Friday, October 30, 2015

REI CEO Says Closing On Black Friday Is A 'Radical Idea'

REI will be sacrificing one of its top business days when it closes its 143 retail stores on Black Friday to encourage customers to spend time outside.

CEO Jerry Stritzke told HuffPost Live on Wednesday that the decision to close up shop for the day wasn't "made lightly," and admits that "it's a bit of a startling idea from a retail perspective."

"[We] certainly had to think hard about it. This is new news. I haven't spoken to very many of my contemporaries about the issue, but I'm excited by the idea," Stritzke said. "I think it's intriguing that we can create this conversation [about] something so central to our brand and kind of who we are."

This is the first time REI will close on Black Friday, even though the day after Thanksgiving has historically been a "top 10 business day" for the company, according to Stritzke. However, the company's decision exemplifies some retailers' recent opposition to keeping stores open on what is traditionally a family holiday, and the day after.

Online shoppers will still be able to purchase items from REI on Black Friday, though they'll initially be directed to a blackout screen imploring them to explore the outdoors. Online sales aren't the initiative's priority, however.

"It's easier to leave [the website] on than turning it off," Stritzke explained.

Watch Jerry Stritzke's conversation with HuffPost Live in the clip above.

Want more HuffPost Live? Stream us anytime on Go90, Verizon's mobile social entertainment network, and listen to our best interviews on iTunes.

Also on HuffPost:


Thursday, October 29, 2015

This Startup Offers Women An Amazing, Affordable and Thoughtful Perk

Not every company can afford to offer Netflix-level year-long maternity leaves. In fact, even Netflix doesn't offer that benefit to all of its workers. Still, there are creative ways to give perks to new moms. 

Domo, a 5-year-old startup based in Utah with a workforce of 600 employees, came up with something pretty innovative.

Every pregnant woman at the company gets $2,000 in gift cards to buy maternity clothes, according to an article by Claire Zillman in Fortune. 

If you've ever had to go to work in an office while pregnant, you will instantly understand why this is awesome.

For those of you who haven't, here's the deal: No one really wants to spend/waste money on maternity clothes -- you only need them for a very limited amount of time and they are expensive. Most of us just sort of muddle through, buying a few things, borrowing a lot of things and making do with stuff in our closet that is stretchy or big.

That's fine when you're home on the weekends, but it's a big bummer at the office, where you want to maintain a professional appearance and often wind up donning some pretty weird garments. Like, oh I don't know, a maternity shirt your cousin wore in the 1990s with a bow at the collar that seems like an OK idea in the morning but makes you feel like a sad, old Christmas present. (That may be something I know about firsthand.)

Domo's chief executive came up with the idea for the perk after his assistant became pregnant, Zillman told Fortune. 

The company, which helps other businesses manage their data, doesn't offer Cadillac-level maternity leave. You get one month at full pay and then six weeks at partial pay. Five or six people have used the clothing benefit so far, Fortune reports.

Would more paid leave probably be preferable to a new wardrobe? Yes, sure. Still, the gift cards are a nice idea and certainly signal to employees that they're valued at a time that can feel very uncertain to a lot of women. And small signals like that add up, making employees more loyal to companies, which are then less likely to have to train new workers because their current ones stick around. It's a win-win -- and nobody has to dress like a Christmas present.

 


Tuesday, October 27, 2015

J. Crew Will End On-Call Shifts For U.S. Workers

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — J. Crew has agreed to end on-call scheduling at stores nationwide, following similar moves by several other major retailers, New York's attorney general said Friday.

In April, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office wrote to 13 retailers questioning the practice of keeping workers on call for shifts on short notice. The letter also cited possible violations of New York's requirement to pay hourly staff for at least four hours when they report for work.

"Workers deserve protections that allow them to have a reliable schedule in order to arrange for transportation to work, to accommodate child care needs and to budget their family finances," Schneiderman said Friday. The company has agreed to provide one week of advance notice about schedules at all its New York stores, he said.

Senior Vice President Maria Di Lorenzo said J. Crew ended on-call shifts nationally this month. The on-call shifts had helped the company deal with unexpected staff absences and schedule changes for product deliveries, she said. The retailer began discussing possible changes 10 months ago, has disabled the on-call feature from its scheduling software and now will fill needed slots on a voluntary basis, which may present some challengers for managers, she wrote in a letter to the New York attorney general.

"Further, J. Crew has strict anti-retaliation policies," Di Lorenzo wrote. "Consistent with those policies, J. Crew will not retaliate against associates who do not volunteer to cover these shifts."

That follows announced agreements confirmed by Bath & Body Works and affiliate Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch and Gap Inc. Williams Sonoma said it's also ending the practice.

Urban Outfitters has agreed to end on-call shifts at its New York stores, according to the attorney general.

 

MORE ON HUFFPOST: 

 Retailers Closing The Most Stores of  
 Share  Tweet  ✖ Advertisement Share this ✖ close Current Slide  

Monday, October 26, 2015

Even The Most Elite Women Are Subject To The Gender Pay Gap

A business degree, even from one from a top school in the country, won't be enough to protect women from the gender gap in compensation.

A report Bloomberg Businessweek published Tuesday found that the difference in pay for men and women swells as time goes by. Both groups leave their MBA programs earning about the same -- men's $105,000 to women's $98,000 -- but the split becomes more exacerbated years later. By the time they're six to eight years out of school, median compensation for men is $175,000, and $140,000 for women. For the latter, that rounds out to about 80 percent of men's paychecks, proving unfortunately that the roughly 78 cents women make to a man's dollar still holds up.

The study counters arguments that the pay gap between men and women results from a discrepancy in education and skills, Businessweek reporter Natalie Kitroeff told HuffPost Live on Wednesday. "We're looking at them coming out of the same schools, in the same years," Kitroeff said. "It was surprising to find that there was such a persistent gap, and we found this across every single industry."

Men gain the most ground in year-end bonuses. When those are excluded, the pay gap shrinks. Women who graduated Columbia's business school between 2007 and 2009, for example, earned a median of $170,000 in 2014, while men raked in $270,000. The difference in base salaries, though, was just $30,000.

The study's findings also reject the notion that the gap stems from women choosing to go into fields that pay less. Generally, men do enter the more lucrative industries, including consulting, real estate and finance, at higher rates -- 43 percent of men versus 32 percent of women -- but "even when women went into the highest-paying industries, they were paid less," Kitroeff said.

And let's not forget that the gender pay gap starts way before higher degrees. At the most elite colleges in the U.S., male alumni far outearn their female classmates, with Harvard men earning an average of $53,600 more than women 10 years after they start their undergraduate studies.


Saturday, October 24, 2015

Even The Most Elite Women Are Subject To The Gender Pay Gap

A business degree, even from one from a top school in the country, won't be enough to protect women from the gender gap in compensation.

A report Bloomberg Businessweek published Tuesday found that the difference in pay for men and women swells as time goes by. Both groups leave their MBA programs earning about the same -- men's $105,000 to women's $98,000 -- but the split becomes more exacerbated years later. By the time they're six to eight years out of school, median compensation for men is $175,000, and $140,000 for women. For the latter, that rounds out to about 80 percent of men's paychecks, proving unfortunately that the roughly 78 cents women make to a man's dollar still holds up.

The study counters arguments that the pay gap between men and women results from a discrepancy in education and skills, Businessweek reporter Natalie Kitroeff told HuffPost Live on Wednesday. "We're looking at them coming out of the same schools, in the same years," Kitroeff said. "It was surprising to find that there was such a persistent gap, and we found this across every single industry."

Men gain the most ground in year-end bonuses. When those are excluded, the pay gap shrinks. Women who graduated Columbia's business school between 2007 and 2009, for example, earned a median of $170,000 in 2014, while men raked in $270,000. The difference in base salaries, though, was just $30,000.

The study's findings also reject the notion that the gap stems from women choosing to go into fields that pay less. Generally, men do enter the more lucrative industries, including consulting, real estate and finance, at higher rates -- 43 percent of men versus 32 percent of women -- but "even when women went into the highest-paying industries, they were paid less," Kitroeff said.

And let's not forget that the gender pay gap starts way before higher degrees. At the most elite colleges in the U.S., male alumni far outearn their female classmates, with Harvard men earning an average of $53,600 more than women 10 years after they start their undergraduate studies.


IHOP Tweeted A Joke About Breasts. It Didn't Go Too Well.


A year ago, IHOP got the Internet’s attention when it sent out a tweet with a "hip new voice." 

“Who knew IHOP was so hip? The pancake chain has found its voice on Twitter, and it sounds an awful lot like a teenage hip-hop fan,” quipped Adweek at the time.

Since then, the breakfast haven has been using the social media platform as a way to engage younger customers, frequently sending out cheeky and slang-filled tweets. 

The strategy has been working in the company’s favor, with some of their posts garnering thousands of retweets. This week, however, IHOP was skewered for going a step too far.

On Sunday, the restaurant chain posted a photograph of a stack of pancakes with the caption: “Flat but has a GREAT personality.”

The backlash to the post was swift, with several IHOP customers expressing outrage at what they said was too racy a tweet.

"Can't teach my Girl Scouts that casual misogyny is okay," wrote Twitter user Laura Perkins Cox. 

Another user named Seamus Bellamy criticized the pancake house for "snark" and "sexism." 

There were other netizens who responded with humor -- and utter bafflement.  

The company has since taken down the post and issued an apology.

IHOP isn’t the only fast food company that has been using social media as a means to reach a younger customer base. Several other big chains, including Taco Bell and Burger King, have employed similar strategies.

 

Also on HuffPost:


Friday, October 23, 2015

Apple's New Solar Projects To Slash Over 20 Million Tons Of Emissions

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple announced Wednesday it will build 200 megawatts of solar energy projects in China and work with local suppliers to source more renewable energy, its latest moves to green its Chinese supply chain amid criticism that its local partners are heavy polluters.

In addition to bringing on an additional 200 MW in northern, eastern and southern China, the tech giant said it will launch an initiative to "drive its manufacturing partners to become more energy efficient and to use clean energy for their manufacturing operations."

Apple said the 200 megawatts projects will produce the equivalent of the energy used by more by than 265,000 Chinese homes in a year.

As part of Wednesday's announcement, major Apple supplier Foxconn said it will build 400 MW of solar energy projects by 2018, starting in Henan province.

“These projects go beyond Apple’s operations in China to help our suppliers adopt clean renewable energy,” Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives, said in a statement.

The announcement comes months after Apple said it would build its first major solar energy project in China, two 20 MW solar farms in Sichuan province, with solar developer SunPower.

The company now says its China operations are "carbon neutral" because the solar installations produce more energy than is used at its offices and retail stores throughout the country.

Four years ago, Chinese environmental groups accused Apple of turning a blind eye as its suppliers polluted the country by emitting toxic gases and discharging heavy metal sludge, among other practices.

In the United States, Apple was criticized by environmental group Greenpeace in 2012 for relying too heavily on fossil-fuel-based energy to power its energy-hungry data centers.

 

On Wednesday, Greenpeace said the company had taken a "major step forward" in greening its supply chain.

"We hope that Samsung, Microsoft and other IT companies will follow their lead in manufacturing their cutting-edge devices with a 21st century energy supply," said Gary Cook, IT policy analyst at Greenpeace.

The programs will avoid over 20 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in China between now and 2020, according to Apple.

Apple has also taken steps to operate more cleanly in its home state of California. In February, the iPhone maker said it would buy about $850 million of power from a new California solar farm to cut its energy bill and supply electricity for its new campus in Silicon Valley as well as other offices and stores.

 

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; and Julia Love; Editing by Leslie Adler)


Thursday, October 22, 2015

Uber Driver's Rape Sentencing Is Just The Latest Controversy For Company

A former Massachusetts Uber driver has been sentenced to 10 to 12 years in prison after raping a female passenger, adding to a growing list of Uber drivers accused of sexual assault.

Boston native Alejandro Done, 47, who pled guilty, was sentenced last Friday on charges including kidnapping, assault and battery, and aggravated rape, according to USA Today.

On Dec. 6, 2014, Done picked up a woman heading to her home in Cambridge. Done told the woman that she would have to pay him in cash. The two went to an ATM to withdraw money, then Done drove her to a secluded location, reported the Star Tribune.

Done kept the victim trapped in the car as he strangled and sexually assaulted her. 

The felon has previously been charged with five other unsolved sexual assaults that happened in the Boston area between 2006 and 2010. That case is still pending. Uber told USA Today that Done had passed a background check, and had no prior criminal record.

"The defendant preyed upon a young woman who trusted that he was who he portrayed himself to be," District Attorney Marian Ryan said in a statement. "I encourage the public to take precautions when using any ride-sharing service."

In another recent case, in South Carolina, a sixth-grade teacher, who was moonlighting as an Uber driver was arrested on charges of kidnapping and forcible rape. Patrick Aiello, 39, allegedly assaulted a 23-year-old woman in August. The woman managed to escape from the car and was struck by another one in the process.  

A former Uber driver in India, Shiv Kumar Yadav, was convicted of raping a female passenger Tuesday. 

Many states in the U.S. are demanding that Uber ensure its background checks are more thorough. Last year, prosecutors in California filed a complaint against the ride-hailing service for failing to adequately vet drivers, some of whom have been convicted sex offenders, kidnappers and murderers.

Last April, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker proposed a bill giving his state oversight in background checks. Uber has backed the legislation proposal, and hosts a petition on its website in favor of the governor's plan, which has more than 30,000 signatures.

Uber faces a litany of other problems. Last weekend, drivers called for a strike and demanded better pay and higher fares. The service has been suspended in Spain for creating unfair competition and it is banned in Italy for not adhering to licensing rules. French taxi drivers, who were upset by having to compete with Uber, took to the streets last summer, smashing cars and setting tires on fire.


Monday, October 19, 2015

To Work, Open Offices Need To Be A Little Less Open

One morning last week, I arrived at my desk -- one of the hundreds arranged in long rows throughout the Huffington Post newsroom -- and instinctively took out my earbuds. 

"What kind of music do you listen to?" my coworker Alex asked me.  

I hadn't had enough coffee that morning and I was confused (also I'm perpetually afraid of not liking the "right" music because I'm 26 but still in high school).

"What? Why?" I asked.

Alex explained that he always saw me with my earbuds in, so he assumed I was really into music. Oh. In reality, I often have earbuds in with nothing playing, or some random Spotify radio station I don't really care about. I listen to the kind of music that functions as white noise to cut out the voices of the dozens of people around me.

In a big open newsroom, cutting out the sound around me is my favorite way to construct imagined private space where none exists. 

Here's the thing: The open plan, itself, is not really the problem. Office design experts now think that you need elements of an open plan as well as closed private offices to encourage people to produce their best work. The key is recognizing that employees have different working styles that require different types of spaces. Often, what the same person needs in the workplace varies from one task to the next. 

The office of the future has both open and private spaces. It has spaces where two people can have a quiet conversation, spaces for people to do highly focused work and lots of open areas where creativity and innovation can thrive. The office of the future is about giving workers both flexibility and agency.

"What has happened [to the workplace] is it has gone from a real estate discussion... to becoming more of a people-centric discussion," said Tracy Wymer, the director of workplace strategy at Knoll, the office design firm. And people, it turns out, need privacy sometimes.

The open office has been around for decades. In fact, the cubicle was designed in the 1960s by the American inventor Robert Propst, who was attempting to solve many of the privacy issues that arose from open offices back then. But Propst's design backfired as, by the 1990s, "the flimsy walls of the cubicle began to symbolize not independence and flexibility, as Propst had hoped, but transience, precariousness and the disposability of the American worker," according to Nikal Saval, who wrote a book on the history of the office space.

The early 2000s, then, saw the dawn of the new era of the open office. Not only does an open plan free workers from their cubes, it also frees up valuable real estate. After the Great Recession, converting to an open plan allowed companies to put more employees in smaller spaces, making overhead cheaper.

In 2009, when Goldman Sachs moved to its newly built office at 200 West Street in lower Manhattan, the company wrote in its environmental progress report that it improved "space utilization through workplace standards and increased occupancy rates." In other words, they put more workers in a smaller space (the previous year, if you remember, was not Wall Street's greatest).

Part of that is simple consolidation: the new building combined what had been two different campuses, so they naturally reduced some common areas. But it also moved everyone below the managing director rank into an open office environment.

And then, a few years after that, came the great backlash.

"There was chatter on the web questioning the value of open plan and constant collaboration," said Melanie Redman, a senior design researcher at the furniture company Steelcase. "We felt the need to respond to that."

And these weren't just empty complaints. The team detected a "deeper level of angst" about open offices than they expected, Redman said, and they wanted to learn more about it. 

It turns out my headphones-on-with-nothing-playing trick is one of the most common reactions to working in an open office, she said.  

After the company's research team spent time studying privacy in the workplace around the world, they found that it's "a basic fundamental human need," said Redman. No matter the company or the culture, almost every employee desires privacy for one of two reasons: they either want to control the stimuli coming in to their environment or they want to control the information they are projecting out to the people around them. 

An open plan office can be annoying because your coworkers come and interrupt you every five minutes, or it can be annoying because your boss can see what you are doing every moment of the day. Either way, the solution is more private spaces.

It's no surprise that American office drones workers largely despise open office plans. 

"It's important to me to give my (albeit small) staff a sense of having their own space, and I absolutely would be discouraged from taking a job with an open plan," said Randy Locklair, the owner of Hatchmap, a software development company. "I really despise the feeling of having people sneaking up on me at work," he added.

Lucia Deng, a mid-career lawyer who has recently been on the job market, told me, "When I was interviewing at a startup, I saw that their lawyers worked in an entirely open space and on communal tables and the thought of that gave me agita!"

 

I should probably say that the Huffington Post newsroom, despite the silent headphones many people use, is actually an example of the kind of open office plan that can work. Though there is a cavernous open room, there are also various different kinds of breakout spaces: tiny single-person phone rooms, medium-sized huddle rooms and big conference rooms that can be reserved, in addition to various couches and tables strewn through the common spaces of headquarters.

The key is flexibility.  

"The big picture is that there is no one-size-fits-all [workspace]," Redman said. "We can’t predict what people are going to need. Open plan only works if workers have the permission to move and a place to move to."

The question is not whether we need privacy in our office spaces. The question is how to configure the space so that workers can move to the right type of environment for whatever task they happen to be working on. Steelcase has designed several different kind of "enclaves." The company says "highly differentiated settings ensure that users can choose their best place based on task, mood and personality, making the experience of privacy personal."

It turns out that coworking spaces -- which generally are in the business of designing office space so that either individuals or small companies want to rent it out -- are getting this right more than most. In a Harvard Business Review article from September about why those who work in coworking spaces tend to be more productive than the average worker, a group of researchers from the University of Michigan write that being connected to a community at work is important, but a successful workspace has a mix of different kinds of spaces:

In reality, people need to be able to craft their work in ways that give them purpose and meaning. They should be given control and flexibility in their work environment -- many companies are increasingly adopting the best planning practice of providing a 1:1 ratio (or close to it) of desk seats to seats in shared settings used for either collaborative work or quiet work.

There are a lot of moving parts to the theory of office design, according to Wymer. Workspaces are starting to borrow design theory from hotels, he said. "There is a notion of hospitality, a notion of theater and there’s a certain notion of play that gets involved. A lot of boundaries are really getting blurred at this point." 

And then there are the people who are still creating completely open offices, because it works for them. Kyle Chayka just opened a new coworking space with a group of writers in Brooklyn in September. They did a gut renovation and chose to keep the office open so they could communicate better and be helpful to each other throughout the day.

"Having an open office without different little private areas, people are more aware of each other -- that is useful for us since we are all journalists," Chayka said.  

Of course, in an office for freelancers, the solution to needing privacy at work is just staying at home.  


Saturday, October 17, 2015

Sorry Folks, But Standing Desks May Not Make You Any Healthier

You've probably heard that keeping your rear planted in your desk chair for hours on end may be as much of a health hazard today as smoking was for previous generations.

Prolonged sitting has been linked to an increased risk of heart disease, cancer and even premature death. But at least we have standing desks to combat the problem, right? Maybe not.

According to a new study, published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology on Oct. 9, standing at your desk may be no better than sitting, and that's because it's the being still that has the negative impact on your health. (Maybe it's time to replace your standing desk with a treadmill desk.)

For the study, the researchers monitored the behavior and health of 3,720 men and 1,412 women over the course of 16 years. Beginning in 1985, the London-based volunteers recorded how many hours a week they spent sitting.

At the end of the 16-year period, the researchers tallied the hours and then checked the National Health Service Central Registry and determined that 450 of the participants had died. But the researchers found no correlation between time spent sitting and mortality.

The findings challenge previous research showing that sitting for long periods can shorten your lifespan even if you exercise often.

"Any stationary posture where energy expenditure is low may be detrimental to health, be it sitting or standing. The results cast doubt on the benefits of sit-stand work stations," Dr. Melvyn Hillsdon, associate professor of Sport and Health Sciences at the University of Exeter in England and a co-author of the study, said in a written statement.

The researchers concluded that sitting itself won't kill you. Rather, a sedentary lifestyle in general may be what's harmful to your health. 

"Research is not black and white, and if a single study finds X or Y that doesn’t mean that this is the truth we should all go along with," Dr. Emmanuel Stamatakis, associate professor at the University of Sydney in Australia and a co-author of the study, said in an email. "The recent study findings are in disagreement with the rest of the literature and there must be a reason for this."

Also on HuffPost:


Friday, October 16, 2015

Lawsuit Seeks To Stop Nestlé From Sucking Water Out Of Drought-Plagued California

Should Nestlé be allowed to take spring water from a national forest in drought-plagued Southern California, bottle it and sell it nationwide?

Under fire from locals, former forest employees and environmental groups, the Swiss-based company insists there's nothing wrong with piping tens of millions of gallons of water out of San Bernardino National Forest every year -- despite the fact that Nestlé's permit to extract water from the park technically expired in 1988.

On Tuesday, three environmental groups filed a suit in a California federal court against the United States Forest Service, demanding it stop Nestlé from taking the water, sold in its "premium" Arrowhead brand. The company has no right to pipe out water since its permit expired almost 30 years ago, plaintiffs claim. They say that Nestlé's operation is damaging the forest.

“The ecosystem in San Bernardino forest is being harmed,” said Eddie Kurtz, the executive director of the Courage Campaign Institute, one of three groups that filed the suit. “It’s not an environment that can afford to send its water to Nestlé to profit off of.”

The suit not only sheds light on the ethics and optics of bottling water during a historic drought. It also raises questions about the very idea of large corporations profiting off of what is widely considered a shared public resource. 

"This is exactly what happens when water is treated as a commodity and is sold for profit," John Stewart, deputy campaigns director at the nonprofit Corporate Accountability International, told The Huffington Post. "It is forcing us all as a society to say, 'Who is providing our water? Is it Nestlé or our own democratically governed towns and cities?'" Stewart's organization is not a party to the suit but works on other water issues.

The litigation comes at a time of enormous growth in the bottled water industry. Americans bought a record 10 billion gallons of bottled water in 2014, spending nearly $26 billion, according to data from the Beverage Marketing Corporation, a research and consulting firm.

The litigation is another knock in Nestlé's shaky reputation on water. The company, which pulled in about $15 billion in profits last year, is the leading bottled water company in the world. In a 2012 documentary called "Bottled Life," Nestlé came up for harsh criticism for extracting ground water from poor communities. Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe caught flack the following year after an interview with the Guardian in which he parsed the idea of whether or not water is a human right. The multinational lost a battle with activists in Michigan in 2009 over a plan to pump millions of gallons of water out of the state for pennies on the gallon and sell it back customers in bottles at much higher prices.

In San Bernardino, Nestlé is paying around $500 a year for the right to pipe out natural spring water. You can watch this explainer video from Story of Stuff Project, a nonprofit environmental group and one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

The suit follows a damning investigation earlier this year from reporter Ian James at the Desert Sun. The article, which revealed Nestlé's permit had lapsed, received widespread attention, triggering protests and petitions against the Swiss-based multinational and was the driving force behind Tuesday's lawsuit. 

A spokeswoman from Nestlé emphasized that the company is not named in Tuesday’s lawsuit, but said it is operating lawfully in San Bernardino. “Our permit for the pipeline remain in full force and effect,” she said. 

A press officer from the Forest Service's regional office in California confirmed that the permit was under review and that it was fine for Nestlé to continue to operate because it had requested a renewal and the agency hadn't gotten to it yet.

The company is now working with the Forest Service on getting its permit reviewed and renewed, a process that could take up to 18 months. That review only began after critics and the Desert Sun started asking about the expired permit, according to the Sun.

“Bottled water is not a contributing factor to the drought,” the chief executive of Nestlé’s water subsidiary in the U.S., Tim Brown, wrote in a recent op-ed for the San Bernardino County Sun. Nestlé uses about 705 million gallons of water in the state each year, “roughly equal to the annual average watering needs of two California golf courses,” he said. 

Brown went even further in an interview with a California public radio station: "If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy a different brand of bottled water. We see this everyday," he said. "In fact, if I could increase [bottling], I would.”

Environmental groups say regardless of how much water the company is using, it’s simply not OK to extract and profit from local waters during a drought. “This doesn’t make sense,” Kurtz told HuffPost. 

Other companies have decided to avoid the negative public relations hit that bottling water during a drought brings.

Starbucks agreed to stop sourcing its bottled water brand Ethos in California earlier this year, noting the “serious drought conditions and water conservation efforts in California,” in a press release.

Environmental groups say regardless of how much water the company is using, it’s simply not OK to extract and profit from local waters during a drought.

 

Nestlé referred HuffPost to a defense of the San Bernardino operation on its website. The company says it removes 25 million gallons of water a year from the forest and that this does not harm the environment.

Yet, no one has studied the environmental impacts of the operation. Former forest service employees and activists said that such research was imperative.

"They're taking way too much water. That water's hugely important,” Steve Loe, a biologist who retired from the Forest Service in 2007, told the Desert Sun. "Without water, you don't have wildlife, you don't have vegetation."

Loe, who’s was among the first to raise the issue with Nestlé, told the Desert Sun that the removal of water was responsible, in part, for the disappearance of at least one rare species of fish from the ecosystem.


Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Economics Nobel Prize Winner Radically Redefined What It Means To Be Poor

Princeton professor Angus Deaton won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday for his work on consumption, income and poverty. 

Much of his work focuses on how to measure poverty around the world. The question of who is poor, he says, is very easy to determine at a community level. It's doable at a national level. But when you try to determine just who is poor worldwide, it's nearly impossible. Figuring out what poverty is globally is a big part of Deaton's work.

He has asked whether poverty should just be measured in terms of the question, "Do you have enough to eat?" or whether there are other factors that should play into the definition -- and whether those factors are different across different societies. 

Deaton wrote a very good (non-technical) essay about the difficulties of measuring poverty back in 2003. In it, he writes of all the different factors that have nothing to do with having enough food that go into determining if someone is poor around the world:

Even if you have enough goods, they are worth little if you are not healthy enough to enjoy them. Children who live in an unsanitary environment will obtain little nutritional benefit from the food that they eat if they continually suffer from diarrhea. More broadly, girls who are denied the opportunity to go to school experience yet another type of poverty, the poverty of not being able to read and to participate in activities that are only open to the literate. People are also poor in another sense if they lack the resources to participate fully in the society in which they live, who in Adam Smith’s term “are afraid to appear in public,” even if their incomes would be sufficient in some other society.

Deaton's 2013 book The Great Escape looks at the interaction between health and wealth over the last 250 years, and how the two in combination have contributed to the amount of inequality that we see today. Here's a small excerpt (taken from a longer excerpt posted by Cardiff Garcia), in which Deaton argues that income inequality has a huge effect on democratic outcomes, and is therefore a big problem: 

The very wealthy have little need for state-provided education or health care; they have every reason to support cuts in Medicare and to fight any increase in taxes. They have even less reason to support health insurance for everyone, or to worry about the low quality of public schools that plagues much of the country. They will oppose any regulation of banks that restricts profits, even if it helps those who cannot cover their mortgages or protects the public against predatory lending, deceptive advertising, or even a repetition of the financial crash.

To worry about these consequences of extreme inequality has nothing to do with being envious of the rich and everything to do with the fear that rapidly growing top incomes are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else.

In this video, Deaton himself gives an overview of his work on the origins of inequality.

For more on Deaton and his work, see Monday's posts from Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen.


Tuesday, October 13, 2015

15 Questions On The Sexist Play About American Apparel's Dov Charney

NEW YORK -- Just before "Unseamly" -- which bills itself as a play about "female sexuality confronting male corporate power" -- began on Sunday afternoon, artistic director Frances Hill was worried.

"I wish we had a younger audience," she told me. She wasn't sure how patrons at Manhattan's Urban Stages Theatre, most of whom appeared to be at least in their 50s, would react to the play's explicit verbal and visual sexuality and violence. It was the very crowd you'd expect at a Sunday matinée.

But I was ready for it. Or so I thought.

The story follows a 20-year-old woman's struggle to convince a lawyer to take her sexual harassment case against the chief executive of her former employer, a posh apparel company called The Standard. It's a thinly veiled fictionalization of the allegations made against former American Apparel CEO Dov Charney. In fact, the script was written by his cousin, Oren Safdie. The play has only three characters: Malina, the accuser; Adam, the lawyer; and Ira, the apparel executive.

For some time now, I have followed and written about Charney's saga. Charney, as he is wont to do with reporters, has called me on my cell phone before to discuss my stories. I have read, among other things, the infamous Jane magazine interview from 2004, in which reporter Claudine Ko describes Charney masturbating in front of her and a female employee multiple times. Before copyright lawyers forced Gawker to remove the video, I watched the grainy footage allegedly showing Charney dancing naked in front of two women while chatting on the phone. Charney, who denies wrongdoing, has never attempted to hide his intense and very public sexuality. Rather, he seems to celebrate it.

With all that in mind, I expected controversy. I hoped for nuance. And I trusted that there would be sensitivity. But, when my girlfriend and I left the theater on Sunday afternoon, we were both confused and disturbed by what we had just seen. The play shamed a sexual assault victim, gave more time to the motives and justifications of her sexual predator and, perhaps most appalling, tried to lighten the mood throughout with comical banter. 

Here is a list of questions that, over a much-needed beer after the show, we asked ourselves:

  1. Why does Adam keep lecturing and shaming Malina as she lays out her case? 
  2. Why, in a play about the sexual harassment and abuse of women, are two out of the only three characters straight men?
  3. Are anecdotes about Ira's neglectful high school girlfriend and sexually promiscuous mother supposed to justify his misogyny?
  4. Why is the script of a play about sexual assault filled with comical banter? 
  5. Why does Adam press for details on whether Malina masturbated with the vibrator Ira gave her, but doesn't want in-depth descriptions of when he coerces her into sex?
  6. Why does the play seem to give more air time to Ira's version of events than to Malina's?
  7. Why do Ira and Adam seem to agree that adult men all share a fetish for pubescent minors? 
  8. Why is the fact that Malina goes to a psychologist five days a week relevant to her assault?
  9. Why is Malina presented as a completely powerless victim? She's young, yeah, but c'mon, the woman was brave enough to seek legal council about what happened to her.
  10. How come the only time either male character listens to her is when she becomes hysterical or talks about sex?
  11. Why does the lawyer admonish Malina for allowing Ira to take naked pictures of her? 
  12. Why is Malina so giddy about her potential settlement? Doesn't that perpetuate the sexist narrative that the women accusing Charney of harassment are just looking for a quick payoff?
  13. Why does Adam, the one character who promises to help Malina, end up becoming yet another man sexually preying upon her?
  14. WHY DOES THE PLAY END WITH MALINA MAKING A BETTY BOOP FACE AS ADAM GRABS HER BUTT?
  15. Why did we go to this?

"Unseamly" opens Oct. 14. Tickets sell for $55, but you'd be better off donating that to Paving The Way, a nonprofit that fights against sexual violence.


Monday, October 12, 2015

DuPont To Pay $1.6 Million For Contaminating Drinking Water

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio woman was awarded $1.6 million Wednesday in the trial of a lawsuit that alleged a chemical from a DuPont Co. plant contaminated drinking water and contributed to her contracting kidney cancer.

A jury awarded the damages to 59-year-old Carla Bartlett of Guysville in one of two cases that could influence thousands of similar lawsuits over the chemical giant's discharge of perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8. The chemical is used to make Teflon.

Some 3,500 people say they became ill after the company dumped C8 into the Ohio River and their drinking water from its Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, West Virginia.

The trial, which lasted about three weeks, was the latest development in a yearslong battle between DuPont and residents of the Mid-Ohio Valley in the heart of Appalachia. Bartlett once lived closer to the river. Her lawyer said she was thrilled by the verdict.

"She understands that she did good for the communities all up and down the Ohio River," attorney Mike Papantonio said.

He said the jury decision was vindication for those who argued that C8 is "bio-persistent," referring to its presence in the bloodstream years after contamination.

DuPont, which maintains C8 didn't contribute to Bartlett's cancer, said it expects to appeal. Company spokesman Gregg Schmidt said the jury decision not to award punitive damages validates the company's position that DuPontnever consciously disregarded the risks to people living near the Parkersburg plant.

Workers and plant officials drank the same water as residents, DuPont attorney Damon Mace told jurors during closing arguments Tuesday. Of its eight employees with cancer in 1989, only one had worked at length with C8, he said.

But Papantonio and co-counsel Gary Douglas argued that Delaware-based DuPont long knew the risks of C8 but showed "conscious disregard" for Ohio and West Virginia residents by downplaying or hiding the chemical's effects on the public. Papantonio noted that the company tested the blood of those working with the chemical.

Mace told jurors the company tested the workers because they would have the greatest exposure to the chemical, which some studies showed could possibly be linked to cancer.

About 80,000 residents filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in 2001. It resulted in a settlement in whichDuPont agreed to pay as much as $343 million for residents' medical tests, the removal of as much C8 from the water supply as possible and a science panel's examination into whether C8 causes disease in humans.

___

This story has been corrected to attribute the comment about workers and plant officials drinking the same water as residents to DuPont attorney Damon Mace, not company spokesman Gregg Schmidt.


Saturday, October 10, 2015

How A World Bank Translator Became A Hunted Man

This is the latest installment of "Evicted and Abandoned," a year-long examination of the hidden toll of development financed by the World Bank. The project is a collaboration between the ICIJ and The Huffington Post, with contributions from journalists around the globe. 

 

Pastor Omot Agwa knew he was in danger.

“Greetings from Ethiopia in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” he wrote in an online message to friends and colleagues on March 11, 2015. “I am informing you that since yesterday I have been hunted by security.”

The gentle, round-faced church leader had long been an embarrassment to Ethiopia’s authoritarian regime. As a prominent leader of the Anuak, a heavily Christian indigenous group, Agwa had spoken out against alleged beatings and killings of his kinsmen by government forces.

Days before his message, a federal agent had come looking for him at the Mekane Yesus Seminary, the evangelical church that he belonged to in Addis Ababa.

“He wants to arrest me,” Agwa wrote. “If I keep silent without communicating I will be in custody.”

The Ethiopian regime had varied reasons for wanting to arrest Agwa, but at that moment, one loomed large: he had recently served as a translator and consultant for an investigation into whether government authorities had used World Bank money to bankroll a campaign of violent evictions targeting Agwa’s Anuak community.

The soft-spoken pastor arranged interviews for the bank’s Inspection Panel, its internal watchdog, with Anuak who told World Bank investigators about beatings, rapes and summary executions by Ethiopian soldiers —placing Ethiopia’s lucrative aid package from the bank into jeopardy. Months later, Agwa translated for a reporter from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists on a newsgathering trip to Ethiopia.

In February 2015, the Inspection Panel released its report, faulting the bank for failing to properly scrutinize the Ethiopian government’s programs before giving money to the regime. Soon after, Ethiopian government agents began hunting for Agwa, visiting his church, his family and leaving messages on his phone, he told human rights groups.

“I have locked myself in the room now,” the frightened pastor wrote in his distress message. “Please pray for me for God’s protection and I don’t know what to do.”

He was arrested four days later as he tried to leave the country on a flight to Kenya. In September, Ethiopian authorities indicted him on terrorism charges.

Human Rights Watch called the charges “absurd,” a transparent attempt to punish Agwa for exposing government abuses and to intimidate other Anuak into silence.

But another key player in the church leader’s case has made no public objections: his former employer, the World Bank.

World Bank officials say Ethiopian authorities have assured them that Agwa’s arrest had nothing to do with his work for the bank’s Inspection Panel. The bank won’t comment on whether it believes the charges against Agwa are valid. And the bank has continued its financial relationship with Ethiopia’s government—approving more than $1.3 billion in loans to the regime since it learned of its former employee’s arrest.

“The World Bank just abandoned him,” said Obang Metho, the executive director of the advocacy group Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, who once belonged to Agwa’s congregation. “Had they not told Omot to investigate this, he would be at home today with his family.”

The World Bank’s decision to continue bankrolling Ethiopia’s government in the aftermath of allegations of human rights abuse is not unusual. The bank has repeatedly refused to intercede on behalf of protesters or local communities when they are mistreated by borrowing governments or to cut off funding in such instances, ICIJ, The Huffington Post and other media partners reported in September.

The bank maintains that as a development lender, it has a specific and limited mandate. The bank’s rules against violent evictions, abuse of indigenous peoples and other safeguards apply to the projects it finances, not all activities of its borrowers.

The World Bank’s charter specifies that “the Bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member”—a clause that the bank has long interpreted as a prohibition against advocating for human rights.

Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, charged in a recent report that the bank has misinterpreted this ban on political interference to justify treating human rights “more like an infectious disease than universal values.”

Alston said that while he generally opposes across-the-board sanctions as a reaction to wrongdoing by a borrower country, they could be justified in extreme cases and that the bank needs to develop clear guidelines for responding to cases of retaliation and other abuses by its borrowers.

The World Bank declined to answer questions for this story.

In a statement to ICIJ after the terrorism charges against Agwa were revealed, the bank said it often works “in places with complex political and social issues. When allegations of reprisal are brought to our attention, we work, within the scope of our mandate, with appropriate parties to try to address them. We have made several inquiries about Pastor Omot Agwa since his arrest in March 2015 and detention.”

The Ethiopian government did not respond to requests for comment to its embassy in Washington, D.C., and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 

 

Pastor and Activist

 

The case of Omot Agwa offers a striking view of the bank’s hands-off approach.

Agwa was born in the fertile, low-lying Ethiopian state of Gambella, a traditional homeland of the Anuak, an indigenous tribe of several hundred thousand people living in Ethiopia and South Sudan. He attended an American missionary school and was "born again" as a Christian in first grade, establishing his lifelong ties to the Protestant church. He went on to earn scholarships for Bible translation that set him on a path to church leadership.

As he drew closer to the evangelical church, Agwa retained a strong Anuak identity. When he was a teenager, Agwa had the six front teeth on the bottom half of his mouth plucked out in a traditional initiation rite.

“If your teeth are still there they say that, one, you are not pure Anuak,” the pastor explained last July, a mischievous smile crossing his face, “and second, that your face looks very ugly because your mouth looks like a goat’s mouth.”

An outbreak of violence in December 2003 prompted Agwa to take his first steps into activism. Ethiopian soldiers and members of Ethiopia’s lighter-skinned ethnic majority slaughtered hundreds of Anuak in the state of Gambella’s capital. Agwa survived by hiding inside a friend’s house.

By that time a well-known church leader, Agwa collected the names of the dead and traveled to Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, to seek out human rights groups that could spread word of the massacre beyond Ethiopia’s borders.

“I went to Oxfam America, I knocked on their door,” he said, “and they interviewed me in their office where, for the first time, I weeped. I cried loudly because I was traumatized, and it was a time now that I was released.”

Human Rights Watch later determined that 424 people from Gambella had died in the massacre.

In the following years, Agwa’s fluent English and ties to the Protestant church made him a frequently sought out liaison by human rights observers and others who wanted to know more about the government’s repression of the Anuak.    

In 2010, federal authorities launched the “villagization program,” a massive campaign in Gambella and three other rural states to relocate Anuak and other minorities into government-sponsored villages. The government said the plan was intended to provide health, education and other essential services, but many Anuak denounced it as a land grab and refused to move from their ancestral homes.

The former governor of Gambella described personally diverting roughly $10 million in World Bank money intended for the health and education program to finance a series of violent evictions of the Anuak, ICIJ reported in April.

When the World Bank’s Inspection Panel came to Ethiopia in February 2014 to investigate abuse accusations, it hired Agwa as a consultant and interpreter. Agwa travelled with the investigators through the communities in Gambella where he had grown up, translating interviews with Anuak villagers. One man who was interviewed reported that an Anuak who was a member of the Ethiopian military’s special forces was shot dead on the spot by a government police officer after he refused an order to evict fellow tribe members from their farms.

In summer 2014, Agwa worked with ICIJ during a reporting trip in Ethiopia to explore the alleged abuses linked to villagization. Despite his fears that he would be discovered by federal agents, Agwa assisted an ICIJ reporter with steady good humor, interspersing his painful recollections with an infectious smile and frequent references to his Christian faith.

Soon after the Inspection Panel published its findings in February 2015, security police began looking for him, Agwa told human rights groups.

On a telephone call the night before his arrest, Agwa said the police were after him because of his work with the Inspection Panel, according to David Pred, managing director of Inclusive Development International, one of the human rights groups supporting Agwa.

On March 15, Agwa sought to leave the country for a food security workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, organized by the Swiss Protestant church charity Bread for All.

He made it as far as the airport.

Ethiopian security forces arrested Agwa in Addis Ababa’s Bole International Airport and locked him up without charges, along with six other indigenous and pastoralist leaders on their way to the gathering in Kenya, according to human rights groups.

The arrest of the well-known church leader set off a flurry of activity by Agwa’s allies. They struggled to find out why Agwa had been detained, and pressed the U.S. State Department and European embassies in Ethiopia to appeal to the Ethiopian government for his release.

Both the human rights groups and the World Bank—as well as ICIJ—agreed to keep the matter quiet so that the Ethiopian regime could release the outspoken pastor without losing face.

On March 31, little more than two weeks after Agwa’s arrest, the World Bank made a move that surprised Agwa’s defenders: it approved a $350 million loan to the Ethiopian government. The money supported a five-year initiative to improve productivity and market access among small farmers.

Agwa was locked up in the Maekelawi police station, a site notorious for the torture of political dissidents. He was held for three weeks in solitary confinement, supporters say. For months after, his family was not allowed to visit him.  

His supporters still hoped that the Ethiopian government might let Agwa free. Instead, on Sept. 7, Ethiopian authorities charged the pastor with terrorism, alleging that Agwa’s contacts with an Anuak activist in London were a conspiracy to plan armed attacks in Ethiopia, according to a charging document obtained by ICIJ. The government claims the Swiss church charity’s workshop that Agwa was traveling to when he was arrested was a “terrorist group meeting.”

Human rights groups familiar with Ethiopian law say if convicted, Agwa would face a sentence of 20 years to life in prison.

The Ethiopian government has not responded to repeated requests for comment about Agwa. It is possible that authorities are in possession of evidence that would support their claims against the pastor. But Ethiopia has a history of using its anti-terrorism laws as a weapon against journalists and political activists, and human rights groups that are active in the country say the government trumped up the charges against Agwa in order to silence him.   

On September 15, just over a week after the government filed formal charges, the World Bank approved a new $600 million loan to the Ethiopian government.

The newest round of financing is for a project the bank says is intended to improve health, education and other services. It replaced a central component of the same health and education program that Agwa had helped investigate. Despite the testimony facilitated by Agwa that detailed abuses by Ethiopian officials associated with the program, the bank decided to continue funding a similar arrangement into the year 2019.

Human rights groups say they informed the World Bank of Ethiopia’s terrorism charges almost immediately after they were filed.

“I have no doubt that if they intend to convict him, they will,” said David Pred of Inclusive Development International. “He’s facing 20 years to life, which is a death sentence.”

Obang Metho, the Ethiopian activist who remembers Agwa as his former pastor, said that losing the imprisoned church leader would be a crushing blow for the Anuak people.

“Omot is not just a translator,” Metho said. “He is a husband, he is a father, he is a pastor. . . . The community loved and respected him.”

 


Friday, October 9, 2015

Why Another Big Bank Is Jumping On The Anti-Coal Bandwagon

Citigroup on Monday became the third banking giant this year to slash its lending to coal-mining companies.

The move, which follows similar pledges this year from Bank of America and Crédit Agricole, will make it more difficult for companies producing coal, a major source of pollution and contributor to climate change, to finance future projects.

Now, credit lines extended to any coal companies by Citi must first gain "senior approval" and pass more rigorous ethics guidelines that factor in human rights.

"Citi's credit exposure to coal mining companies has declined materially since 2011," Citi said in a 10-page memo on its environmental practices. "Going forward, we commit to continue this trend of reducing our global credit exposure to coal mining companies." 

The U.S. coal industry has been a financial disaster this year. There have been a string of high-profile bankruptcies, and borrowing costs for U.S. coal companies soared from 8 percent at the start of the year to 65 percent in July.

These are all important indicators that the financing activity Citi has pledged to cut down on is getting riskier -- which means there are very good reasons for Citi to decrease its exposure to coal companies that have nothing to do with the environment. It's just what a smart banker should do.

But that still represents a shift for Citi, which, it's worth remembering, shoveled billions of dollars at bad mortgages in the period leading up to the financial crisis.

Citi did not immediately respond to questions about whether its new commitment goes beyond the decline in lending that would already be expected as the coal industry struggles. 

To be sure, there are signs that the banking industry is waking up to the economic and existential threats that climate change poses.

In a joint statement last week, a group of six colossal U.S. banks called for a "strong global climate agreement" during the United Nations' upcoming conference in Paris. Citi was among them.

But though progress has already been significant, the industry has a long way to go to take really meaningful steps to reduce climate change.

"Reducing credit exposure is only a partial step forward," Lindsey Allen, executive director of the nonprofit Rainforest Action Network, said in a statement. "We urge Citigroup and Wall Street laggards such as Morgan Stanley to cut all financing ties to both coal mining and coal-fired power."


Wednesday, October 7, 2015

How Jack Dorsey Can Keep His Chill While Running Two Companies

ADVERTISEMENT

Jack Dorsey has his plate full -- doubly full.

Twitter on Monday named him its permanent CEO, nearly four months after he took over as the interim chief executive following Dick Costolo's sudden departure.

The company he co-founded nine years ago is in flux, struggling to attract new users and make money. Shareholders clamored for Dorsey to stay in the position in large part because few other business leaders seemed qualified to meaningfully correct Twitter's course. 

But Dorsey is also the full-time chief executive of mobile-payments firm Square, a position he will keep in addition to heading up Twitter. Square is quietly preparing for an initial public offering -- a process that, judging from Twitter's own IPO, can become quite volatile.

That's a lot for anyone to take on. As much as he's going to need the people around him, Dorsey -- who's known to meditate and jog early in the morning and take long, meandering walks during the day -- will also need to turn inward for the tools to help him succeed in both roles.

Twitter is a social media company. Square processes credit card transactions. The two firms have little in common, which helps in a certain way -- perhaps there are few conflicts of interest. But the arrangement will require Dorsey's mind to be nimble. He'll navigate very different realities at the helm of each company.

"It's unusual and really challenging," Sydney Finkelstein, management professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck Center for Leadership, told The Huffington Post.

Finkelstein said the people in Dorsey's professional inner circle will be crucial to him, perhaps more than they've ever been. 

"To make something like this work, you have to have a world-class team around you," Finkelstein explained. "Effective leaders delegate. In this case, you probably have to delegate more than normal. … You have to be able to process in your brain two different worlds."

Dorsey must also remain mindful of his own emotions to prevent himself from succumbing to stress and becoming reactionary.

“Oftentimes what we do is we withdraw and we tighten and we become reactive,” Janice Marturano, executive director of the nonprofit Institute for Mindful Leadership, told HuffPost. “That’s exactly the opposite of what we need to do during stressful times in our lives.”

Simple activities like napping, taking a walk and finding a quiet room to meditate for 10 minutes can be helpful. Some of this is undoubtedly part of Dorsey's routine already, but not everyone has time for that. Training the brain to take what Marturano calls “purposeful pauses” -- receding into the mind during a brief moment of free time -- can help keep a leader grounded, even when she or he is stretched thin.

“In times of real craziness, you have to be able to find your training that allows you to meditate with a cup of coffee, or with the two minutes you walk from this office to this meeting,” said Marturano, whose book Finding The Space To Lead was released recently in paperback. “Rather than texting along the way, you say, ‘I’m going to use that time for meditation.’”

To be sure, not everyone enjoys the perks of a chief executive whose net worth Forbes estimates at $2.2 billion. Many workers struggle as wages remain low. Nearly two million people in the United States work multiple part-time jobs, and nearly 1.6 million of those do not have a primary full-time job. That means many are likely disqualified from receiving health insurance coverage or other benefits as part of their compensation. The perks and privileges enjoyed by Dorsey and others in the executive set certainly make their struggle a bit less difficult.

Still, Marturano said the principles of mindfulness apply as much to workers stocking shelves for minimum wage as they do to someone running two large technology companies.

"We influence the people around us every day, so we're all leaders," she said. "It's about making the time to reflect." 

 


Tuesday, October 6, 2015

At This Rate, It'll Take 100 Years To Get Gender Equality At Work

Things are improving so slowly for women in corporate America that we aren’t going to achieve gender equality at the top for another 100 years, according to a report released Wednesday.

It's not for the reasons you might think -- i.e., it's not a “mommy issue.” Both women and men reported feeling strained by the competing pulls of work and family, according to the survey of nearly 30,000 workers at 118 North American companies. The survey was conducted by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.org, a nonprofit focused on women's advancement founded by Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer at Facebook.

The big, ugly, hard-to-fix issue, the study suggests, is gender bias. That contradicts a lot of the conventional wisdom about why women don’t make it to the so-called C-suite -- the highest levels of a company where you find the jobs with “chief” in the title, like chief executive and chief finance officer. Only 17 percent of those lofty positions are held by women, according to the McKinsey/LeanIn survey. There are only 24 female CEOs on Fortune’s list of the 500 biggest companies in the U.S. That's an improvement from 1998, when there was just one woman on the list, but it still means that men hold the chief executive spot at over 95 percent of those businesses.

“Some of the biggest barriers are cultural and related to unconscious biases that impact company hiring, promotion, and development processes,” said Dominic Barton, global managing director of McKinsey & Company, in a press release. He's using the current corporate jargon for sexism at work.

These days, sexism has (mostly) moved beyond the crass discrimination of the "Mad Men" years, shape-shifting into something we now call unconscious bias -- the things a lot of us believe about women without even realizing it. These attitudes are harder to combat, or even prove, but they show up again and again in the research. A lot of people, for example, believe on some level that women are less competent than men. There's also something called a "maternal bias," in which mothers who do well at their job are disliked -- and kept from advancing -- because they're believed to be terrible parents. 

Women hold 45 percent of entry-level jobs at the companies surveyed, and their ranks thin out as you go higher. Only 27 percent of vice presidents at those companies are women, as are 23 percent of senior vice presidents and 17 percent of C-suite execs. These figures are a very slight improvement from 2012 (see the chart below). Very slight -- that’s where that 100-year estimate comes from. 

So what’s going on? First off, women aren’t quitting their jobs or “opting out.” In fact, the survey found that women, on average, quit their jobs at the same rates as men, or even less often. At the higher levels, women are more likely than men to stick around, the study found.

The issue is that women aren’t getting promoted at the same rate as men -- and at every step along the corporate ladder, women say they are less interested in becoming a top executive.

The reasons why are telling. For single women, the main reason they said they didn’t want to advance any higher at work was stress. And while women with children said the main reason they didn't want to advance was because of work and family pressures, stress came in at a very close second for that group.

This isn't a case of "women are uniquely unsuited for the corporate environment because of their families and stuff." For men with children, the difficulty of balancing work and family was also the top reason they weren't interested in holding a higher-ranking job -- 62 percent of men with children said that, compared to 65 percent of women with children. And mothers were 15 percent more interested in becoming a top executive than the women surveyed who didn’t have children.

“Historically, we thought women were less interested in promotions because of their concerns with family responsibilities,” Rachel Thomas, the president and co-founder of LeanIn, told The Huffington Post. “This study points to a new reason: There’s something in the workplace that’s more stressful for women. Women say stress and pressure is a top obstacle for them -- all women, not just mothers.”

The stress, Thomas suggests, comes from the bigger hurdles women face at the office. For example, there’s research showing that women are often believed to be less competent at their jobs than they really are, while men are often believed to be more competent than they are. Women have to prove themselves again and again.

There's also a Catch-22 involving personality: Women who are seen as competent are less likely to be seen as likable, and women viewed as more likable are less likely to be seen as competent, research has shown.

“We always say that women walk on a tightrope," Thomas said. "Men are not on that tightrope."

According to the report, “women are almost four times more likely than men to think they have fewer opportunities to advance because of their gender -- and are twice as likely to think their gender will make it harder for them to advance in the future.”

Yet most men surveyed said that women had equal or greater opportunities at work than men do.

"There’s a break between what people think and how they really understand the issue,” Thomas said.

LeanIn, of course, wants to change things. The group’s report contains a lot of good advice for companies looking to advance women:

  1. Gather the data. Companies must systematically look at how many women they employ and how many women they promote. You need to be able to truly see the problem in order to fix it. Some companies, like Accenture and Ernst & Young, already do this.
  2. Make it a priority. If leaders care about this, everyone else will, too. Get managers involved. Hold them accountable for achieving gender equality goals. Make sure employees know how to counteract bias. You see more companies like Facebook and Google doing unconscious bias training these days.
  3. Create programs that actually help. At PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, the performance review process is structured in such a way that it doesn’t hurt women who take maternity leave.

There’s no magic bullet on this issue, Thomas said. You can’t just create a “women’s networking group” or say you’re focusing on the issue and expect the problem to vanish.

The report also touches on the gender inequalities that exist in other areas of life. For example, women still report that they do more of the work at home, which undoubtedly adds to their stress. 

There are a lot of things companies need to do, Thomas said. “This is a big ship we’re trying to turn.”


Monday, October 5, 2015

Disneyland Annual Pass Jumps To More Than $1,000

The "happiest place on Earth" might be a little less happy these days as Disneyland fans turn grumpy over a new round of price increases -- including the introduction of an annual pass that costs more than $1,000.  

This week, Disney eliminated many of its current annual pass options for both the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim and the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, replacing them with new passes that in most cases are more expensive.

And in one case, it's a lot more expensive: An annual pass to Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure with no blackout dates has jumped by nearly $300.

The new $1,049 Disney Signature Plus replaces the $779 Premium Annual Passport. Like the Premium pass, the Signature Plus allows for unlimited attendance to both Anaheim parks and provides discounts on some food and merchandise. The Signature Plus will also include additional perks such as parking and unlimited downloads of PhotoPass images such as the pictures taken on rides. 

A lower-priced pass offers access to the parks 350 days a year -- all but the two busy weeks around Christmas and New Year's -- for $849.

A full list of prices and benefits is available on the Disneyland website. 

It's the second time this year annual pass prices have risen, with a February increase bringing the no-blackout cost from $699 to $779. 

Some parkgoers are complaining that the increase comes as Disneyland gets ready to shut down a number of popular attractions for an extended period, including the Disneyland Railroad and Tom Sawyer Island, due to construction of the new "Star Wars" land. 

The price of single-day tickets did not change, with a day at Disneyland costing $99. 

Prices for annual passes at Walt Disney World also jumped, with the new Platinum Pass -- which allows entry into the parks all year -- now costing $749. The annual pass had previously cost $654.

A number of other passes are also available at both parks, including passes for local residents and members of the Disney Vacation Club. The Disney Premier Passport, which offers unlimited access to both Disneyland and Walt Disney World, now costs $1,439, up from $1,099. 

The company said more changes may be ahead, including pricing that could vary from day to day based on demand. 

“We have to look at ways to spread out our attendance throughout the year so we can accommodate demand and avoid bursting at the seams,” Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Bob Chapek told The Wall Street Journal. 

Also on HuffPost:

 Celebrities At Disney of  
 Share  Tweet  ✖ Advertisement Share this ✖ close Current Slide

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Massive Data Breach At Experian Exposes Personal Data For 15 Million T-Mobile Customers

Experian, the world's biggest consumer credit monitoring firm, on Thursday disclosed a massive data breach that exposed sensitive personal data of some 15 million people who applied for service with T-Mobile US Inc.

Connecticut's attorney general said he will launch an investigation into the breach.

Experian said it discovered the theft of the T-Mobile customer data from one of its servers on Sept. 15. The computer stored information about some 15 million people who had applied for service with telecoms carrier T-Mobile during the prior two years, Experian said.

T-Mobile Chief Executive John Legere said the data included names, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers and passport numbers. Such information is coveted by criminals for use in identity theft and other types of fraud.

"Obviously I am incredibly angry about this data breach and we will institute a thorough review of our relationship with Experian," T-Mobile Chief Executive John Legere said in a note to customers posted on the company's website. "But right now my top concern and first focus is assisting any and all consumers affected."

The Experian breach is the latest in a string of massive hacks that have each claimed millions - and sometimes tens of millions - of customer records, including the theft of personnel records from the U.S. government this year, a 2014 breach on JPMorgan Chase and a 2013 attack on Target Corp's cash register systems.

It is also the second massive breach linked to Experian. An attack on an Experian subsidiary that began before Experian purchased it in 2012 exposed the Social Security numbers of 200 million Americans and prompted an investigation by at least four states, including Connecticut.

Experian on Thursday said it had launched an investigation into the new breach and consulted with law enforcement.

The company offered two years of credit monitoring to all affected individuals. People, however, said that they did not want credit protection from a company that had been breached.

Legere responded by promising to seek alternatives.

"I hear you," he said on Twitter. "I am moving as fast as possible to get an alternate option in place by tomorrow."

Experian said the breach did not affect its vast consumer credit database.

Legere said no payment card or banking information was taken.

T-Mobile had nearly 59 million customers as of June 30. A representative for the carrier said that not all 15 million of the affected applicants had opened accounts with T-Mobile.

The telecom carrier's shares were down 1.3 percent in extended trading after closing little changed at $40.13 on the New York Stock Exchange.

In the earlier data breach affecting Experian, a Vietnamese national confessed in U.S. court last year to using a false identity to opening an account with the unit, known as Court Ventures, sometime before Experian purchased it in 2012.

A spokeswoman for Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said on Thursday that it would investigate the latest attack.

The spokeswoman, Jaclyn Falkowski, declined to elaborate on the T-Mobile incident, but said the investigations of the Court Ventures matter "is active and ongoing."

(Additional reporting by Karen Friefeld and Arathy Nair; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Related On HuffPost:

 Biggest Data Breaches of  
 Share  Tweet  ✖ Advertisement Share this ✖ close Current Slide

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Walmart Planning To Slash Hundreds Of Jobs At Arkansas Headquarters

Sept 30 (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is planning to lay off hundreds of people at its headquarters in Arkansas as part of the retail giant's efforts to pare costs, people familiar with the matter said.

Fewer than 500 employees are expected to lose their jobs and an announcement could be made as early as this Friday, according to one of sources, who declined to be named because the move had not been made public.

Wal-Mart declined to comment. News of the impending cuts was reported earlier on Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal.

The cuts will make up a small portion of the more than 18,000 people employed at the Bentonville, Arkansas office but fit in with a streamlining effort that has been flagged by Chief Executive Doug McMillon in recent months.

"There are no cash registers in the office," McMillon told analysts after the company's annual shareholders' meeting in June to emphasize his focus on stores as the earnings driver for the company.

Speculation of job losses has percolated in Bentonville for several weeks, fueled in part by reports on the matter by local media outlet City Wire. Recruiting firms have reported an influx of resumes from Wal-Mart employees concerned about losing their jobs and suppliers have braced for cuts that could have a knock-on impact on their local operations.

The cuts come as the world's largest retailer struggles to shore up its profit margins, which have been weighed down by a $1 billion investment announced earlier this year to increase wages for half a million store-level workers and other cost pressures. The company's stock is down 26 percent so far this year.

In August, Wal-Mart reported weaker quarterly earnings and lowered its annual profit forecast, hit by higher labor costs, a squeeze on pharmacy margins and the stronger dollar, which has crimped its overseas business.

McMillon and other top executives are due to present their strategy for the company at an annual meeting with analysts and investors later this month in New York. 

Earlier On HuffPost:

 9 Things Walmart Would Like You To Forget of  
 Share  Tweet  ✖ Advertisement Share this ✖ close Current Slide