Thursday, March 31, 2016

U.S. Oil Industry Giant Paid Millions To A Company At The Center Of Huge Corruption Scandal

The American engineering and construction firm KBR hired Unaoil -- an obscure Monaco-based company now involved in a massive international bribery scandal -- to help it win oil and gas contracts in Kazakhstan. KBR, which until 2007 was part of the oilfield services giant Halliburton, paid Unaoil millions of dollars from 2004 until at least 2009, according to thousands of internal documents obtained by The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media.

Halliburton and KBR have been in trouble for bribery in the past. After a years-long federal investigation, KBR pleaded guilty in 2009 to multiple criminal counts of violating U.S. foreign corruption laws by bribing Nigerian officials. KBR agreed to pay $402 million as part of a settlement. Halliburton and KBR also paid $177 million to settle SEC civil charges related to the same conduct. Three years later, Albert “Jack” Stanley, KBR's former CEO, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for his role in the scandal. As part of the deal with the Justice Department, KBR agreed to waive many of its legal rights if it was caught violating bribery laws again.

In the midst of the DOJ investigation, a KBR employee emailed Unaoil to warn the American company was "tightening" anti-corruption controls in response to the federal probe. Despite this, KBR continued to pay Unaoil for work in Kazakhstan for years afterward.

[Read more: There's A Huge New Corporate Corruption Scandal. Here's Why Everyone Should Care.]

Throughout the emails, Unaoil and Halliburton/KBR employees use code words to refer to partners in Kazakhstan. In February 2005, Richard Stuckey emailed Unaoil executive Peter Willimont from a Halliburton email address, urging him to start “hobknobbing” [sic] with insiders immediately. “My feeling is that a good spaghetti house is where it is at of course a little shashlik for lunch is good to digest also,” Stuckey wrote.

The code names -- which referred to an Italian oil company (spaghetti) and Kazakhstan’s state oil apparatus (shaslik, a form of kebab popular in Kazakhstan) -- won't protect Halliburton or KBR.

"If those emails were written after KBR was under investigation by the DOJ for prior violations, then the penalty will be far higher than it would be if this was a first-time violation," says Andy Spalding, a law professor at the University of Richmond who runs a blog on foreign bribery. "It doesn't matter what they're going to argue, because a third-party law firm is going to come in and read all these emails and interview all these employees and they're going to detect really quickly that they're not talking about food."

In 2004, Unaoil began trying to win a joint contract for KBR and Petrofac, a British firm, to work on the massive Kashagan oil field. The Kazakh Institute of Oil and Gas (KING), a wing of Kazakhstan's state-owned oil company, had been paying a man named Leonida Bortolazzo as a consultant, according to a memo a Halliburton/KBR employee sent bragging about Bortolazzo's influence in the country. But Unaoil was also paying Bortolazzo as much as $80,000 a month, according to a contract between the Monaco firm and Bortolazzo's consulting company. In one instance, Unaoil bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-end furniture for Bortolazzo, according to emails. Unaoil's contract with Bortolazzo also included a $165,000 signing bonus.

Halliburton had tried unsuccessfully since 1998 to secure contracts in Kazakhstan but hit repeated roadblocks. The development of the Kashagan field, one of the biggest reserves discovered in decades, is managed by the clunky bureaucracy of Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev with the help of a clique of international energy giants.

KBR's partnership with Unaoil was designed to give it an advantage in the Kashagan contracting process just as the international oil companies that were managing the field began moving ahead on their final plans to develop it.

Unaoil's focus on Italians, including Bortolazzo, shows that it knew whom to target. Bortolazzo was a former manager at ENI, an Italian oil firm that's been repeatedly accused of corruption. ENI -- the "spaghetti house" in the emails  -- is one of the smallest oil companies involved in managing the Kashagan field, but it has taken the lead on the reserve's development under a 2001 agreement between the foreign conglomerates and Kazakhstan's state-owned oil company. Leaked Unaoil emails indicate that Unaoil executives were trying to convince Halliburton/KBR managers they could procure confidential information from paid sources within ENI and the Kazakh government.

“We need to convince Richard [Stuckey, of Halliburton/KBR] … that we own the spaghetti house & have a lease on the shashlik takeaway,” Unaoil's Willimont wrote, forwarding Stuckey’s February 2005 email to Cyrus Ahsani, the CEO of Unaoil and the son of the company's founder. “This done we can get our deal signed.”  

Convincing Halliburton/KBR of its influence in Kazakhstan required Unaoil to accommodate some unusual requests. In August 2008, after KBR had split from Halliburton, Unaoil spent tens of thousands of euros on hotel rooms for Kazakh officials visiting Monaco, where Unaoil is headquartered, according to emails. That particular expense shows just how much suction Unaoil won in Kazakhstan for its American client: Among the officials it hosted was Kairat Boranbayev, at the time the chairman of the board of the Kazakh state oil company's joint venture with Gazprom, Russia's state-owned gas monopoly. Unaoil officials were at pains to find him space at a "Prestigious Hotel" given that he was visiting right as Monaco was hosting high-profile soccer matches. Boranbayev ended up in a suite at the Fairmont worth €1,700 a night. His aides stayed in more basic rooms that only cost €900 nightly. Boranbayev is today known for his ties to the Kazakh dictator (his daughter married Nazarbayev's grandson at a 2013 wedding featuring Kanye West), lavish moves like paying Pussycat Dolls star Nicole Scherzinger more than $100,000 to perform at his posh London home and his control of Kazakhstan's McDonald's franchise.

The expenses were worth it for Unaoil because of KBR's high profile. "This is the best agency we have have ever had," Willimont wrote in a June 2008 email to Cyrus Ahsani. "Our ability to live from the reputation of working with KBR is immense." Unaoil would tout its work with KBR in marketing materials for years to come.

Did Unaoil bribe public officials? "The answer is absolutely no," Ata Ahsani, the company's founder, told The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media.

The "alleged behavior" of "some" of "Eni's employees is in detriment of the company, as well as in direct and obvious conflict with Eni’s code of ethics that any employee is required to fully comply [with]," an Eni spokeswoman said in an email. "We do not comment … on the results of possible internal investigations." The spokeswoman was not referring to Bortolazzo specifically.

Bortolazzo did not respond to a request for comment. 

Kazakhstan's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the role of the state-owned oil company and associated officials. A spokesperson for Boranbayev said he was on vacation and not available for comment.

Halliburton and KBR deny wrongdoing. "Halliburton maintains an active, comprehensive Ethics & Compliance Program which includes business practices and policies to ensure that Halliburton and its employees are compliant with all regulatory laws and requirements globally," Halliburton said in an email to The Huffington Post. "We have no current or recent relationship with [Unaoil]. Halliburton has not owned KBR since 2007 so we have no knowledge of its business relationships."

KBR "is committed to conducting its business honestly, with integrity, and in compliance with all applicable laws," the company said in a statement. "We do not tolerate illegal or unethical practices by our employees or others working on behalf of the Company."

But emails between Unaoil and Halliburton/KBR employees during the Justice Department's investigation into previous bribery allegations show a company rushing to discontinue practices that could raise red flags with investigators, but not severing the underlying partnership. In July 2005, Tony Fossey, KBR’s finance manager for the Kashagan Project, emailed Willimont to discuss KBR’s “Nigerian agent problem,” referring to the Justice Department’s investigation into the group bribing Nigerian officials to win contracts. Fossey, who left the company that year, refused to comment on the record.

At the time, Unaoil listed a London address on its contract with KBR, but requested payment from KBR through a wire transfer to Monaco. “A part of the fall-out from [the DOJ investigation], is a considerable, ‘tightening’ or our US management’s approach to controlling the whole arena of agent payments,” Fossey wrote to Willimont, explaining that sending payment to Monaco, a country not listed on the contract, could violate FCPA rules. It's not clear from the emails whether the payment ever went through.

In 2006, Halliburton objected to making a payment to a bank account in the Channel Islands, a notorious offshore tax haven, on the grounds that the Unaoil subsidiary named in their contract was in fact based in Monaco, according to emails. Unaoil agreed to accept payment at its Monaco bank account.

In 2008, Unaoil employees determined the company needed a new bank account in Kazakhstan to receive payments from KBR. "We need to open a new Bank Account… in Kazakhstan into which our future KBR revenues will flow," Sandy Young, Unaoil's finance manager, wrote to another employee in February of that year. "More and more our principals are asking to have the right to audit our companies as part of their governance rules and it is much easier for us to comply with this request if we use a separate bank account (this way we can limit the access we give them to information about our company activity)."

As late as January 2009, KBR was making payments to Unaoil. That month, it paid $936,713.37 to Unaoil's new account in Kazakhstan, according to a bank transfer record included in one of the emails.

A few weeks later, on Feb. 11, KBR entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department regarding its activities in Nigeria, and agreed to pay a $402 million criminal fine. Its work with Unaoil didn't come up.

Patrick Stokes, one of the three lawyers who prosecuted the Nigeria case against KBR, is still a top official at the Justice Department division charged with cracking down on foreign bribery. 

Fairfax Media
Read The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media's full investigation here.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

California Reaches Deal For $15 Minimum Wage

SACRAMENTO (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown said on Monday he had reached a deal with top legislators and labor leaders to gradually raise the minimum wage to $15, the latest in a wave of minimum wage increases at the state level following a push by Democrats.

The proposal, which still must win approval from moderate lawmakers in the California assembly, would gradually raise the state's minimum wage to $15, but give the governor the right to opt out if the economy faltered.

Such a move would give California the highest statewide minimum wage. The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour for more than six years.

Raising the minimum wage has cropped up on many Democratic Party candidates' agendas ahead of the November presidential, congressional and state elections. The issue could help mobilize Democratic voters and galvanize support from labor unions.

"An agreement has been reached with key labor leaders, legislative leaders and my administration to raise the minimum wage over time to $15 an hour, making California the first state to do that," Brown said at a press conference in Sacramento.

"It's a matter of economic justice and it makes sense," Brown said.

The deal would commit California to raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022 for large businesses and 2023 for smaller firms.

The measure’s chances of passing the legislature will depend on support from moderate Democrats, who have held up other measures backed by the governor.

Democratic Party presidential hopeful U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by the year 2020.

The idea has been opposed by Republicans and some business groups, who have said a higher minimum would harm small businesses and strain the budgets of government agencies.

Christopher Thornberg, founding partner at Beacon Economics, said increasing the minimum wage was not an effective tool in reducing poverty because those most at risk of falling into poverty tend lose their jobs when employers cut positions.

"This is not costless," Thornberg said. “These are the people that businesses will say, "If I’m going to pay $15 bucks an hour, I’m not going to hire them.'"

Fourteen states and several cities began 2016 with minimum wage increases, typically phasing in raises that will ultimately take them to between $10 and $15 an hour.

 

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein, Robin Respaut and Dan Whitcomb; Writing by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Grant McCool and Alan Crosby)


Monday, March 28, 2016

Businesses Are Joining The Fight Against North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law

  • PayPal, Dow Chemical, the NBA, the NCAA, Google and other businesses oppose North Carolina's new anti-LGBT law.
  • The law effectively legalizes discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual people.
  • Some of the state's biggest businesses have yet to speak up.

Companies are taking a stand against North Carolina's new anti-LGBT law, which Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed on Wednesday.

House Bill 2, approved by the state's General Assembly in a special session, prevents cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. The law came in response to an anti-discrimination ordinance recently passed in Charlotte, which allowed transgender people to use the bathroom designated for the gender with which they identify. Conservatives, including McCrory, vowed to take down the so-called bathroom bill, arguing the law would give predators license to enter women's bathrooms. (As HuffPost's Amanda Terkel reports, this rhetoric has doomed many equal rights initiatives.)

The resulting legislation is a wide-ranging measure that blocks local governments from passing laws protecting LGBT people, requires schools to designate single-sex bathrooms based on "biological sex" and preempts city policies involving wages, benefits and other workplace regulations.

Corporate leaders in the state have been swift to condemn the law, echoing the backlash that helped take down Indiana's "religious freedom" law last year.

Dow Chemical, which has several factories in the state, tweeted its opposition to the law:

Biogen, a biotech company that employs more than 1,000 North Carolinians, also opposes HB 2: 

PayPal, which just announced a new 400-person office in Charlotte, offered a similar message:

The law also drew opposition from the NCAA, which had planned to host at least 20 high-profile games in the state in 2017 and 2018, including the immensely popular Division I men's tournament. The association hinted that HB 2 could change its mind.

"We’ll continue to monitor current events, which include issues surrounding diversity, in all cities bidding on NCAA championships and events, as well as cities that have already been named as future host sites," the organization said in a statement. "Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA values. It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events."

American Airlines, which has a major hub in Charlotte, also condemned HB 2.

“We believe no individual should be discriminated against because of gender identity or sexual orientation,” American Airlines spokeswoman Katie Cody said. “Laws that allow such discrimination go against our fundamental belief of equality and are bad for the economies of the state in which they are enacted.”

The NBA, which has scheduled the league's 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte, said its leaders "do not know" how the law will affect plans for the game:

 Google, Apple, IBM and Bayer weighed in as well: 

Another big name going after the law is Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who fought Indiana's anti-LGBT bill and is battling a similar bill in Georgia. Benioff told The Huffington Post he is lobbying Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Charlotte-based Bank of America, to speak out against the law. The bank, one of the largest employers in the state, has not specifically condemned the legislation, but did release a statement to the Charlotte Observer saying the company has "been steadfast in our commitment to non discrimination and in our support for LGBT employees through progressive workplace policies and practices.

Equality groups are also pressing Bank of America, along with BB&T and Burt's Bees (a subsidiary of Clorox) to break their silence on the law.

"As three of the largest corporations in North Carolina, all of which proudly protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees through LGBTQ inclusive non-discrimination policies, we believe these corporations have a moral obligation and responsibility to voice their opposition when state legislatures put the communities they serve in danger of discrimination," said Brad Delaney of One Million Kids For Equality in a Wednesday statement.

Facebook, which has a data center in Forest City, said it was "disappointed" by the law. "As a company, Facebook is an open and vocal supporter of equality. We believe in ensuring the rights of LGBT individuals and oppose efforts that discriminate against people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation,” a company spokesperson said.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was among those from outside the business community to express disappointment.

On Thursday evening, demonstrators gathered outside the governor's mansion on North Blount Street in downtown Raleigh. Several were arrested, according to posts to Twitter and Facebook.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Why Levi's Is Giving Away Its Trade Secrets

Levi Strauss & Co. is giving away its special sauce.

The blue-jeans behemoth said Tuesday that it plans to reveal its strategies for reducing water use by 96 percent when making denim, so the tactics can be adopted by competitors across the industry. The announcement came on World Water Day, the holiday designated 23 years ago by the United Nations for celebrating the availability of fresh water. 

“Water is a critical resource for our business, the planet and people around the globe, but usable supply is becoming increasingly scarce,” Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability at Levi's, said in a statement. “We’ve long been committed to being water stewards, but realize more needs to be done. We’re setting competition aside and encouraging others to utilize these open source tools.”

Levi's introduced its suite of 21 water-saving methods in 2011, including strategies like buying only sustainable cotton and using less water when finishing and washing denim. Since then, the company has conserved more than 1 billion liters of water. If its techniques were to become industry standard, Levi's estimates they could save 50 billion liters by 2020. 

"Making the jeans we wear is a very thirsty business," Brooke Barton, water program director at the nonprofit sustainability group Ceres, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Levi's commitment to open source this technology means that others in the apparel sector have no excuse but to step up their game."

Levi's, whose CEO Chip Bergh famously eschews washing his jeans, said Tuesday that it plans to double-down on its sustainability efforts by 2020, the year many companies have set for overhauls in their supply chains and environmental policies.

By then, the company aims to source 100 percent of its cotton from farms certified by the nonprofit Better Cotton Initiative or from recycled material. Up to 80 percent of all Levi's products will be made with water-saving techniques, trademarked under its Water<Less brand. As part of its partnership with nonprofit The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation, it will eliminate all hazardous chemicals from its supply chain in the next four years. And, as part of an initiative backed by the White House, all corporate employees at the company will complete Project WET water education training.

The idea of allowing competitors behind the curtain in hopes of fostering higher industry standards isn't new.

As far back as the 1960s, Swedish automaker Volvo invented the three-point seat belt and promptly gave away the design to other manufacturers to make all cars safer -- not just its own. 

More recently, in 2010, Nike released a tool featuring many of its environmental design techniques, for free use by other clothing manufacturers. Three years later, the company folded the tool into a free app called Making that draws data from the Nike Materials Sustainability Index.

In June 2014, Tesla pledged not to sue anyone who used the electric carmaker's patented technology "in good faith," in hopes of cultivating a bigger industry for rechargeable vehicles. The argument was that copycat companies would expand the market, and the rising tide would raise all ships.

Levi's move is less about increasing competition and more about sharing strategies it's already developed. It's a refreshing perspective in a time of water crises. 


Friday, March 25, 2016

Having A Bad Day/Week/Month At Work? Here's How To Turn That Around

Michelle Gielan is a big fan of positive thinking. A former journalist for CBS News, Gielan believes that focusing on good news goes much further than harping on the bad.

Gielan, now a positive psychology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Broadcasting Happiness, previously examined the impact that solution-based news reporting had on readers. She found that people don't necessarily favor depressing or sensational stories. They also enjoy stories that present society's problems as opportunities for improvement -- and they were more likely to share those stories with friends and family.

Intrigued by the results, Gielan decided to take a look at whether a solution-based approach would help solve problems in the workplace too. Her latest research, conducted in partnership with The Huffington Post, focuses on how managers can better talk about issues in the office and get people to think creatively.

The key, once again, is to not just highlight what’s going wrong, like poor quarterly results or a change in management, but to offer solutions for those specific problems. That way, team members are thinking about how to improve going forward, rather than becoming dejected by less-than-ideal results at work.

“Managers struggle with telling their teams about bad news, but you don’t have to isolate your team from bad news,” Gielan told HuffPost. “You have to do it in a way that gets their brain moving from problems to potential solutions.”

For the study, 248 participants were asked to read an article that either revolved around a problem or explained both the problem and solutions. One article, for example, looked at food insecurity in the United States, while another discussed ways in which food bank shortages could be avoided.

Those who read a solution-based article reported feeling less hostile, less uptight and less agitated than those who had read a problem-based article. But the researchers didn't just observe a difference in participants' mood: When individuals read about solutions or actions that would be easy for them to recreate (like donating to a food bank), they improved by 20 percent on a task they were asked to complete later.

“When you remind people of their ability to control specific things, people do better” on tasks, she said.

In a way, she added, putting forward solutions among team members in an office isn’t too different from a news outlet highlighting positive stories for its readers.

“We’re constantly broadcasting info to people, as team members, as managers, as parents, and it can fuel people to success or hold them back,” Gieland said. “How can a business change what it’s broadcasting to its employees?”

Positive thinking can go beyond the office, too. A growing body of research has supported the benefits of this optimism to physical health, including reducing the risk of heart disease and improving immune system function.

But some caution against getting carried away with positive thinking. A recent study published in the journal Psychological Science posits that leaning too heavily on optimistic fantasies could, in the long run, exacerbate symptoms of depression.

Instead, those researchers suggested that positive thinking be taken in the right doses -- and that people remain realistic about achieving their goals.


Thursday, March 24, 2016

Even At A Company Obsessed With Fair Pay, Women Make Less Than Men

To get a sense of how complicated the gender pay gap is, take a look at Buffer, an 85-person company seemingly obsessed with paying workers fairly.

Nothing about salary is secret at the social media management company. A publicly available spreadsheet documents each Buffer employee’s salary. There’s little confusion over the rationale behind the numbers: To figure out what to pay people, Buffer uses what it believes to be a clear formula. Workers are paid according to the cost of living where they work, the market rate for their particular position and their experience level (the formula is also publicly available.)

There are no ambiguous annual bonuses doled out based on subjective measures of how you perform. Instead you get a 5 percent raise each year, categorized as a “loyalty increase.”

Yet despite a clearly scrupulous commitment to pay fairness, Buffer just realized that women at the company make less than men overall. The average annual salary for a man at Buffer is $98,705, while women make $89,205, according to internal analysis from Feb. 23, Buffer released last week -- its first look at gender and pay.

“We were surprised,” Courtney Seiter, who heads up Buffer’s inclusivity efforts, told The Huffington Post. “We’ve had transparent salaries for two and half years, we put out so much data that it never occurred to us to analyze it [for gender] until recently.”

Salary transparency is supposed to be a magical disinfectant for the stubborn scourge of gender pay inequality -- the fact that women make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, according to federal data. An increasing number of companies are starting to examine how they pay men and women -- including Intel, Salesforce and Apple -- in an attempt to root out bias. (Others, like Amazon, stubbornly refuse.)

Many think that getting rid of secrecy around pay is the key to equality. California recently passed a fair pay law that protects workers who talk openly about pay. 

There’s even a bill lurking around Congress -- floated by GOP senators -- to make it easier for workers to talk about how much they make, for the express goal of getting rid of pay inequity.

“Ensuring transparency would not only make it easier for workers to recognize pay discrimination, it would also empower them to negotiate their salaries effectively,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) told an audience at the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Friday, pushing for the bill, the Workplace Advancement Act, which offers stronger legal protections for workers who share salary information.

It’s not clear if Fischer thinks transparency will be enough to root out gender pay discrimination, but she used her time before the conservative group to criticize other efforts around fixing the gender pay gap, including a recent proposal floated by the Obama administration that would require companies with more than 100 employees to turn over data on worker pay, ethnicity, race and gender, with the Labor Department.

Through a spokesperson, Fischer declined to comment to HuffPost on the new Buffer data, which suggests that figuring out the pay gap does not end with transparency. You must also take a deeper look at the numbers, as Buffer is now starting to do. Fischer called such efforts -- if required by government mandate -- too cumbersome for the private sector.

Of course, knowing what your colleagues make is powerful information. The knowledge certainly helps you figure out if you’re making a fair wage. Armed with this information, women (and men) can negotiate for raises; I’ve written about this before. If Lilly Ledbetter had only learned sooner that she was paid far less than her male colleagues at Goodyear, perhaps she wouldn’t have wound up filing a lawsuit against the company that went all the way to the Supreme Court -- which she lost for waiting too long to sue.

However, the reason women in the United States make less money than men is too complicated for negotiation alone to fix.

A number of factors drive the gap. Women tend to work in lower paying fields: More men are engineers and CEOs. More women are social workers and human resource managers. At Buffer more men work as developers, who are paid more than those in customer service, for example.

This is not simply the result of choice, but a more complicated stew of gender bias that both funnels women into lower-paying fields and depresses wages in fields that are dominated by women, as a recent piece in the New York Times explained.

Within professions, women tend to make less money because they gravitate to work that is less demanding or requires fewer hours. Many need flexibility and time to take care of children and family. So more men become partner at high-paying law firms, while female lawyers might gravitate to lower-paying in-house legal jobs, for example. The work of economist Claudia Goldin at Harvard has been emphatic on this point. It also means that we take more time away from the workforce, further depressing wages.

Negotiation won’t fix this. Policy solutions might help, for example, by providing paid parental leave and, possibly, subsidized child-care that would allow more women to stay in the workforce and even out the gap.

On top of all this, there’s still the “unexplained gap,” the difference between men and women’s pay that cannot be accounted for by looking at years in the workforce or occupation. Even when you control for that stuff, women’s pay does not quite match up to men’s.

There’s plenty of blame-the-victim theorizing in this area -- where researchers look at how women negotiate pay or advocate for promotions. And how employers respond when women do step up and ask for more.

At Buffer, women make less than men for a few reasons, Seiter theorizes.

First, like so many tech startups the company, founded in 2010, is majority male: 70 percent of workers are men.  Buffer’s earliest employees were men, and because of the salary formula -- remember, $5,000 a year for “loyalty” -- that means they make more money. Seiter calls this a “diversity debt.”

It’s not hard to imagine that such a debt, which puts men ahead of the game right at the founding of an organization, is common at other places.

“There are very subtle ways that this debt can accrue if we aren’t deliberate,” Seiter said, noting that the software company Salesforce (also a male-founded and dominated company) recently spent $3 million adjusting salaries to get rid of its pay gap. If Buffer hadn’t caught this, “we could’ve turned around and had a Salesforce situation,” she said.

Second, men are more likely to work as developers at Buffer. And developers are paid more. You’ll see (in the chart above) that in customer service at Buffer, women are actually paid equitably.

There's evidence that the gender pay gap is wider in fields that are dominated by men, Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at salary website Glassdoor, told Huffpost. Chamberlain is immersed in salary data, which Glassdoor collects from users of its job-seeking site. He was surprised that even at a company that practices salary transparency, there would still be a pay gap. "Fascinating," he said.

The third and trickier reason for the pay gap at Buffer could be its salary formula, Seiter said. “The only area where we haven’t licked unconscious bias is in assessing experience level,” she said. “We don’t have a hard and fast criteria.”

At Buffer an employee’s experience level -- intermediate, advanced or master -- is arrived at by considering a mix of criteria, including years in the workforce and skills. It’s perhaps telling that 61 percent of male employees at Buffer are considered advanced and just 38 percent of women get the same grade. At master level, things are more equal: 4.1 percent of women are master level, compared to 3.5 percent of men.

The company plans to take a fresh look at how it measures experience, going forward. And, at the same time, will aggressively try to hire more women in an effort to even out pay. Seiter also said Buffer wants to be more deliberate in laying out the steps employees need to take to advance up the ladder.

Still, for her part, Seiter does not believe she is paid unfairly and believes her colleagues are similarly situated. After all, this is a company where you can easily click to find out how much the guy next to you makes. “We talk about pay a lot in a philosophical way, but the talks don't have a feeling of insecurity or any kind of doubt.”


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

What The US Can Learn From UK Supermarket Donating Unsold Food

One of the U.K.’s -- and the world’s -- biggest grocery store chains announced big news on the food waste front this month.

In the coming months, Tesco, which boasts some 6,800 stores worldwide but is headquartered in England, will expand its 14-store trial run of an initiative that saved the equivalent of 50,000 meals worth of food from heading to a landfill, donating that food, instead, to charity groups.

The company plans to have the program, powered by a digital food-redistribution platform called FareShare, in place across all of its U.K. stores by the end of 2017. By that time, the chain aims to partner with 5,000 different charity recipients of its unsold food.

Tesco’s announcement comes on the heels of a number of new developments on food waste to come out in recent months.

Last week, Italy followed in France’s footsteps by becoming the second country in the world to require that supermarkets donate their unsold food to charities instead of throwing it away. And earlier this year, Denmark became home to its first supermarket dedicated entirely to “surplus” food.

Compared to the momentum happening around food waste abroad, U.S. efforts on the issue make for decidedly less eye-grabbing headlines.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture announced an ambitious goal for the U.S. to cut its food waste by 50 percent by the year 2030, but progress toward that goal has felt slow.

Emily Broad Leib, director of Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic, says that is because the U.S. has arrived at the issue later than countries like France and the U.K., where efforts to address the issue have gotten a significant head start on the U.S. and are, just now, coming to fruition.

Still, Leib noted, Americans are making significant progress.

“I do think it’s on the radar of more and more stores,” Leib told The Huffington Post.

A handful of states have already passed some kind of legislation aimed at reducing food waste, with encouraging results. In Vermont, some food charities reported a 50 percent surge in donations after a new law capping the amount of food companies can bring to a landfill went into effect in 2014. A similar law also went into effect in Massachusetts last year.

Perhaps more notably, companies themselves are being proactive on the issue.

Credit: Toby Talbot/Associated Press
In this Nov. 15, 2013 photo, a truckload of food scraps is dumped at Vermont Compost in Montpelier. The state's food waste legislation puts a cap on the amount of food that can be sent to a landfill.

Walmart announced, last year, that it had asked its private brand suppliers to switch to standardized labeling stating, only, “best if used by” dates rather than the endless variations of alternative labels that often cause consumers to throw out food that was still perfectly safe to eat.

“It doesn’t seem like a big change, but part of the challenge when labels are not standard is that consumers aren’t sure what to gather from that,” Leib said, “but standardized labeling resonates with consumers.”

William Fisher, vice president of science and policy initiatives at the Chicago-based Institute of Food Technologists, agreed.

A paper Fisher co-authored in 2014 argued that inconsistent date labeling on food products not only led to consumer confusion and food waste, but also an unneeded financial burden for consumers and retailers alike. The paper concludes by calling for uniformity in date labeling and increased consumer education on what different terms on date labels actually mean.

More generally, Fisher added, he believes the industry is more willing “than ever before” to tackle sustainability issues like food waste.

“It’s not a fad and it’s clearly not a trend,” Fisher told HuffPost. “When I talk to people even around the world on this, I see progress being made every day.”

David Fikes, vice president of the Food Marketing Institute, which helps operate the industry-led Food Waste Reduction Alliance, said the alliance's members are not only open to the idea of taking action but are already doing so.

Members of the group, co-operated by the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association and National Restaurant Association and FMI, also include industry heavyweights like General Mills, McDonald’s and Kellogg’s. One member company, Kroger, is using food waste to help power one of its distribution centers in California via an anaerobic digester. Another, Wegmans, has made significant strides with its composting efforts.

Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Peppers are displayed for sale at a Kroger store in Peoria, Illinois, on June 16, 2015.

Frankly, Fikes added, caring about food waste is just not a tough sell to the industry at this time.

“There is no one in this business who wants to see food go to waste,” Fikes said. “It’s bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the environment. Everyone in this industry would like to see food waste reduced if not completely eradicated.”

Though the industry is largely aware of the strategies available for addressing the problem and willing to give them a go, there are still significant obstacles to them doing just that.

According to Fikes, the U.S. is at a disadvantage at dealing with food waste compared to European countries due to the layers of regulations presented by local, state and federal government.

Infrastructure like storage capacity and transportation methods are also a concern, as Fikes pointed out that it takes time to prepare for a surge in donations between food retailers and charities like what was seen in Vermont.

And though current federal law already protects “good Samaritan” food donors in the event of donated food “causing harm” to its recipient, Fikes said those laws could be stronger.

Still, Fikes says his group and other industry leaders are keeping a close eye on how European initiatives on food waste pan out.

“It’s a bit of a different environment, but there’s no reason we can’t take success stories from there and apply them to what we’re doing here,” Fikes said.

The need for action is significant. According to the EPA, the U.S. sends approximately 30 million tons of food to landfills each year, waste that emits methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

And addressing food waste in retail environments is just part of the battle. American consumers, in their own home, shoulder the largest portion of the blame, tossing out an estimated $640 worth of food per household each year.