четверг, 6 августа 2015 г.

uSome Walmart Workers Not Thrilled About Pay Hikes (Because They Didn’t Get One)r


4 4 4 9
  • Earlier this year, Walmart pledged to increase its starting wages, affecting about 40% of its workforce, but some employees who’ve been with the company for years and may not be affected by the pay hikes aren’t thrilled.

    The wage increases mean that new and recent hires will be earning more. for example, new cashiers are seeing their starting pay go from at least $7.65/hour to $9/hour with the intention of reaching $10/hour by 2016. Newly hired managers, who currently start at $13/hour, will start being paid $15/hour.

    But that leaves some longtime employees who already make more than the company minimum out in the cold.

    It’s apparently not much different than when you see the cable or phone company you’ve been with for years giving away all sorts of perks, but only to new customers.

    One 10-year Walmart worker in Illinois tells Bloomberg that there is growing discontent among workers who see new employees getting raises while their pay remains the same.

    “It is pitting people against each other,” she explains. “It hurts morale when people feel like they aren’t being appreciated.”

    She says her colleagues now talk daily about looking for work elsewhere.

    Walmart acknowledges that it expected some blowback when it announced that less than half the workforce would be getting raises.

    The company tells Bloomberg that it’s trying to retain these more veteran employees by giving them more desirable hours and offering training programs to help them advance in their careers.

    “We are constantly looking and evolving what the right pay should be and we were aware of the issue,” the company’s head of human resources for U.S. stores explains. “We weren’t prepared to go forward with any additional increases but have continued to look at it to see if there is something else we should do for those in the middle.”

    Economists say Walmart may be risking the ire of its workers by doling out raises on such a large scale, and without respect to an employee’s merit.

    “Workers appear to pay attention to peer wages,” Laura Giuliano, an associate professor of economics at the University of Miami, tells Bloomberg. “Even a small difference can matter, and whether or not it is going to matter may well depend on whether it appears arbitrary or unfair.”

    Likewise, David Cooper, an economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, says that if a company is going to bring up the bottom of its pay scale, it follows that you should bring up the middle-earners as well in order to maintain the existing wage hierarchy. Otherwise, “folks are going to leave or start complaining more vocally.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uNot Convinced The Robot Uprising Is Inevitable? Watch This Charger Prototype For Tesla Cars Find Its Targetr


4 4 4 9
  • You know, we’re a little surprised by you, Elon Musk. As a guy who’s said we’re right to be worried about artificial intelligence enslaving the human race, Terminator style, you’d think you wouldn’t go ahead and invent a robot charger that can find its own way to a nearby Tesla and plug in. What’s the next target, our brains?!?

    Robot revolution jokes* aside, Musk’s company unveiled a new prototype of a charger for Tesla vehicles on Twitter today, a device that can hook up with its intended target all by itself, like a creepy, eyeless, metal snake.

    Tesla hasn’t yet released details of when or if it will be available to customers, or how, exactly, it works.

    Can you feel it? The goosebumps lifting the hair off your head and the shivers running down your spine? It’s happening.

    To be fair, Musk did donate $10 million in January to help keep AI on the side of humanity, instead of letting it run amok and use us as living batteries.

    *They aren’t really jokes, I’m so scared.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uThe Going Rate For A 30-Second Super Bowl Commercial Spot Tops $5Mr


4 4 4 9
  • Even though last year’s slate of Super Bowl ads was largely regarded as ho-hum, and even though advertisers are increasingly subverting the “surprise!” effect of Super Bowl sunday commercials by relentlessly teasing their big-ticket spots online days in advance, the NFL’s big game is still TV’s biggest annual draw, and so the cost to be a part of it is going up again.

    CNBC reports that CBS, which is airing the game this year, has sold advertising spots for as much as $5 million per 30-seconds of air time.

    “Super Bowl advertising is already proving to be more lucrative than ever, with 30-second spots selling for $5 million and additional digital revenue being generated for Super Bowl ads online,” Leslie Moonves, president and CEO of CBS Corporation, said during a quarterly earnings call on Wednesday.

    The cost of such spots has consistently increased each year, CNBC reports. Last year, the going rate for a 30-second advertising spot for the NBC-broadcast game cost $4.5 million, while the price tag for the same time in 2014 – when the game was on FOX – was $4 million.

    The going rate for 2016 is a pretty significant bump for CBS, which aired the game back in 2013 when a 30-second ad slot cost $3.8 million.

    Moonves said during the call that he expects the big game to equal big revenue for the network, despite the costs associated with securing broadcast rights and production costs.

    “So, if the incremental (rise in the cost of broadcasting rights) doesn’t outweigh the amount of money you get per spot…it is very, very worth it,” said Moonves.

    CBS also announced that this year will be the first time that most ads airing during the game are simultaneously shown online.

    How much for a Super Bowl spot in 2016? Maybe $5M [CNBC]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uSan Francisco Lamp Post Falls Over Because People, Humans Kept Urinating On Itr


4 4 4 9
  • San Francisco officials have a pee problem, and it’s getting dangerous: a three-story tall lamp post corroded by urine snapped and fell over this week, crashing onto a nearby car and narrowly missing its driver.

    It was apparently a perfect storm of conditions that led to the post’s downfall — too much urine, age and an oversized banner that was weighing it down, said San Francisco Public Utilities Commission officials.

    Authorities say it could be a mix of animal and human urine that’s decaying the city’s lamp posts, reports the San Francisco Gate. Either way, take that micturition elsewhere, because urine speeds up the corrosion of the metal base of street poles.

    “It has actually been an issue for us in the past,” PUC spokesman Tyrone Jue said. “We encourage people and dogs alike to do their business in other places, like a proper restroom or one of our fire hydrants, which are stronger and made out of cast iron.”

    The PUC recently launched an assessment program to visually check every single one of the 25,000 light poles in the city, after getting a big budget boost last year for maintenance and replacement of the poles. About 100 street lights have been replaced so far.

    Lamp post destroyed by urine falls in street, just misses driver [San Francisco Gate]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uSprint Employee Can’t Help But Promote Sprint During News Interview About Theater Attackr


4 4 4 9
  • Yesterday, as we’ve all seen on the news by now, a man in Nashville injured several people at a movie theater. And one Sprint employee who was interviewed on national TV about the violent incident apparently couldn’t help but plug his employer and its current promotion.

    Speaking to Fox News’s Shepard Smith on Wednesday, the Sprint worker began his ear-witness account of the event by saying, “We were trying to promote our ‘cut your bill in half’ [promotion] when we had a couple police officers come in, tell us to lock all the doors, close everything.”

    This is an obvious reference to Sprint’s ongoing offer to reduce new customers’ bills if they switch (though it’s more like 20% than half).

    Later in the interview, Smith asks the man to clarify where he works in relation to the theater, but instead of giving an indication of whether the Sprint store adjoins the theater or is 500 yards away, the man responds, “We work at Sprint, where we cut your bill in half.”

    This does not go unnoticed by Shepard, who seems to question the caller’s motivation for adding that detail.

    “That’s nice advertising here in the middle of a shooting at a movie theater,” says the anchor.

    The man, perhaps realizing that this may have come off as a bit crass, explains that “I’m just so used to saying it so much.”

    After that, there are thankfully no further mentions of Sprint or its promotional offerings.

    [via TPM]

    Thanks to Steve for the tip!



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uFlaw In Android Device Sensor Leaves Users’ Fingerprints Vulnerable To Theftr


4 4 4 9
  • Using your fingerprint to open your phone may be convenient but it could also pose a security risk. That’s according to security researchers who discovered a way to breach Android devices to steal the unique prints.

    ZDNet reports that FireEye researchers identified what they referred to as the “fingerprint sensor spying attack” that allows hackers to acquire large batches of consumers’ fingerprints from Android-based phones, including those made by Samsung, HTC, and Huawei.

    The researchers, Tao Wei and Yulong Zhang, say that because the devices’ sensors aren’t locked down by manufacturers, it creates a vulnerability that allows hackers to obtain images of users’ fingerprints.

    “In this attack, victims’ fingerprint data directly fall into attacker’s hand. For the rest of the victim’s life, the attacker can keep using the fingerprint data to do other malicious things,” Zhang said.

    While the experiment was based mainly on mobile phones, the researchers warn that the same issues could be found in other devices such as laptops that use sensors.

    Zhang tells ZDNet that he couldn’t specify which devices were more vulnerable to the hack, but did not that the iPhone was “quite secure” because it encrypts fingerprint data.

    Researchers say they notified device makers of the issues and they have since provided patches to address the vulnerability.

    Still, Zhang and Wei recommend smartphone users always keep their software updated to the latest version and only install popular apps from the Google Play store with fingerprint sensors.

    This is the second time this summer that Android phones have been found to be vulnerable to hacks.

    Last month, security researchers discovered a flaw in nearly 950 million devices that let hackers send out a piece of code via text message to take over phones remotely.

    Hackers can remotely steal fingerprints from Android phones [ZDNet]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uDelta Hit With Another $2.7M In Sanctions In Years-Old Baggage-Fee Collusion Caser


4 4 4 9
  • A still-pending class-action lawsuit that dates back to the dawn of the baggage-fee era alleges that Delta and AirTran colluded to implement their original fees for passengers’ first checked bags. But Delta has apparently not been terribly forthcoming with all the documentation sought by plaintiffs and has already been sanctioned millions of dollars by the court, including a $2.7 million slap on the wrist handed down earlier this week.

    Of course, Delta made more than $860 million off baggage fees in 2014 alone, so this sanction represents less than half a percent of that amount.

    Anyway.

    Back in 2008, after American Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to charge baggage fees for checked luggage, the CEO of Atlanta-based AirTran publicly stated that his airline could also do this but that it would “prefer to be a follower,” and play a wait-and-see game with fellow Atlanta airline Delta.

    Only a couple weeks later, Delta indeed decided to give baggage fees a try. True to its word, AirTran immediately followed suit. Both airlines began charging the same fees for passengers’ first checked bags on the same day, Dec. 5, 2008.

    With more airlines jumping on the baggage-fee bandwagon, antitrust investigators at the U.S. Justice Dept. launched a probe into the trend in 2009. Then came lawsuits filed by travelers accusing the airlines of collusion.

    Many of those complaints were consolidated into a single multi-district action in a federal court in Georgia. In Feb. 2010, the plaintiffs and defendants were all supposed to begin sharing info, but as the court notes, “this case has been plagued by a veritable deluge of discovery disputes… It is not hyperbolic to say that this lawsuit has turned into litigation about litigation: the time, energy, and resources spent on discovery abuses equals or exceeds those that have been dedicated to litigating the merits of the case.”

    The plaintiffs have repeatedly accused Delta of destroying or delaying evidence in the case. In 2011, it was learned that the airline had, among other problems, continued to overwrite old backups of e-mails on a server dedicated to preserving communications in the event of litigation. This resulted in the loss of some data from the months leading up to the launch of the baggage fees.

    The court didn’t sanction Delta, saying the plaintiffs had failed to show “that critical evidence existed and was destroyed” or that Delta had acted in bad faith. However, it did admonish Delta for not doing everything it could to preserve evidence.

    Delta also promised the court that it had “produced absolutely every document in its possession, custody, or control that Plaintiffs had requested,” but almost immediately after the court denied those sanctions, the judge now says “it became clear that Delta’s rhetoric was far removed from reality.”

    See, while all this baggage-fee discovery was going on, the DOJ was also investigating Delta over a completely unrelated issue involving its plan to swap takeoff and landing slots in Atlanta with U.S. Airways. But when the DOJ was looking at all the documents turned over by Delta, it found items that were relevant to the baggage-fee lawsuits, but which the airline had failed to provide to the plaintiffs.

    A Special Master charged by the court with handling these messy discovery issues called these errors “colossal blunders” on the part of Delta.

    That same month, Delta just happened to find a box of previously undiscovered backup tapes that it had not noticed in, of all places, a room called the “evidence locker.”

    A review of these tapes turned up 60,000 pages of documents that should have been turned over to the plaintiffs. As a result, the court issued its first sanction against the airline, for nearly $1.3 million.

    More sanctions were to come after another batch of 29 backup tapes was discovered. Even though they were found in June 2011, not even Delta’s lawyers knew about them until Oct. 2012, and only after they had been turned over to the DOJ as part of an unrelated request.

    Delta paid a $3.49 million sanction this time, mostly to cover the cost of hiring an independent researcher to scan through and restore all of the newly turned-up tapes. Because the court still didn’t know at the time what, if anything, new this review would turn up, it left open the door for future sanctions.

    And so in late 2013, the plaintiffs filed a 2,300-page motion (answered by a 2,300-page response from Delta) seeking additional penalties against the airline.

    This led to a four-day hearing run by the Special Master in the case, after which an employee of Delta’s investigative response team turned over what she believed was additional evidence of Delta’s discovery misconduct… leading to more documents, leading to more hearings, etc.

    In Nov. 2014, the Special Master recommended a $1.86 million sanction against Delta, though he said the plaintiffs failed to show that crucial evidence had been destroyed or hidden, or that the airline was acting in bad faith.

    “Delta does not and could not claim that, despite its due care, it was unable to comply,” wrote the Special Master at the time, explaining his recommendation for sanction.

    The Delta investigations employee then turned up additional documents, then the plaintiffs objected to the $1.86 million figure, and so did Delta, but for different reasons, obviously.

    “Without question, it is Delta’s ineptitude and missteps that have caused the vast majority of the excessive time, expenses, and energy that the parties have expended in discovery for the last five years,” writes the judge in his order [PDF] granting latest sanction motion. “Delta’s discovery misconduct has rendered the Court’s attempts to manage this litigation and move it toward a resolution on the merits as futile and maddening as Sisyphus’s efforts to roll his boulder to the top of the hill.”

    And so, in the end the judge concluded that $2.7 million figure — higher than the Special Master’s recommendation but less than the plaintiffs sought — is adequate to hopefully put and end to this bumbling behavior.

    Additionally, the judge granted class-action status [PDF] to the case this week, though it’s almost certain the Delta will appeal, further delaying any conclusion to this lawsuit, which would now be entering first grade if it were a child.

    [via WSBTV]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist