среда, 1 июля 2015 г.

uCustomer Claims Panera Soup Came With A Side Of Razor Blader


4 4 4 9
  • (Ryan)

    (Ryan)

    When ordering a cup or bowl of soup from Panera Bread most people would prefer to have a roll or chunk of baguette accompanying their meal. But a Florida woman says her soup came with something extra on a recent lunch trip to the restaurant: a razor blade.

    The woman says the sharp ordeal began after she went to a local Panera to pick up lunch for herself and a co-worker, Local 10 News reports.

    Once back to work, the woman began eating her lemon orzo soup, only to find her spoon caught on something.

    “I start eating the soup and then I hear this sound and the spoon is not moving, so I happen to look down and I see something shiny,” she said.

    That something shiny happened to be a small razor blade, the customer claims.

    The woman tells Local 10 News that she was so scared that she may have swallowed another blade, that she went to a doctor where she underwent blood work and received a tetanus shot.

    “That could have been someone’s child. That could have been my child,” the woman tells Local 10 News. “That could have been anybody that could have gotten hurt. Thank God I didn’t, because I looked down.”

    The woman then took the soup and its extra ingredient back to the Panera restaurant. The company apologized for the situation, issued her a refund and offered to pay her medical bills.

    “I don’t want you to throw money at me,” she said. “I mean, thank you for trying to pay my medical bills and giving me a gift card, but I really want to know what you’re doing to make sure (this never happens again).”

    In a statement to Local 10 News Panera said it had opened an internal investigation into the incident.

    “Earlier this week, a guest in one of our South Florida bakery-cafes reported finding a foreign object in her soup. We immediately responded and began an investigation to determine its source. The investigation is still in progress and we remain in close consultation with the guest and associates at the bakery-cafe. As always, the health and safety of our guests is of utmost importance.

    Reports like this are exceedingly rare, and we take them very seriously. Our bakery-cafe associates undergo consistent training to safely and efficiently serve more than 10 million guests per week. Our investigation is still underway. We use several tools with sharp edges for cutting, slicing and opening food in our bakery-cafes. The object in question has not yet been returned to Panera to be accurately inspected and identified.”

    Customer finds what appears to be razor blade in soup at Panera Bread [Local 10 News]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


Система Рябко Discovery про БИ, Бойцы ММА в гостях (Systema Ryabko) 2015.

вторник, 30 июня 2015 г.

uUnited Airlines Invests In Alternative Fuel Company, Plans To Use Biofuel In Trips This Summerr


4 4 4 9
  • Last year, Southwest Airlines announced it would start using biofuels created from forest remnants to power some flights beginning in 2016. Today, United Airlines raised the stakes in the alternative jet fuel game, announcing plans to fly a plane this summer using fuel generated from farm waste and oils derived from animal fats, while also investing millions of dollars in other alternative fuel processes. 

    The New York Times reports that Chicago-based United Airlines’ summer flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco is part of the company’s ongoing effort to cut down on carbon emission though the use of alternative jet fuels.

    In addition to sharing plans for the summer flights, United announced it would invest $30 million in Fulcrum BioEnergy, one of the largest producers of aviation biofuels.

    California-based Fulcrum has developed and certified a technology that turns household trash into aviation fuel. The company says its alternative fuel could cut an airline’s emission by about 80% when compared to traditional fuel.

    United expects to begin receiving fuel from Fulcrum in 2018, with quantities reaching 90 million gallons a year by 2020.

    That amount of alternative fuel could fuel up to 20,000 flights a year, but even that’s just a drop in the bucket for a major airline like United. Last year, the airline used an estimated 3.9 billion gallons of jet fuel.

    The airline’s deal with Fulcrum isn’t its first foray into alternative fuels. United conducted its first test flight using biofuels in 2009, and again using algae-based fuels in 2011, the NYT reports.

    In the more immediate future, United expects to receive nearly 15 million gallons of biofuel from AltAir Fuels this summer to power the Los Angeles to San Francisco flights.

    United entered into a deal with AltAir, which generates biofuels out of nonedible natural oils and agricultural waste, back in 2013.

    The company say that for the first few weeks after it acquires the AltAir fuel, four or five flights a day will use a mixture that is about 30% biofuel and 70% traditional jet fuel.

    “The AltAir project serves as a catalyst intended to pave the way for the industry,” Angela Foster-Rice, United’s managing director for environmental affairs and sustainability, tells the NYT.

    United and other airlines have been seeking out alternative fuel products in recent years after environmentalist and regulators began to raise concerns about the excessive release of carbon emissions from planes.

    Back in 2012, Consumerist reported that a number of airlines were looking in to greener ways of flying planes, but were running into roadblocks by way of high costs and low availability.

    Farm Waste and Animal Fats Will Help Power a United Jet [The New York Times]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uPew: With Nearly 23 Million Consumers Using Prepaid Cards, More Protections Are Neededr


4 4 4 9
  • To the naked eye, general purpose reloadable prepaid cards function much like long-established credit and debit cards and have quickly gained traction with consumers, especially those who have been shut out from traditional banking options. In fact, about 23 million consumers use prepaid cards regularly.

    That’s according to a new report [PDF] from Pew Charitable Trusts that examines consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perception based on whether or not they have a checking account.

    According to the latest “Banking on Prepaid” report, prepaid card use is becoming more and more common among individuals, even those who have bank accounts.

    Despite advocates’ concerns over some fee-laden cards, use of the banking product increased more than 50% between 2012 and 2014.

    While adoption of the products by those already served by traditional banking has increased, it’s consumers who fall into the “unbanked” category that drive the industry.

    These consumers often use the prepaid cards more like traditional checking accounts: checking their balances more regularly, reloading more frequently, and registering their cards more often than banked cardholders do.

    The cards also provide a welcome budgeting tool for many individuals, the report finds.

    Because most of the people who use the cards are unbanked and have annual household incomes below $50,000, they tend to use the cards as a way to help control spending, stay out of debt and avoid overdraft fees.

    Although the use of prepaid cards has steadily increased in recent years, some users remain confused by terms and conditions associated with the products.

    For example, the Pew report found that most prepaid card users do not know whether their funds are FDIC-insured or whether their cards have an arbitration clause.

    According to Pew, nearly all cards carry FDIC insurance, and about 77% of the cards studied included a binding arbitration clause.

    “The availability of these features depends on the policy of the prepaid card manager, and consumers must read and understand their account agreement to determine their status,” the report states.

    Still, many prepaid card holders who are covered by liability protections don’t know it.

    Such safeguards minimize or eliminate a cardholder’s liability for unauthorized use if a card is lost or stolen — but only if the card is registered and the problem is reported in a timely manner.

    “Unbanked prepaid cardholders tend to be less knowledgeable about this protection than those who also have bank accounts,” according to the report.

    Pew says the reports findings, both in the sheer use of prepaid cards and their limited safeguards, give credence to the fact that the products should have more regulatory protections, such as those proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in November 2014.

    “The findings in this report demonstrate the need for the CFPB to finalize its proposed rules on prepaid cards,” the report states. “This is especially important for the unbanked, for whom prepaid cards are often their only transaction account, to ensure that these cards are safe, transparent financial products with uniform protections against theft, loss, and deception.”

    The CFPB proposed a number of rules intended to extend the protections currently enjoyed by checking account and credit card users to the prepaid card market, including:
    • Monthly statements or free online access to account info.

    • $50 limit on fraudulent transactions for cardholders who report suspicious activity in a timely manner.

    • Standardized disclosure forms explaining all relevant fees and surcharges.

    • Limits and regulations involving prepaid debit cards that offer credit in the form of overdraft protection.

    “Ensuring the safety and transparency of these financial products is critical to the health of this fast-growing market and to the financial well-being of its customers,” the Pew report states.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uU.S. Chamber Of Commerce: Lobbying Hard For Big Tobacco Worldwider


4 4 4 9
  • The term “Chamber of Commerce” plants visions of a quaint, local organization helping hang banners in the town square at Christmas time, or sponsoring youth groups in a Fourth of July parade during warmer seasons. Realistically, however, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the nation’s largest business and commerce trade group. And among all their other lobbying work, the Chamber of Commerce has become one of the world’s biggest advocates for Big Tobacco, pushing that industry’s interests globally.

    The New York Times reports today on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s extensive efforts overseas, where it’s doing everything in its power to torpedo other nations’ anti-tobacco efforts.

    Big tobacco is, after all, big business — and the Chamber of Commerce exists to promote business interests. From one point of view, it’s a natural fit. And so the organization has taken on a global effort in order to bolster the interests of tobacco companies against other nations’ attempts to curtail the industry.

    It’s a tricky time for the tobacco industry, as the NYT points out. A global treaty, negotiated through the World Health Organization, has pushed anti-smoking and anti-tobacco measures worldwide. The treaty went into effect ten years ago and so far there are 179 signatory nations — but the United States, built in so many ways on the existence of tobacco farming, is not among them.

    In that intervening decade, many of the signatory nations have gotten moving on their promised anti-smoking legislation — and that’s where lobbying from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and its international partners, comes in.

    One of the biggest examples of the Chamber’s intervention that the NYT cites is one that comedian John Oliver delved into earlier this year: Ukraine’s unexpected support of Philip Morris in a claim the company made against Australia a few years ago.

    In their filings, Ukraine claimed that Australia’s plain packaging law would hurt Ukrainian exports. If Ukraine had ever exported tobacco to Australia, that might make sense — but they don’t. “Ukraine is inserting themselves into something they have nothing to do with,” as Oliver described it in February. “They’re taking the Kanye West approach to international trade disputes.”

    But of course Ukraine did not act without encouragement, and that encouragement came from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This March, the NYT reports, Ukraine’s parliament convened a hearing to try and sort out why they were involved in a lawsuit against Australia.

    “When it came time to defend the tobacco industry, a man named Taras Kachka spoke up,” the Times writes. “He argued that several ‘fantastic tobacco companies’ had bought up Soviet-era factories and modernized them, and now they were exporting tobacco to many other countries. It was in Ukraine’s national interest, he said, to support investors in the country, even though they do not sell tobacco to Australia.”

    The speaker, as the NYT explains, was neither a tobacco industry member nor lobbyist. He was the head of a Ukranian affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And indeed, the Ukranian prime minister recently revealed that Ukraine’s case against Australia was in fact prompted by a complaint from the Chamber.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce not only meddles in existing legislative processes around the world in favor of tobacco companies, but also works to maintain their interests in future agreements as well. The current head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has lobbied extensively to make sure that as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the pending trade agreement the U.S. is poised to sign with a dozen Pacific Rim nations, that tobacco companies retain their rights to sue governments when they feel they are being too strongly impinged upon.

    That’s not a hypothetical scenario: Since 2010, Philip Morris has sued Uruguay, Australia, and the U.K. as well as making legal threats against other, smaller nations like Togo, Moldova, and Nepal.

    The Chamber has sent letters and reports to several nations, taking different approaches. To smaller or less wealthy nations, the letters might be an implicit threat for U.S. businesses to take their ball and go home.

    “The U.S. Chamber of commerce is committed to promoting a robust and growing trade and investment relationship with Jamaica,” reads a 2013 letter to that nation’s Prime Minister. “For this to occur, the decisions made by public policymakers must have a sound basis in science and reflect global best practice.”

    In other countries, the Chamber has taken alternate approaches. A 2014 letter to New Zealand’s parliament takes a different tactic, claiming that nation’s plans to implement plain packaging — which strips branding and logos from the exterior of tobacco products and replaces it with health warnings — are in violation of trademark and intellectual property laws. That’s the same approach that Philip Morris took in its 2011 lawsuit against Australia.

    Of course, not everyone involved with the Chamber of Commerce is necessarily on board with this plan. The organization has over three million member companies, including health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, as well as 21st century tech giants that tend to promote healthful living.

    When the Times asked the Chamber of Commerce for a statement, the organization replied: “The Chamber regularly reaches out to governments around the world to urge them to avoid measures that discriminate against particular companies or industries, undermine their trademarks or brands, or destroy their intellectual property. We’ve worked with a broad array of business organizations at home and abroad to defend these principles.”

    American tobacco companies might be feeling the strain as other countries try their hardest to enact anti-smoking measures, but American lobbying exports seem to be doing just fine.

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures [New York Times]



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uSprint’s New Unlimited Plan Covers The Phone, But Sticks You With 3G Streamingr


4 4 4 9
  • sprintallinIn an attempt to show customers exactly what they’re paying for with their phone plans, Sprint is throwing its hat into the phone-leasing ring with a new “All-In” plan. The $80 monthly price includes a $20 leasing fee for the customer’s chosen device, as well as unlimited text, talk and data.

    New customers or current customers eligible for an upgrade can choose between three different phones for the 24-month lease: a 16GB iPhone 6, a 32GB Galaxy S6 or the HTC One M9. There’s also $36 activation when you sign up, as well as taxes and Sprint surcharges on top of that $80 price.

    One thing to note for those who like streaming video when they’re away from WiFi — Sprint is limiting streaming video to 3G speeds of 600Kbps. Netflix recommends speeds of about 1500Kbps for streaming video, so you’d have a hard time watching Orange Is the New Black without WiFi access on the All-In plan.

    As PC World notes, this might be less preferable than Sprint’s previous method of throttling unlimited data users, as it only slowed users down when the network was congested. This will mean slow video speeds on the Sprint network, all the time.

    The All-In plan is notably $10 more expensive than Sprint’s current iPhone plan, which runs for $50 per month plus a $20 device fee. If you don’t need unlimited data, of course, you can choose a plan that costs less.

    Sprint Chief Marketing Officer Kevin Crull tells CNET that the $70 “iPhone for Life” plan was a promotion that will be phased out with this new All-In option, although those currently on the cheaper plan will be grandfathered in.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uDept. Of Labor Proposal Would Expand Overtime Pay To Nearly Five Million More Americansr


4 4 4 9
  • Working more than 40 hours a week but not getting paid overtime because you make too much already? If so, you might soon be pocketing more dough for your extra hours under newly proposed federal regulations that raise the threshold income level at which workers are exempt from overtime pay of time-and-a-half wages.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that the proposed Department of Labor rule would be the first change to the salary threshold governing overtime pay in more than a decade and could affect the pay of nearly five million Americans starting in 2016.

    The proposed regulations would more than double the current salary threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime from $23,660 a year to $50,400 per year. Likewise, the regulation increases the pay of hourly workers exempt from overtime pay from $455 per week to $970 per week.

    This means that if an hourly or salaried worker makes less than $970 per week or $50,400 per year, they would now have the right to receive additional pay if they work more than 40 hours per week.

    “We’ve got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded. Right now, too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve,” President Barack Obama said in an op-ed piece announcing the proposed changes published on the Huffington Post late Monday.

    Like the current rules, it is possible that some companies could skirt the new requirements. Currently some employers get away with dodging the extra pay by making an employee who’s paid more than $455 per week or $23,660 a year a “manager” with limited supervisory duties.

    The potential rule change comes as a result of the Department of Labor’s review into overtime pay initiated last year.

    The most recent change to the salary cap came in 2004. Obama contends that the current level has been diminished by inflation and is too low.

    “In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. That’s at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America,” Obama wrote.

    While the potential for overtime pay will likely be welcomed by employees, some industries believe the changes will hurt businesses and consumers.

    The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said in a statement that the proposal would dramatically increase operational costs for retailers and diminish the flexibility and benefits currently provided to full-time employees that have advanced into management.

    “Retailers will have two options if this rule is implemented: raise prices in order to absorb a dramatic increase in labor costs, or take away the benefits, such as flexibility and leadership opportunities, that come when an associate works their way into management,” Kelly Kolb, RILA vice present of government relations, said in a statement. “Neither of these are outcomes that will raise standards of living for our employees or our customers.”

    The proposed rules must go through a public comment period before they take effect, which likely won’t happen for several months.

    New federal rules to boost overtime pay for millions [The Los Angeles Times]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist