Posted by Ricardo Collado.
One of the most awkward questions you can be asked in a job interview is “What are you salary requirements?” or “How much are you making in your current job?”. Massachusetts has become the first state to bar employers from asking about applicants’ salaries before offering them a job. The new law will require hiring managers to state a compensation figure upfront, based on what an applicant’s worth is to the company, rather than on what he or she made in a previous position.
Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker signed a law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2018. The pay disparity between men and women is still pronounced nationwide, even the size of the gap is in dispute. This bill is being pushed as a model for others states, as the issue of men historically outearning women who do the same job has leapt onto the national political scene. A new research from career site Glassdoor, which analyzed pay by job title at individual companies, said women earned 94.6 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same positons. Also the law will require equal pay not just for workers whose jobs are alike, but also for those whose work is of “comparable character” or who work in “comparable operations.” Workers with more seniority will still be permitted to earn higher pay, but the law effectively broadens the definition of what is equal work.
“I think very few businesses consciously discriminate, but they need to become aware of it,” said State Senator Pat Jehlen, a Democrat and one of the bill’s cosponsors. “These are things that don’t just affect one job; it keeps women’s wages down over their entire lifetime.” For example if you are in a job interview and a hiring manager asks you how much you make or how much you are looking for, Sethi, HR consultant, says you should say something like, “You know what, I’m happy to discuss money down the road, but right now I’m just trying to see if there’s a good fit for both of us. I’m sure you’re trying to do the same thing.”
Massachusetts joins at least 12 other states that already require companies to let employees compare notes about how much are paid. Massachusetts has created a new wave, not only to close wage gaps but to lower poverty rates and create a stronger economy for our country as a whole.
Ricardo is an accounting major at Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class 2018.
Sources:
New York Times, http://nyti.ms/2aKzR5c
Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/massachusetts-equal-pay-law-2016-8
Quartz, http://qz.com/749476/massachusetts-salary-history-job-interviews/
Posted by Karolina Staron.
A lawsuit was brought against Dannon Company, Inc for falsely advertising their yogurt brand. Dannon Company for years has claimed their popular product to be the healthiest on the market, ultimately pricing higher than competitors. Stating that daily consumption of the yogurt will reduce occurrences of colds and strengthen individual’s immune system. Consumers profoundly believed in the advertising, willing to pay a higher price.
One individual, however, challenged those claims. Trish Wiener suffered with digestive problems, the consumption of the yogurt that guaranteed digestive system improvements was intended to aid with the discomfort. Inspire of this, with time the yogurt failed to relieve the daily burden and Wiener began to question the accuracy of the advertisement. “In its ads for the yogurts Dannon claims the products use exclusive strains of what are known as probiotic bacteria, [which] are live microorganisms, usually bacteria, similar to the beneficial ones found in the human digestive system. In the right amounts, they ‘confer a health benefit on the host.’” While, in fact no clinical testing has been accomplished to support the existence of probiotics in the dairy product.
Dannon Company, Inc. although denying any allegations against false advertising, has agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission law suit. The settlement required acceptance to omit disclosing “scientific proof” benefit of their products. “Claiming that any yogurt, dairy drink, or probiotic food or drink reduces the likelihood of getting a cold or the flu, unless the claim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” The Company’s intention behind settling was forgo incurring additional expenses.
In the modern times, busy work schedule and daily tasks often take away time from properly planning meals and force people to rely on quickly obtainable foods. With a busy lifestyle people neglect the need to educate themselves on the quality of products they purchase. If the media states a specific food is beneficial to ingest, the statement is relied upon by the public without further questioning. This is only one case that has been brought to the public’s attention that addresses the topic of food quality and false advertisement. Many of the goods consumed on a daily bases possesses even lower value, yet are an accepted norm. The lesson taken from this case is to inform ourselves on the supposed benefits of the purchased products, because in truth unless we grow and produce foods ourselves, we won’t know the true ingredients embedded in every product.
Karolina is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.
Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/dannon-settles-lawsuit/story?id=9950269
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/12/dannon-agrees-drop-exaggerated-health-claims-activia-yogurt
Posted by Francesca Mecionis.
The owners of America’s Test Kitchen filed a 39-page lawsuit against Christopher Kimball, and some of his other associates, on November 3. According to the suit, Kimball and his accomplices “conspired to literally and conceptually rip off” the Boston TV show. The reason for his actions were said to be for his personal benefit in order to help launch his new brand, Milk Street. There are accusations of “stolen customer lists and trade secrets, sneaky tactics to secure a radio deal, and new office space.” Kimball had a fiduciary responsibility to the show. However, the owners believed he had stolen their entire business model, “right down to how recipes are written,” and also had worked on his own project while still being employed by America’s Test Kitchen.
Kimball, in response to the suit, claims it is “absurd” and “was meant to generate publicity and to shore up the America’s Test Kitchen brand.” Yet, there is proof of his actions in writing. There was a forensic search of his emails, which showed “Kimball’s scrambling to set up his new business before he left the old one, securing copies of his work contacts and packing up his belongings.” In another email, Kimball wrote to his assistant, “Want to get ahead of the partners!” in regards to using the America’s Test Kitchen name to find a new office space for his business.
The lawsuit was issued in the Superior Court of Suffolk County of Massachusetts. The owners are hunting for “unspecified monetary damages, repayment of some of the compensation that America’s Test Kitchen paid Kimball and the people who left with him, and asks the court to prevent him and his new company “from exploiting information, assets and opportunities stolen from America’s Test Kitchen.” Lawyers are arguing that Kimball’s motivation to steal secrets from the show stemmed from when the board and investors pushed him out. In 2013, America’s Test Kitchen’s rating decreased dramatically, and the show responded by hiring a new set of employees. By 2015, a new CE whom outranked Kimball had taken over, and eventually he stopped showing up to work, telling his coworkers “he had been fired.” “Kimball, in an interview Wednesday, cautioned not to read too much into the allegations, saying most were false or twisted interpretations.” His legal team is preparing to go against these accusations, within this month. Hopefully, the truth will be revealed and both parties receive what they deserve.
Francesca is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.
Posted by Cecylia Bigos.
Non-Compete agreements are a good method of protecting a business from former employees but their provisions must be reasonable or else the important limitation provisions (distance from business, duration) will not be enforced or worse yet the entire agreement will be declared void by a court. I came across an interesting article on Non-Compete provisions on the Entrepreneur.com. The article does an excellent job in summarizing how restrictive or broad the limiting provisions should be in order to protect the business yet still be enforceable in just a few sentences. “Your business is your baby. It may be tempting to be heavy-handed in your non-compete provisions, but it’s important to be reasonable. Excessive restrictions in your non-compete make it more likely that a judge will not enforce it.”
There are many fears in hiring new workers, yet new workers are essential to developing and evolving your business. One of the worst fears a business owner has is hiring and training an employee, introducing them to clients so they can perform their duties, to later learn that the employee left and is working for your former clients, essentially stealing your business right from under your nose. Yet we live in a country that encourages free thinking, expansion, new ideas and capitalism, and preventing employees from leaving businesses to start their own businesses would run contrary to our capitalistic beliefs; therefore, the limiting provisions cannot be too restrictive. The article uses one or two years as a reasonable restriction on time before a former employee can start performing the same work: longer for higher level/high skill employees. “You may reasonably demand a longer duration for higher level employees, like CEOs, where three to five years is not unheard of, depending upon the facts and the jurisdiction.” And the article explains that the geographical restriction should not be “any larger than the area in which you ordinarily conduct business.”
In my opinion, the article does not give too many examples, but using my understanding of non-compete clauses I can give some examples. Time and geographical limitations in non-compete clauses in the medical profession typically depend very heavily on how specialized a doctors practice is. For example a neurologist can limit a former practicing neurologist from working within 30 miles of the practice in which the young neurologist left. However, the geographical limitation for a general practice/family doctor would be much less than 30 miles maybe as little as 5 miles. Non-complete provisions restricting lawyers from practicing law are completely unenforceable. My hair stylist who works for a big salon and cuts my hair is not allowed to open her own salon within 5 miles of the salon and 3 years after leaving the salon. She may not even cut hair for her friends and family in her own house.
In summary, non-compete clauses are helpful in protecting entrepreneurs expanding their business yet the restrictions cannot be too restrictive or broad or else they will not be enforced by a court of law. “While a court may modify an unreasonable term or terms of a non-compete agreement, it can also invalidate an entire agreement if it finds credible evidence that the employer deliberately included overly broad language that renders an agreement unreasonable and oppressive.”
Cecylia is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.
Posted by Mladen Trajkov.
Uber has become really successful and has grown and increased its market share tremendously in the last four years. The company is operating worldwide, and is valued around $62.5 billion. Their increase in presence can be seen in various places, especially in New York City. However, not everything looks so perfect with Uber. The drivers are not employed with the company, but they are self-employed and just sign contracts with Uber for the time period of work. Therefore, Uber is not entitled to pay them the minimum wage required by the state. “Research by Citizens Advice has suggested that as many as 460,000 people could be falsely classified as self-employed, costing [millions] a year in lost tax and employer national insurance contributions”, is written in the Guardian. Uber can`t classify its drivers are self-employed, therefore it has to provide the necessary benefits. This is based on two drivers in the UK who were employed by Uber. They were pressured to work long hours, instead of really working for themselves and make their schedule of working hours. Therefore, Uber was accused of “Resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology.”
This is going to have a bigger impact, because Uber is not the only business that does the self-contracting principle. Looking at Uber, a lot of other companies follow what Uber does, implements similar principles, and traps their employees in the self-employment scheme, which of course is not ethical. “The effect of this judgment is that those kinds of business may owe a lot more to their workers, such as paid holiday and minimum wage, than they had bargained for,” is said in the Guardian. This is an opportunity for those workers to enjoy the same privileges as regular workers do, for which they were previously denied and not entitled for.
A self-employed driver for Uber means that they do not qualify for health insurance, holiday pay, or the national minimum wage. On the other side, being self-employed means that you get to choose your hours of work and how much you work; basically you are your own boss. There are drivers who agree with this model, however some drivers are still disappointed. Drivers who agree are happy mostly because of the benefits of health insurance; however, they believe they are going to make less money now if they work less hours and make only the minimum wage. Other drivers who disagree, don`t really see themselves being employed. They prefer the freedom of choosing the hours of work and having their flexible schedule.
Mladen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.
References:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37802386
Posted by Xiangni Meng.
There have been at least 16 deaths caused by a ruptured Takata air bag inflator worldwide. The first U.S. death report of a Takata inflator is a 17-year-old high school senior, who died in Texas in a moderate speed crash. The most recent death in the United States was confirmed by U.S. safety regulators. A 50-year-old California woman died in a Honda Civic that was first recalled in 2008 because of a defective airbag.
The problem is that “[t]he defective air bag inflators deploy with too much force sending metal fragments flying.” This accident spurned the search and recall for noncompliant vehicles. This deficiency covers more than 60 million air bags in vehicles from BMW, Ford, Honda, Tesla, Toyota, and 12 other corporations. That is one of every five cars on the road in the U.S. The biggest recall could affect more than 100 million vehicles around the world.
Actually, about 11.4 million inflators in the United States have been fixed, while more than 20 million were left unrepaired. Takata spokesman Jared Levy said the “tragedy underscores the importance of replacing those airbag inflators that have been recalled by automakers.” However, owners can be difficult to find. Even Honda has mailed letters, placed Facebook ads, made telephone calls, and in some instances visited owners, but some owners just refuse to get it repaired. “Safety advocates have called for laws banning the sale of any vehicle until recall repairs are made, or a national requirement that recalls be done before license plates can be renewed.” Spokesman Bryan Thomas said, The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) doesn’t have legal authority to order those recalling steps.
A Senate investigation and personal injury litigation have turned up company documents suggesting that Takata executives ignored their own employees and hid the potential danger from Honda, their biggest customer, as well as from U.S. regulators. It is said Takata is seeking a financial investor to help pay for huge liabilities from the world’s biggest auto recall. Also, Takata could face $200 million fine over faulty airbags.
Xiangni is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/29/business/ap-us-air-bag-danger.html?src=busln
http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/takata-air-bag-deaths/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-06-02/sixty-million-car-bombs-inside-takata-s-air-bag-crisis
Posted by Sarah Velez.
International business relations is a major component of the United States economy. Foreign countries send their ships to the United States to pick up shipments and deliver products. While this global trade relationship is highly beneficial, the challenges that arise as a result of compliance issues and differences in ethical standards have recently been brought to light. The article “Greek Shipping Companies Fined $1.5 Million for Pollution” written by Gene Johnson of the Associated Press, reports a case of a Greek vessel that “deliberately pumped oil-polluted water into the ocean, then repeatedly lied and falsified records in an effort to deceive inspectors with the U.S. Coast Guard.” These illegal actions led to a million and a half dollar fine to be paid by the companies that jointly own Gallia Graeca, the Greek vessel.
In October of 2015, Gallia Graeca arrived in Seattle to pick up a substantial shipment of soybeans. This ship, owned by both Gallia Graeca LTD and Angelakos SA, was routinely inspected by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Daniel Hamilton once it arrived at the port. As reported by Petty Officer Hamilton, the oil was not properly cleaned and it was actually in areas where it should not have been as a result of the poor maintenance of the oil-water separator. A deeper investigation made by the prosecutors showed that the ship had discarded “5,000 gallons of oil-fouled bilge water” (Johnson). In addition to knowingly dumping this substantial amount of oil, the engineers on the ship also presented the U.S. Coast Guard with false records and feigned the functioning of the oil-water separator. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, company executives were aware of the entire operation which shows the unethical behavior throughout the company chain.
While the Coast Guard has reported cases of sea pollution, they consider that holding corporations, as well as individuals, criminally liable is “notoriously difficult to detect and prove” (Johnson). Not only were the two companies charged with forging log books and polluting, but other involved individuals were also held accountable and the engineers on board were sentenced to jail time. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour stated that this case “will resonate with other parties in this industry and cause them to pause when they think about creating a corporate culture that encourages deception.”
Sarah is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Lindsey Pena.
In business, ethics are strong guiding principles that aid managers, employees, and investors to correctly conduct business transactions. When ethical matters are disregarded, the end result is fraud, embezzlement, among many other illegal actions. One of these illegal actions is called a Ponzi scheme. Perhaps the most famous Ponzi scheme was devised by Bernie Madoff, a well-respected financier, who conned investors out of an estimated $65 billion. Madoff was caught in December of 2008 and charged with 11 counts of fraud, perjury, theft, and money laundering. He ultimately faced 150 years in prison as a result of his decades long Ponzi scheme.
Because of the magnitude of this Ponzi scheme, eight years later, the consequences are still being addressed. Recently, the estate of Stanley Chais, one of Bernie Madoff’s friends, agreed to pay the victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme $277 million to settle claims that insisted Chais profited from the scheme. Irving Picard, a trustee liquidating Madoff’s firm, has recovered more than $11.2 billion for the investors who were conned. They achieved this my suing the banks and offshore accounts that hid the money in addition to investors who profited from the fraud. In the 2009 lawsuit against Chais and his wife, Picard claimed that they “reaped about $1 billion in profit from fake securities transactions at Madoff’s firm.” Chais also reaped rewards through fees that he would earn when he gave his customer’s money to Madoff’s firm. In addition to this, Chais was also sued by the SEC in 2009 because he “steered assets from three investment funds to Madoff, “despite having clear indications Madoff was engaged in fraud.”
Chais, along with five of Madoff’s employees, were not the only ones who received consequences. Thousands of innocent investors trusted Bernie’s reputable, veteran background hoping to make profit from their investments. While reading this article, I could not help but to think about the Kantian ethics which states that a person should evaluate their actions by the consequences if everyone in society acted the same way. Bernie Madoff made the exception for himself when he decided to execute the treacherous plan and the consequences of his actions will cost him the rest of his life.
Lindsey is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Enerd Pani.
During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.
Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.
Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.
To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.
Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
Posted by Kristina Volta.
In light of the recent events of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 phones setting on fire, many people have been looking to Apple as an alternative. However, the new news of Apple’s IPhone 7 catching flame has many consumers nervous. The most recent case was when an Australian surf coach, Matt Jones, left his phone under a pair of pants in his car while he taught a lesson. When he returned to his car he found that his car was full of smoke and where his phone was had been burnt up and the pants that had been on top of the phone were on fire. This is concerning for Apple whose stock has dropped .41%. This is going to be a knock to Apple’s popularity, especially after seeing the negative kickback that Samsung has been facing for a similar problem.
Apple has been investigating this report, challenging that he was not at the car when the fire started. Many people are beginning to believe that there is a possibility that Apple’s IPhone 7 has a similar Lithium-ion battery, which can become “unstable” when it’s put in certain situations. There is a chance the phone became too hot wrapped up in the pants in the car and that could have been the reason the phone caught fire.
Even though these claims haven’t been solidified yet, this could still cause a major setback for Apple and their products. Although there haven’t been many claims about Apple phones catching fire, the fear consumers now have could be significantly detrimental to their sales of the IPhone 7. Not to mention, if the case does come out to show that it was the IPhone’s battery that caught fire, Apple will be held liable for it.
When companies put out products their consumers and shareholders are putting faith in the company that they are purchasing a safe good unless otherwise mentioned. Lithium-ion batteries have been known to have issues for other products like “Tesla cars, Boeing jetliners, Hewlett Packard laptops and Hoverboards” as well as other IPhones. There was a case in March of an IPhone 6 bursting into flames on a flight to Hawaii. This is concerning for not only Apple, but also any other company who is or plans to use Lithium-ion batteries. This is a risk these companies are taking considering the clear unpredictability of the safety of these batteries.
Kristina is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/apple-iphone-7-explodes/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/21/2nd-fire-apple-iphone-7-threatens-mass-recall/