an unfair price. And through this litigation, the plaintiff requests a recall.”

    Greg Varallo, a lead attorney for the shareholder plaintiff, praised McCormick’s decision to reverse the “absurdly outsized” Musk pay package.

    “The fact that they lost this in Delaware court, it’s a jaw dropper,” said Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. “It’s unprecedented, a ruling like this. I think going in investors thought it was just typical legal noise and nothing was going to come out about it. The fact that they went head to head with Tesla and Musk and the board and voided this, it’s a huge legal decision.”

    During his trial testimony, Musk downplayed the notion that his friendships with certain Tesla board members, including sometimes vacationing together, meant that they were likely to do his bidding.

    The plan called for Musk to reap billions if Tesla, which is based in Austin, Texas, hit certain market capitalization and operational milestones. For each incidence of simultaneously meeting a market cap milestone and an operational milestone, Musk, who owned about 22% of Tesla when the plan was approved, would get stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. His interest in the company would grow to about 28% if the company’s market capitalization grew by $600 billion.

    Each milestone included growing Tesla’s market capitalization by $50 billion and meeting aggressive revenue and pretax profit growth targets. Musk stood to receive the full benefit of the pay plan, $55.8 billion, only by leading Tesla to a market capitalization of $650 billion and unprecedented revenues and earnings within a decade.

    Tesla has achieved all twelve market capitalization milestones and eleven operational milestones, providing Musk nearly $28 billion in stock option gains, according to a January post-trial brief filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys. The stock option grants are subject to a five-year holding period, however.

    Defense attorney Evan Chesler argued at trial that the compensation package was a “high-risk, high-reward” deal that benefitted not just Musk, but Tesla shareholders. After the plan was implemented, the value of the company, based in Austin, Texas, climbed from $53 billion to more than $800 billion, having briefly hit $1 trillion.

    Chesler also said Tesla made sure that the $55 billion compensation figure was included in the proxy statement because the company wanted shareholders to know that “this was a heart-stopping number that Mr. Musk could earn.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk cannot keep Tesla pay package worth more than $55 billion, judge rules

    Elon Musk cannot keep Tesla pay package worth more than $55 billion, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. — Elon Musk is not entitled to landmark compensation package awarded by Tesla’s board of directors that is potentially worth more than $55 billion, a Delaware judge ruled Tuesday.

    The ruling by Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick comes more than five years after a shareholder lawsuit targeted Tesla CEO Musk and directors of the company. They were accused of breaching their duties to the maker of electric vehicles and solar panels, resulting in a waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment for Musk.

    The shareholder’s lawyers argued that the compensation package should be voided because it was dictated by Musk and was the product of sham negotiations with directors who were not independent of him. They also said it was approved by shareholders who were given misleading and incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement.

    Defense attorneys countered that the pay plan was fairly negotiated by a compensation committee whose members were independent, contained performance milestones so lofty that they were ridiculed by some Wall Street investors, and blessed by a shareholder vote that was not even required under Delaware law. They also argued that Musk was not a controlling shareholder because he owned less than one-third of the company at the time.

    An attorney for Musk and other other Tesla defendants did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    But Musk reacted to the ruling on X, the social media platform formerly know as Twitter that he owns, by offering business advice. “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware,” he said.

    In trial testimony in November 2022, Musk denied that he dictated terms of the compensation package or attended any meetings at which the plan was discussed by the board, its compensation committee, or a working group that helped develop it.

    McCormick determined, however, that because Musk was a controlling shareholder with a potential conflict of interest, the pay package must be subject to a more rigorous standard.

    “The process leading to the approval of Musk’s compensation plan was deeply flawed,” McCormick wrote in the colorfully written 200-page decision. “Musk had extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf.”

    McCormick specifically cited Musk’s long business and personal relationships with compensation committee chairman Ira Ehrenpreis and fellow committee member Antonio Gracias. She also noted that the working group working on the pay package included general counsel Todd Maron who was Musk’s former divorce attorney.

    “In fact, Maron was a primary go-between Musk and the committee, and it is unclear on whose side Maron viewed himself,” the judge wrote. “Yet many of the documents cited by the defendants as proof of a fair process were drafted by Maron.”

    McCormick concluded that the only suitable remedy was for Musk’s compensation package to be rescinded. “In the final analysis, Musk launched a self-driving process, recalibrating the speed and direction along the way as he saw fit,” she wrote. “The process arrived at an unfair price. And through this litigation, the plaintiff requests a recall.”

    Greg Varallo, a lead attorney for the shareholder plaintiff, praised McCormick’s decision to reverse the “absurdly outsized” Musk pay package for Musk.

    “The fact that they lost this in Delaware court, it’s a jaw dropper,” said Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. “It’s unprecedented, a ruling like this. I think going in investors thought it was just typical legal noise and nothing was going to come out about it. The fact that they went head to head with Tesla and Musk and the board and voided this, it’s a huge legal decision.”

    During his trial testimony, Musk downplayed the notion that his friendships with certain Tesla board members, including sometimes vacationing together, meant that they were likely to do his bidding.

    The plan called for Musk to reap billions if Tesla hit certain market capitalization and operational milestones. For each incidence of simultaneously meeting a market cap milestone and an operational milestone, Musk, who owned about 22% of Tesla when the plan was approved, would get stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. His interest in the company would grow to about 28% if the company’s market capitalization grew by $600 billion.

    Each milestone included growing Tesla’s market capitalization by $50 billion and meeting aggressive revenue and pretax profit growth targets. Musk stood to receive the full benefit of the pay plan, $55.8 billion, only by leading Tesla to a market capitalization of $650 billion and unprecedented revenues and earnings within a decade.

    Tesla has achieved all twelve market capitalization milestones and eleven operational milestones, providing Musk nearly $28 billion in stock option gains, according to a January post-trial brief filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys. The stock option grants are subject to a five-year holding period, however.

    Defense attorney Evan Chesler argued at trial that the compensation package was a “high-risk, high-reward” deal that benefitted not just Musk, but Tesla shareholders. After the plan was implemented, the value of the company, based in Austin, Texas, climbed from $53 billion to more than $800 billion, having briefly hit $1 trillion.

    Chesler also said Tesla made sure that the $55 billion compensation figure was included in the proxy statement because the company wanted shareholders to know that “this was a heart-stopping number that Mr. Musk could earn.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tencent's 'League of Legends' developer Riot Games announces layoffs of 530 staff

    Tencent's 'League of Legends' developer Riot Games announces layoffs of 530 staff

    [ad_1]

    BANGKOK — Riot Games, the developer of the popular “League of Legends” multiplayer battle game, is joining other tech companies that have been trimming their payrolls with a layoff of 11% of its staff.

    In a lengthy statement to staff issued late Monday, CEO Dylan Jadeja and chief product officer and co-founder of Riot Games Marc Merrill said the move was meant to “create focus and move us toward a sustainable future.” It said 530 jobs were being eliminated, accounting for about 11% of the headcount at the company, which is owned by the Chinese technology giant Tencent.

    A note to customers said, “This isn’t to appease shareholders or to hit a quarterly earnings number—it’s a necessity.”

    The Los Angeles, California-based company said it had expanded its investments across too many areas, doubling its staff in a few years, and now was cutting back to focus on games.

    “Today we’re a company without a sharp enough focus, and simply put, we have too many things underway. Some of the investments we’ve made aren’t paying off the way we expected them to,” the statement said.

    “To all the Rioters who are being laid off, we are deeply sorry that it has come to this,” it said.

    Riot Games said it will pay staff who are laid off six months of salary at a minimum, cash bonuses and other benefits.

    It said it would offer access to job placement services, counseling and visa support for staff who were working with visas. Those laid off can also request use of a laptop if needed, the company said.

    Job cuts have been taking a toll on workers across various industries — including retail, tech, media and hospitality — over the last few years. In recent months, layoffs have been announced at Google, Amazon, Hasbro, LinkedIn and more.

    Many have been in the tech sector, which hired heavily during the pandemic, when people whiled away time stuck at home playing games online.

    Riot Games sponsors the League of Legends World Championship and the company said it remained committed to esports and entertainment in support of its games.

    The company said it would make changes to its Legends of Runeterra to “move it to sustainability” and reduce the staff working on that team, shifting its focus to its “Path of Champions.” “Riot Forge” will be discontinued after the upcoming release of “Bandle Tale,” it said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Empire State rings in the new year with a pay bump for minimum-wage workers

    The Empire State rings in the new year with a pay bump for minimum-wage workers

    [ad_1]

    ALBANY, N.Y. — New York’s minimum-wage workers had more than just the new year to celebrate Monday, with a pay bump kicking in as the clock ticked over to 2024.

    In the first of a series of annual increases slated for the Empire State, the minimum wage increased to $16 in New York City and some of its suburbs, up from $15. In the rest of the state, the new minimum wage is $15, up from $14.20.

    The state’s minimum wage is expected to increase every year until it reaches $17 in New York City and its suburbs, and $16 in the rest of the state by 2026. Future hikes will be tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, a measurement of inflation.

    New York is one of 22 states getting minimum wage rises in the new year, according to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute.

    In California, the minimum wage increased to $16, up from $15.50, while in Connecticut it increased to $15.69 from the previous rate of $15.

    This most recent pay bump in New York is part of an agreement made last year between Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state Legislature. The deal came over the objections of some employers, as well as some liberal Democrats who said it didn’t go high enough.

    The federal minimum wage in the United States has stayed at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but states and some localities are free to set higher amounts. Thirty states, including New Mexico and Washington, have done so.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Empire State rings in the new year with a pay bump for minimum-wage workers

    The Empire State rings in the new year with a pay bump for minimum-wage workers

    [ad_1]

    ALBANY, N.Y. — New York’s minimum-wage workers had more than just the new year to celebrate Monday, with a pay bump kicking in as the clock ticked over to 2024.

    In the first of a series of annual increases slated for the Empire State, the minimum wage increased to $16 in New York City and some of its suburbs, up from $15. In the rest of the state, the new minimum wage is $15, up from $14.20.

    The state’s minimum wage is expected to increase every year until it reaches $17 in New York City and its suburbs, and $16 in the rest of the state by 2026. Future hikes will be tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, a measurement of inflation.

    New York is one of 22 states getting minimum wage rises in the new year, according to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute.

    In California, the minimum wage increased to $16, up from $15.50, while in Connecticut it increased to $15.69 from the previous rate of $15.

    This most recent pay bump in New York is part of an agreement made last year between Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state Legislature. The deal came over the objections of some employers, as well as some liberal Democrats who said it didn’t go high enough.

    The federal minimum wage in the United States has stayed at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but states and some localities are free to set higher amounts. Thirty states, including New Mexico and Washington, have done so.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UAW says over 1,000 workers at VW plant in Tennessee have signed cards seeking union representation

    UAW says over 1,000 workers at VW plant in Tennessee have signed cards seeking union representation

    [ad_1]

    DETROIT — More than 1,000 workers at Volkswagen‘s Tennessee factory have signed cards authorizing a vote on representation by the United Auto Workers, the first plant in the nation to reach that milestone in the UAW’s quest to organize more than a dozen nonunion factories.

    The union said Thursday that the VW workers signed on in less than a week.

    The factory in Chattanooga employs about 3,800 people who make the VW ID.4 electric vehicle and the Atlas family of gas-powered SUVs. It could become the first test of the union’s strategy to simultaneously try to organize the nonunion plants.

    The UAW said workers have complained about mistreatment by management including mandatory overtime on Saturdays, and they are seeking higher pay.

    In November, VW gave workers an 11% pay raise at the plant. The raises came after UAW members ratified new contracts with Detroit automakers. The union says VW’s pay lags behind what workers make at UAW-represented auto plants.

    The UAW pacts with General Motors, Ford and Jeep maker Stellantis include 25% pay raises by the time the contracts end in April of 2028. With cost-of-living increases, workers will see about 33% in raises for a top assembly wage of $42 per hour, plus annual profit sharing, the union said.

    In a statement, VW said it’s proud of the “world-class production environment” it has created in Chattanooga, and said the pay and benefits show a commitment to employees. Top assembly plant workers make $32.40 per hour, the company said.

    VW said it believes in dialog with workers so they can help shape the work environment. “We also respect the right of our workers to determine who should represent their interests in the workplace,” the statement said.

    VW said it has invested over $4.3 billion in the plant and has added over 1,200 jobs and another shift to make the ID.4.

    In close votes in 2014 and 2019, workers at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant twice rejected a factorywide union under the UAW. Some prominent Tennessee Republican politicians had urged workers to vote against the union during both campaigns.

    The year after the 2014 vote failed, 160 Chattanooga maintenance workers won a vote to form a smaller union, but Volkswagen refused to bargain. Volkswagen had argued the bargaining unit also needed to include production workers. As a result, the 2019 factorywide vote followed.

    Less than two weeks after ratifying new contracts with Detroit automakers, the UAW announced plans to try to simultaneously organize workers at the nonunion plants, most owned by foreign-based automakers.

    The UAW says the drive covers nearly 150,000 workers at factories largely in the South, where the union has had little success in recruiting new members.

    The organizing drive will target U.S. plants run by Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo. Also on the union’s list are U.S. factories run by electric vehicle sales leader Tesla, as well as EV startups Rivian and Lucid.

    The union says its strategy includes calling for an election at factories when about 70% of the workers sign up. A union can seek an election run by the National Labor Relations Board once a majority of workers support it.

    Workers at Nissan’s plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, have likewise rejected a plantwide union twice under UAW, though the 2001 and 1989 votes were not close.

    The Smyrna plant’s fewer than 100 tool and die workers also resoundingly voted this March against forming a union under the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, in a campaign hampered by two years of delays in front of the National Labor Relations Board.

    The Japan-based automaker’s other U.S. assembly plant in Canton, Mississippi, rejected facility-wide representation by the UAW during a 2017 vote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warren Buffett's company's bribery allegations against the Haslam family won't be decided in January

    Warren Buffett's company's bribery allegations against the Haslam family won't be decided in January

    [ad_1]

    OMAHA, Neb. — Warren Buffett’s company decided not to move forward with an expedited trial on its bribery allegations against the billionaire Haslam family in January under the strict conditions a judge set, but it will still be able to raise those concerns then as a judge considers the Haslams’ rival claim that Berkshire Hathaway tried to depress the Pilot truck stop chain’s earnings.

    Both the Haslams and Berkshire have accused each other of trying to manipulate the profits at the nation’s largest truck stop chain because those numbers will determine how much Berkshire has to pay if the family decides to sell its remaining 20% stake in the business next year as expected. The two sides agreed on a formula in 2017 when the family decided to sell the first chunk of the business that sets the price based on the earnings.

    The Haslams argue that Berkshire is trying to keep earnings down with an accounting change at Pilot while Berkshire says that Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam tried to bribe executives at the truck stop chain his family used to run to inflate earnings at the company. The Haslam family includes Jimmy Haslam and former Tennessee governor Bill Haslam and their father who founded the company.

    A Delaware judge already scheduled a two-day January trial on the allegations the Haslams made about the accounting change in its initial lawsuit in October. But the judge said that if Berkshire wanted to get a decision on its bribery allegations at the same time it would have to forego requesting any additional evidence beforehand and limit the number of witnesses it would call.

    It won’t be clear until after that January trial when Berkshire’s bribery allegations will be tried.

    The Haslams received $2.758 billion in 2017 when Berkshire bought its initial 38.6% stake in Pilot and another $8.2 billion this year when it took control of 80% and became the majority owner. Buffett told Berkshire shareholders this spring that he would have preferred to buy the whole company at once because the price was better in 2017, but the Haslams wouldn’t sell it all then.

    It’s not clear exactly how much the remaining stake is worth. The Haslam family estimates that the stake was worth $3.2 billion before the accounting change. Berkshire disputes that figure.

    The Haslams’ attorney called that accusation a “wild invention” but Berkshire said it believes Jimmy Haslam offered millions to at least 28 executives to make short-term moves that would boost profits.

    Berkshire said it learned about the bribery scheme just a few weeks ago after an executive who had been offered one of the bonuses came forward to the new CEO Berkshire appointed after it became the majority owner.

    Even though the bribery allegations won’t be decided in January, Berkshire still plans to make them part of its defense against the Haslams’ lawsuit.

    Berkshire wanted the court to prevent the Haslams from exercising their option to sell the rest of the company to Berkshire next year because it says there are so many doubts about the accuracy of Pilot’s 2023 earnings. The Haslams have the option to decide to sell at the start of every year under the agreement they signed back in 2017.

    The Knoxville, Tennessee-based Pilot has more than 850 locations and roughly 30,000 employees in the United States and Canada has already provided a significant boost to Berkshire’s revenue and profits this year.

    In addition to the truck stops, Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire owns an eclectic assortment of other businesses including Geico insurance, BNSF railroad and several major utilities along with a number of smaller manufacturing and retail businesses. It also holds a sizeable stock portfolio with big stakes in Apple, Coca-Cola, American Express and Bank of America among other holdings.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New study says about half of Nicaragua’s population wants to emigrate

    New study says about half of Nicaragua’s population wants to emigrate

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Lawyer Isabel Lazo’s jobs are being systematically canceled by Nicaragua’s increasingly repressive government.

    Lazo worked at a university before the government of President Daniel Ortega closed it. She now is employed at a nongovernmental organization that she fears will soon be shuttered too.

    Nicaragua’s poisonous mix of economic decline and repression has led to about half of the country’s population of 6.2 million saying they want to leave their homeland, according to a new study, and 23% saying they had contemplated the possibility deeply enough to consider themselves “very prepared” to emigrate.

    “A large proportion of them have already taken concrete steps to try to get out,” said Elizabeth Zechmeister, the director of the AmericasBarometer study “The Pulse of Democracy in the Americas.”

    The study, which was released on Wednesday, shows that the number of Nicaraguans wanting to leave rose from 35% five years ago to almost half today, and that about 32% of people in 26 Latin American countries surveyed say they want to migrate.

    Lazo, 42, and her husband Guillermo Lazo, 52, a systems engineer, both taught at the University of Northern Nicaragua until the Ortega government shut it down in April. It was one of 26 universities that closed because Ortega accused them of being centers of revolt, or failing to register or pay special taxes to the government, which has feuded with the Roman Catholic church, as well.

    The couple lives in the northern city of Somoto, where Isabel Lazo now works for a European-backed NGO. Ortega’s government has outlawed or closed more than 3,000 civic groups and NGOs.

    In May, the government ordered the Nicaraguan Red Cross shut down, accusing it of “attacks on peace and stability” during anti-government demonstrations in 2018. The local Red Cross says it just helped treat injured protesters.

    Lazo said Thursday she is worried that it’s only a matter of time for the group where she now works.

    “This will be ending soon,” she said dispiritedly, The couple is now awaiting a decision on a U.S. application for “humanitarian parole,” a program under which up to 30,000 people are being allowed each month to enter the U.S. from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

    Until then, there are few prospects for them, even though they are among Nicaragua’s educated elite.

    “We were left without jobs from one day to the next,” Lazo said. “And even though we have graduate degrees and master’s degrees, we haven’t found decent jobs. You can kill yourself studying here and it’s worth nothing.”

    Thousands have already fled into exile since Nicaraguan security forces violently put down mass anti-government protests in 2018. Ortega says the protests were an attempted coup with foreign backing, aiming for his overthrow.

    Rosemary Miranda is another educated Nicaraguan who wants to leave. A psychologist, she graduated from the Jesuit-run University of Central America, also closed and confiscated by the government.

    Miranda, 24, works for a microfinancing firm at an office in Managua, the capital, but the $402 per month she earns there doesn’t even cover the cost of commuting, meals and clothing.

    “In this country, the majority of people work just to eat. They can’t buy clothing or shoes without waiting a month between purchases,” Miranda said.

    She has wanted to emigrate for some time, but she helps her family by giving them some of what little money she earns. With the purchasing power of wages falling, she is now rethinking her decision to stay.

    “The situation here is very difficult. Every month the price of food, electricity, water and transportation rises,” she said. “What have I gotten in return for studying so much and graduating?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sandy Hook families offer to settle Alex Jones’ $1.5 billion legal debt for a minimum of $85 million

    Sandy Hook families offer to settle Alex Jones’ $1.5 billion legal debt for a minimum of $85 million

    [ad_1]

    Sandy Hook families who won nearly $1.5 billion in legal judgments against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for calling the 2012 Connecticut school shooting a hoax have offered to settle that debt for only pennies on the dollar — at least $85 million over 10 years.

    The offer was made in Jones’ personal bankruptcy case in Houston last week. In a legal filing, lawyers for the families said they believed the proposal was a viable way to help resolve the bankruptcy reorganization cases of both Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems.

    But in the sharply worded document, the attorneys continued to accuse the Infowars host of failing to curb his personal spending and “extravagant lifestyle,” failing to preserve the value of his holdings, refusing to sell assets and failing to produce certain financial documents.

    “Jones has failed in every way to serve as the fiduciary mandated by the Bankruptcy Code in exchange for the breathing spell he has enjoyed for almost a year. His time is up,” lawyers for the Sandy Hook families wrote.

    The families’ lawyers offered Jones two options: either liquidate his estate and give the proceeds to creditors, or pay them at least $8.5 million a year for 10 years — plus 50% of any income over $9 million per year.

    During a court hearing in Houston, Jones’ personal bankruptcy lawyer, Vickie Driver, suggested Monday that the $85 million, 10-year settlement offer was too high and unrealistic for Jones to pay.

    “There are no financials that will ever show that Mr. Jones ever made that … in 10 years,” she said.

    In a new bankruptcy plan filed on Nov. 18, Free Speech Systems said it could afford to pay creditors about $4 million a year, down from an estimate earlier this year of $7 million to $10 million annually. The company said it expected to make about $19.2 million next year from selling the dietary supplements, clothing and other merchandise Jones promotes on his shows, while operating expenses including salaries would total about $14.3 million.

    Personally, Jones listed about $13 million in total assets in his most recent financial statements filed with the bankruptcy court, including about $856,000 in various bank accounts.

    Under the bankruptcy case orders, Jones had been receiving a salary of $20,000 every two weeks, or $520,000 a year. But this month, a court-appointed restructuring officer upped Jones’ pay to about $57,700 biweekly, or $1.5 million a year, saying he has been “grossly” underpaid for how vital he is to the media company.

    Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez on Monday rejected the $1.5 million salary, saying the pay raise didn’t appear to have been made properly under bankruptcy laws and a hearing needed to be held.

    If Jones doesn’t accept the families’ offer, Lopez would determine how much he would pay the families and other creditors.

    After 20 children and six educators were killed by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, Jones repeatedly said on his show that the shooting never happened and was staged in an effort to tighten gun laws.

    Relatives, of many but not all, of the Sandy Hook victims sued Jones in Connecticut and Texas, winning nearly $1.5 billion in judgments against him. In October, Lopez ruled that Jones could not use bankruptcy protection to avoid paying more than $1.1 billon of that debt.

    Relatives of the school shooting victims testified at the trials about being harassed and threatened by Jones’ believers, who sent threats and even confronted the grieving families in person, accusing them of being “crisis actors” whose children never existed.

    Jones is appealing the judgments, saying he didn’t get fair trials and his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link