Category Archives: Business

Doffing and Donning the Final Decision

Posted on by

Donning and DoffingI recently wrote about the case before the Supreme Court which asked the question of whether or not a company must pay their workers for time spent putting on and taking off required clothing and safety gear. The main issue being safety gear.

Well, the court has ruled!

In my original blog I discussed how difficult a question the court was examining. I found it not surprising that most of the commenters didn’t think it was a tricky question and wondered why the court was examining something so “simple”. Most people thought the case was rather silly but the reality is that industry was watching it very closely. There are many jobs which require a uniform or considerable safety equipment and the amount of time spent changing clothes can run from a few minutes to more than an hour for “clean room” laboratories. Police Officers, Firemen, food industry workers, mill workers, the list goes on and on and it was an important question. Are companies required to pay people for the time they spend doffing and donning?

My suggestion was that some minimal change time be the responsibility of the employees and anything over it be the responsibility of the company. Let’s say five minutes to change in and out of clothes at the beginning and end of the workday. So, if it takes an emergency technician eight minutes to change in and out of clothes they must be paid for the three minutes over the “free” period.

What did the Supreme Court decide? In a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia they decided it was not their business. If a contract between employees and a business stipulates that donning and doffing should be paid time then, it should be so; it not, it shouldn’t.

This is viewed as a “win” for U.S. Steel because the current contract with the union does not pay for such time. The reality is that the union will just have to negotiate such pay in future contracts. It’s not really a “win” for anyone, it just clarifies the law. If you want to be paid for donning and doffing then you have to make sure it’s in the contract.

Upon reflection and reading the opinion I’m in agreement. My system would, as Justice Scalia points out, convert federal judges into time-study professionals.

It’s good when laws are clarified so that everyone knows the rules and can write contracts accordingly. People may view this as a win for business and a loss for employees but I don’t see it that way. Employees who spend considerable time donning and doffing will have to make sure their contracts cover such events. Companies that want to attract the best and hardest working employees understand they will have to offer such compensation where a large amount of time is spent in such activities.

I would tell the Justices “good job” but I don’t think they much need to hear it from the likes of me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Scarlett Johansson and the Banned Phrase

Posted on by

Scarlett and SodaStreamSuper Bowl 48 (yes, I wrote 48, not LXVIII) is fast approaching and that means it is time for advertising executives to get their game face on. I suppose the players need to prep as well.

There’s an interesting controversy that gives me the opportunity to write a blog about Scarlett Johansson, football, capitalism, and my libertarian ideology.

Win, win, win, and win!

Scarlett is doing an advertisement for a company called SodaStream that allows people to make soda in their home from raw ingredients rather than having to purchase finished soda.

There is another controversy over the fact that SodaStream is an Israeli company with a factory in the West Bank but that’s not what I’m going to talk about today. What I want to talk about is a commercial SodaStream planned to run during the Super Bowl in which Scarlett says, “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi“.

This was apparently enough for Fox, who is airing the game, to refuse to the show it. They have told SodaStream to change those words to something that doesn’t mention the two beverage giants by name.

Some countries have laws against comparative advertising but the United States actually encourages it as long as the comparisons are clearly identified, truthful, and non-deceptive.

So what’s the problem? Pepsi and Coca-Cola are both sponsors of the Super Bowl and advertisements shown by both companies are much more aggressive against each other than is this SodaStream advertisement against them. Coca-cola representatives claim they didn’t put any pressure on Fox to refuse to air the commercial.

I suspect it is an effort by someone at the Fox Network to curry favor from Coca-cola and Pepsi. Normally I would say that it’s their network and they have the right to refuse a commercial. I only wish they had censored the Go Daddy, Bar Refaeli kissing scene from Super Bowl 47. I’m eating here!

But this refusal seems to be for no good reason and smacks of censorship, favoritism, and particularly crony capitalism.

Of course, it accomplishes the opposite of what was desired in that it gives SodaStream a huge amount of free publicity and everyone will want to see the original ad.

That being the case, I can’t get overly angry about Fox’s decision but I don’t like it. It’s difficult enough for a small company to take on an Enterprise Business in the world today. If small businesses aren’t even allowed to advertise as they desire, within the realms of legality, then their uphill struggle is even greater.

Competition is good. Suppression of competition is bad. What’s good for our country is the free exercise of capitalism, not Crony Capitalism.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Misleading Headline Crowdfunding and Zach Braff

Posted on by

ZachBraff and CrowdfundingZach Braff tried to destroy crowdfunding, at least that’s what the headline seems to proclaim.

Despite Zach Braff, crowdfunding Continues to Grow.

The article goes on to explain how Braff’s crowdfunding movie project, Wish I Was Here, brought a whole new level of interest to the idea of crowdfunding which is exactly the opposite of what the headline suggests.

For those of you who are not familiar with the idea of crowdfunding I’ll explain. The concept is that you start a project and anyone donates money towards it in exchange for future rewards dependent on the level of money given. For a movie perhaps you would get entrance to the screening and attend an after-party with Braff.

As I read the comments below the story there was a distinctly negative tone to them. People were angry that the wealthy, like Braff, were asking regular people for money to fund projects. The comments were filled with angry people suggesting that anyone donating money was a fool.

I shook my head, why this animosity, why the anger? Time to put on my Critical Thinking cap. Who would be against crowdfunding?

A quick perusal of the Wiki article brings immediate clarity to the subject. Bankers. Legislation is already signed and regulation is on the way. I expect a veritable flotilla of articles and politicians trying to convince us how dangerous is crowdfunding and how it must be regulated. All for our own protection, of course.

Let’s imagine for a moment a community needs a road repaired. In the past the government would contract out to do this using bonds. Perhaps a business needs to make a capital improvement and they raise money by borrowing it from a bank. The money is returned with interest.

In a crowdfunding situation who is left out of the equation? Banks.

I contribute to a cause of my choosing directly. I’m aware of exactly what my “interest” payment will be. Perhaps I fund a Kickstarter campaign for a Pathfinder Compatible Role-Playing Game called Throne of Night. I give $150 dollars and, if it is completed, get all the books in the campaign signed by the authors.

Naturally there is a risk. The books might not be finished; although there are then legal remedies to get my money back. Crowdfunding is considered a legal contract.

Crowdfunding appeals directly to my Libertarian ideology. If a community cannot raise the funds for a road improvement then perhaps the improvement was not needed.

The idea is certainly appealing to people as more and more projects are funded this way. Imagine a world where projects that are the most worthwhile to people are the ones that get financial backing. Wasteful projects that appeal to a very few cannot get funded. You loan directly to friends; you take out loans not from banks but from a group of people who believe in you. Tax dollars not needed because projects were funded directly by the willing.

Is there danger? Certainly. Is it possible that a hugely valuable project isn’t appealing to the masses and doesn’t get completed? Yes. Can you lose your investment to shady operators? Absolutely. Are your neighbors going to crowdfund your gutter replacement, probably not.

I’m certainly not suggesting that crowdfunding can pay for all capital expenses but each project funded by people is one less funded by banks. That’s money out of someone’s pocket.

I expect to see a big push to vilify crowdfunding. It’s a danger to a certain group of people. People who have a lot of money and a lot of power in politics.

Where do you stand?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Netflix Doomed! – Stupid Headline of the Week

Posted on by

Netflix Stupid HeadlineThe financial sector seems to be the most rife with stupid headlines although this week it’s The Street instead of Motley Fool that takes the prize.

Netflix Could Crash – Hard – Next Week boldly screams the headline.

When you click on the article you find a highly speculative piece of fluff wherein the author has a hunch, based on the assumed ulterior motives of another story, that this might be the quarter that Netflix doesn’t meet its subscriber expectations.

Now Rocco could be correct about Netflix, but this article is so speculative and filled with assumption, rather than any actual metrics, that it’s hard not to ridicule the author. Let’s just say I wouldn’t want him providing me with financial advice. It’s not only a stupid headline but the article is probably worse.

Enjoy.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (buy it, read it, write a review, buy it again!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

 

No Shoppers, No Stores

Posted on by

Retail Foot TrafficWarning – Warning – Warning! Boring economic blog ahead.

I just finished what I think is a great article about how foot traffic at retail stores is dropping dramatically and how less retail space is opening each year in the United States.

Great news? For the doomsayers it means that Americans have no money and aren’t doing any shopping. I take an entirely different view. Firstly, Americans aren’t going to the store nearly as often because they can do most of their shopping online. That much is pretty obvious and is a trend that has been going on for a number years. The second thing I think it means is that Americans are more wary of going deeply into debt to purchase things.

The most recent economic crisis made us wary, just like it made those who survived the Great Depression big savers. For too long the government has encouraged us, nay, bribed us to spend, spend, spend.

From 1946 to 1973 the US economy grew by an average of 3.8% a year and median household income grew by 2.1% a year. The children of the Great Depression died and their children grew up expecting an expanding economy that would go on forever.

Since 1973 the economy has grown at an average rate of 2.7% a year and median household income has grown by 0.3% per year. Even these number were largely propped up by your tax dollars in the form of “Stimulus”. It started under President Reagan, the Democratically controlled House, and a Senate controlled by Republicans from 1981 to 1987. They managed to triple our national debt trying to stave off economic recession.

It’s been nothing but the same since. Ever increasing national debt in the pursuit of economic growth to match the post World War II era. That’s not my point today. My point today is that it just might be possible that Americans are voluntarily tightening their belts!

I know the naysayers will claim we are still in a depression, the unemployment numbers are higher than they seem. It’s funny, when a republican is President it’s my democrat friends who claim the numbers are rigged but when it’s a democrat in the White House it’s my republican friends who make the exact same argument. Thus you gain a little glimpse into the life of an Independent.

The reality is the numbers are rigged, but they are the same number so they are useful as comparison tools. The equations are largely unchanged, and if they show the economy is growing and the deficit is shrinking, it is doing so in comparison to numbers from previous years.

I can also judge by personal stories of friends in various businesses. Things are going much better, for virtually everyone I know, than they were in four years ago. Not that I think the policies of the democrats or republicans are to be credited or blamed, it’s more of a natural cyclical event.

So, if the economy is growing, certainly not booming, why are retailers not building, why are shoppers not shopping? Online spending is up immensely but not quite enough to cover the losses of the retail brick and mortar stores.

It’s certainly possible I’m wrong and that Americans are not becoming more frugal but it’s undeniable that we’re staying home to do our shopping. This is something I’ve spoken about in before. Read that blog to understand why I think it’s such a great thing, I won’t reiterate here.

So, when I hear fewer shopping malls are opening, when I hear that foot traffic in existing malls is way down, well, it brings a smile to my face. Then again, I’m an introvert. See you online!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (buy it, read it, write a review, buy it again!)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Can Bourbon be Japanese? Jim Beam Sold to Suntory

Posted on by

Jim BeamAs I get older I find that I don’t enjoy drinking as much as I did as a lad but I still enjoy a beer, scotch, gin, or whiskey now and again. I started drinking whiskey about twenty years ago when a friend of mine and I frequented a little place here in St. Louis that doesn’t exist anymore. We decided to have a little taste-testing excursion with bourbon. I’ve never looked back!

None of this is really pertinent to the story but perhaps explains why I was a little distressed to find that the iconic bourbon maker Jim Beam was being purchased by a Japanese company called Suntory. Judging by the comments I read at the bottom of the story; I think most people had my initial reaction to the sale, distress. I thought I’d write a blog on why it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Jim Beam is certainly an iconic American whiskey but those of us who imagine the romantic ideal of the family owned business that is beyond the globalization of today’s market are living in a fantasy realm. Beam purchased National Brands and renamed it Fortune Brands in 1987. This purchase brought with it a number of liquor brands and other products. By the time 2010 rolled around the company wasn’t doing so well and Fortune Brands began to spin-off their non-spirit components. The remaining company ended up being called Beam Inc.

During this time they worked hand-in-hand with a number of foreign companies namely Pernod Ricard of France. In addition they sold much of their wine operations to Constellation Brands. For most of the time they were also working directly with a Japanese brewing and distillery company named Suntory.

Beam acted as distributor for Suntory in a number of nations while Suntory did the same from Beam in other countries.

This is reality. We live in a global market and business leaders understand this. The next time you speak with a wealthy person ask them what percentage of their portfolio is in U.S. stocks. It’s not just about average folks purchasing Asian goods at Walmart. This is the world in which we live and those who don’t understand it are doomed to fall by the wayside.

We can spend our energy writing vitriolic comments about how United States has less economic power in the world but it’s not going to reverse the trend. We can complain and moan about how a great American Distillery has been sold out but the other option is worse; they are swamped by larger and more profitable companies and vanish.

While there are certainly dangers to globalization it is the reality of modern business. If you want the United States and the companies therein to bury their head in the sand, to wave their flags and ignore the economics of the actual world, well, be prepared for what happens.

I know we don’t like to hear it but its embrace globalization or be buried by it. This isn’t a joke, ask the CEO of any Fortune 1,000 company. Ask Parker and Craig Beam. They get it.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne