Starbucks is holding on to more than a billion dollars of customer money that hasn't been spent on drinks or desserts or overpriced coffee paraphernalia — it's just sitting there.
In the first quarter of 2016, Starbucks was keeping about $1.2 billion for its customers between money pre-loaded onto cards and the company's app, the coffee giant told The Wall Street Journal. If Starbucks were a bank, that amount of deposits would make it a respectable midsize institution.
An astounding number of customers eschew dollars for money on card and the app. Between the U.S. and Canada, 41 percent of transactions at retail locations involved a Starbucks card, and 24 percent involved the mobile app, according to Marketwatch.
For comparison purposes, PayPal, which holds $13 billion of its customers' money, dwarfs the coffee chain. Then again, transferring cash is PayPal's sole purpose, not a strategy to get customers to stay loyal to a certain brand of burnt coffee. Compared with the prepaid card company Green Dot (the institution behind Walmart's MoneyCard), which has $560 million in customer funds, Starbucks holds more than twice the cash of its competitor.
Starbucks cards, in other words, are big business.
Beginning Tuesday and running until the end of the Republican National Convention in July, the most widely circulated print newspaper in the United States will run a series of ads calling out its own bias against climate change.
The ads are being paid for by a group calling itself the "Partnership for Responsible Growth" and will run twice a week on The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page, a place long inhospitable to any sort of science-based climate pieces.
(The Journal's climate change denial isn't just limited to the opinion pages, either: A 2015 study conducted by researchers at Rutgers, the University of Michigan and the University of Oslo found WSJ rarely mentions the threats posed by climate change, and, when it does, tends to downplay them.)
Pool via Getty ImagesRupert Murdoch, Chairman of the News Corporation, which owns the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The first advertisement, published Tuesday, recalls comments made by Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson in 2012 in which he acknowledged "that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have ... a warming impact," and as a result we would see shifting weather patterns impact crop production and rising sea levels.
"If the CEO of the world’s largest oil company accepts the basic physics that humans are heating the climate with excess CO2, why won’t the editorial board of this newspaper?" The ad asks, rhetorically. "Isn’t it about time?"
Other topics in the series include a basic primer on the physics of CO2 and how it affects the atmosphere, how rising sea levels might impact the world's major cities, statements from military leaders who see climate change as a "threat multiplier," and more.
If the CEO of the world’s largest oil company accepts the basic physics that humans are heating the climate with excess CO2, why won’t the editorial board of this newspaper?
“The Wall Street Journal is the nation’s largest and most influential newspaper,” former Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), a co-founder of the Partnership, explained in a release. “What business and Republican leaders are unlikely to have read on its opinion pages is neither the latest science, nor that there is a bipartisan, business-friendly way to combat climate change. If The Journal won’t cover it, we will.”
Last December, in response to the historic climate change agreement in Paris, the WSJ's editorial board sneered, "if climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it."
In sharp contrast to The Journal, last month the editorial board of the Financial Times, a competing publication, predicted the oil industry is facing "a future of slow and steady decline."
"Instead of railing against climate policies, or paying them lip-service while quietly defying them with investment decisions," the FT's editorial board wrote, "the oil companies will serve their investors and society better if they accept the limits they face, and embrace a future of long-term decline."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story said the Partnership for Responsible Growth's ads target the Journal's reporting. If fact, they are meant to call out the paper's editorial board.
On Sunday, pharmacy giant Walgreens abandoned the embattled blood-testing startup accused of failing to deliver accurate results with its tests. The move came roughly nine months after The Wall Street Journal exposed major problems with the company's technology, which claimed to be able to run more than 240 blood tests using just a drop of blood.
"We have carefully considered our relationship with Theranos and believe it is in our customers' best interests to terminate our partnership," Brad Fluegel, Walgreens' senior vice president and chief health care commercial market development officer, said in a statement.
The announcement strikes yet another major blow against Theranos, the 13-year-old startup that once boasted former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz as board members.
Nearly two weeks after the Journal published its exposé, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said tiny vials Theranos used to collect patients' blood were not approved medical devices. In January, Walgreens suspended sending tests through Theranos' California laboratory, sparking a standoff between the two companies. According to a February report in the Financial Times, lawyers for Theranos believed there was "little legal basis for terminating the partnership." But the damage was already done.
“They’ve been unhappy with the relationship and it’s really a question of working through the contractual and legal arrangements,” an unnamed person familiar with the matter told the FT of Walgreens' position. “They’re not interested in the Theranos deal.”
In March, federal regulators proposed banning Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes from the blood testing industry for two years.
"Quality and safety are our top priorities and we are working closely with government officials to ensure that we not only comply with all federal regulations but exceed them," Brooke Buchanan, a Theranos spokeswoman, wrote in a statement on Sunday. "We are disappointed that Walgreens has chosen to terminate our relationship and remain fully committed to our mission to provide patients access to affordable health information and look forward to continuing to serve customers in Arizona and California through our independent retail locations."
It's unclear how much the deal was worth.
By backing out of the partnership, Walgreens puts Theranos' finances in further jeopardy. Two weeks ago, Forbes downgraded the company's value from $9 billion to $800 million. In doing so, the magazine -- whose lists evaluating the world's richest people and companies are considered the most definitive measure of wealth -- valued Holmes' net worth at about nothing.
"At such a low valuation, Holmes' stake is essentially worth nothing," reporter Matthew Herper wrote in a report announcing the reassessment. "Theranos investors own preferred shares, which meanes they get paid back before Holmes, who owns common stock."
Holmes was previously valued at about $4.5 billion.
Gawker Media has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
The filing lists the company's assets as between $50 and $100 million and says its liabilities are between $100 million and $500 million.
Gawker is currently appealing a $140 million verdict in favor of former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, who sued the company for invasion of privacy. In 2012, Gawker published excerpts of a video showing Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, having sex with the wife of his then-best friend. Last month it was revealed that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel was personally financing Hogan's lawsuit.
In a statement Friday afternoon, Gawker said it had reached an asset purchase agreement with media company Ziff Davis, but other bidders can offer a higher price as the company goes through an auction supervised by a bankruptcy court.
The Ziff Davis bid is reportedly between $90 to $100 million, according to The New York Times.
"In the event we become the acquirer, the additions of Gizmodo, Lifehacker and Kotaku would fortify our position in consumer tech and gaming. With the addition of Jalopnik, Deadspin and Jezebel, we would broaden our position as a lifestyle publisher," Ziff Davis told employees in a memo announcing the agreement.
The bankruptcy filing is an effort to prevent the company from having to pay out the $140 million in damages, Recode reported.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman defended the New York-based outlet on Twitter.
Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our nation. Like them or not, sad to see NYC media giant @Gawker forced to the brink.
— Eric Schneiderman (@AGSchneiderman) June 10, 2016
Bollea, meanwhile, expressed gratitude.
What a beautiful day,and the good doesn't prevent the better! In the present I AM always grateful,only good happens to me. HH
— Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) June 10, 2016
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a legal remedy that a distressed business can pursue to restructure its debts in the hopes of saving itself. A bankruptcy judge supervises a plan to make the company financially viable again, including renegotiating its debts.
The company can continue to operate as normal while seeking bankruptcy protections, but it must get the court’s permission for some decisions.
Many large corporations, such as American Airlines, have successfully emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Crucially for Gawker, filing for Chapter 11 triggers a stay on all litigation, meaning the company would not have to worry about paying the $140 million penalty or defending against other lawsuits while they go through the process. That could give the company the time and resources it needs to prepare its appeal.
And if Gawker Media fails to reach an agreement with its creditors during bankruptcy, it could be liquidated entirely, which would likely also result in a significant reduction in the payment Bollea receives.
For these reasons, the status of being in bankruptcy actually strengthens Gawker's bargaining position against Bollea. It is "very likely" Bollea will settle for a lower payout during the bankruptcy period, posited John Pottow, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of Michigan.
CEO Nick Denton, a former Financial Times and Economist reporter, founded Gawker Media in 2002. The group now owns eight different websites, including Deadspin, Jezebel and Gizmodo. The sites receive a combined 64 million monthly readers in the U.S.
"Attracting fans and critics alike for their inimitable delivery of news, scandal, and entertainment, the Gawker Media properties are heralded as everything from 'deliciously wicked' to 'the biggest blog in the world,'" the brand's website reads.
The company has built a reputation of calling out public figures for their misdeeds. That approach has led some to accuse it of "spewing hatred" and "bullying," Gawker editors wrote this week in a piece that defended the outlet's "lengthy published record of news, essays, investigations, satire."
Gawker sold a minority stake to investment company Columbus Nova Technology Partners in January, in part to raise money for the lawsuit.
This is a developing story. Check back for details.
Michael Calderone, Willa Frej and Daniel Marans contributed reporting.
Sometimes growing a brand means rethinking your leadership style.
Eileen Fisher ran into this problem as her eponymous clothing line approached $300 million in annual revenue. The company grew so big that she recently realized she needed to revise how it's run.
Fisher spoke to The Huffington Post's executive editor for impact and innovation, Jo Confino, at the Sustainable Brands conference in San Diego this week in the video below.
The clothing brand founder talked about the difference between what she called masculine and feminine leadership styles (around the 5:40 mark). Her company has recently become more masculine, she said.
"The feminine is more listening and receptive kind of mode. And I feel like that has sort of helped me hear others, and work with others, and create a collaborative and intuitive kind of environment," she explained.
"I think we've done really well with this sort of feminine model, but we've kind of hit a point where we're too big almost and we need more structure. I never use the word 'structure' -- and 'strategy.' Those are sort of masculine words to me," Fisher said.
By dubbing the two management styles masculine and feminine, Fisher noted that she didn't mean to suggest they align with actual gender: There are masculine and feminine traits in everyone. The masculine side values efficiency, she said.
Lately, Fisher said, the company has brought in more men. One man in particular started talking about the differences between masculine and feminine leadership styles. She said she hadn't thought about management that way before.
"I always saw things moving organically and fluidly and intuitively and all of that. But now we have to be efficient and we have to be effective and we have to be focused and we have to make decisions more clearly," Fisher said. "And we have to have more definition."
A Boston-area family is suing Panera Bread, claiming their highly allergic 5-year-old daughter was given two dollops of peanut butter in her grilled cheese sandwich despite repeated warnings to the restaurant of her allergy.
In a lawsuit filed against the chain last week, John and Elyssa Russo of Natick, Massachusetts, claim their daughter had to be hospitalized overnight after the family ordered a meal online on Jan. 28, The Boston Globe reports.
The Russos say they specifically noted their daughter's peanut allergy on the online order form, and so were mystified as to why the extra ingredient had been added to her meal.
“Is this somebody doing this on purpose?" John Russo later asked a manager at the Natick Panera, in his own telling. "Because it’s two freakin’ tablespoons of peanut butter on this sandwich and it’s a grilled cheese."
The Russos didn't realize there was peanut butter in the sandwich until the girl had already bitten into it. She vomited and broke out in hives later that evening, the family says.
Scott Olson/Getty ImagesA restaurant manager reportedly apologized for the mistake and blamed it on a "language" issue.
Russo said the manager apologized for the mistake and blamed it on a “language” issue.
A Panera spokesman declined to comment directly on the suit when reached by The Huffington Post Monday.
"Panera takes the issue of food allergens, including the reported incident at our franchise bakery-cafe, very seriously,” the spokesman said in an email. “We have procedures in place across the company to minimize exposure and risk for our guests and associates. We do not comment on pending litigation."
The suit was filed in Massachusetts' Middlesex County Superior Court on Thursday.
Just in time for summer comes more evidence that the four-day workweek is good for your work and personal life.
The boss of a Vancouver-based company describes in The Wall Street Journal how he was close to total burnout five years ago. Then he made a decision that changed everything: He would take Friday as a "free day" and not work.
Brian Scudamore, who is chief executive and founder of home services company O2E Brands, also decided to designate Mondays as "think days," when he works from home and takes no meetings.
But taking off on Friday was the most important thing he did, Scudamore writes in the article. "[Fridays are] days where I do what I love -- skiing with my children, cooking, learning languages and biking," the 40-year-old says. "When I’m away from the office, things have time to marinate. Connections bubble up and often turn into big, business-changing ideas."
Scudamore's company encourages employees to set their own schedule, too, O2E brand publicist Sarah Gray told The Huffington Post. "We can pick our own schedule -- come in when we want and leave when we want. It's not a culture of 'clock watchers,' " Gray said in an email. "We're more about setting/achieving our goals than we are about hammering home a 9-5 workweek."
O2ECEO Scudamore out biking and not working.
There's loads of research out there that demonstrates that working longer hours is bad for your health. Working more means that there's less time to exercise, de-stress and sleep, among other things. And that causes real, physical damage. Those who work more than 55 hours per week have an increased risk of stroke compared to those who work less than 40 hours, according to a major analysis of studies that NYMag.com's Science of Us blog cites.
"Overwork and the resulting stress can lead to all sorts of health problems, including impaired sleep, depression, heavy drinking, diabetes, impaired memory, and heart disease," said Sarah Green Carmichael in Harvard Business Review last year.
Long hours are particularly hard on the health of lower-income workers, research shows. They already have more stress just coping with the anxiety of making ends meet and are even more vulnerable to the health risks that overwork brings on.
Overworked, unhealthy employees also cost companies more to insure, are absent more often and their work isn't that hot either.
Though your boss may think that working longer hours is a sign you're working super-hard and productively, the truth is managers don't often haven't a clue about who is really productive. You can't judge someone's performance by how frequently they're spotted at their desk.
The higher-ups at one consulting firm had no idea that some of their best workers were only pretending to put in 80-hour workweeks, according to a widely cited study from Erin Reid, a professor at Boston University's business school.
Scudamore says that taking Fridays off has helped him think more creatively. Anyone who's ever had an amazing idea while in the shower or just taking a walk can surely relate to this.
And it's not just knowledge workers who see benefits from working less. A century ago, Henry Ford cut worker shifts in his automobile plant to eight hours from nine (and doubled their pay) -- and business boomed.
Some companies are already on board with the notion of a shorter week. Basecamp, a Chicago-based software company, does four-day work weeks in the summer. A design firm in Indiana is only open Monday through Thursday because its founder believes his workers are more motivated, according to a piece in CNN Money. The article says that about 14 percent of small companies offer employees a chance to work a compressed four-day week.
If you're at a company who hasn't yet seen the light, feel free to send a link to this piece to your boss. Good luck. (Yes, I wrote this on a Friday, but I do plan to leave early. Baby steps.)
For the first time, there will soon be broad rules protecting U.S. borrowers from being stuck in a spiral of debt from loans that typically have rates of 390 percent and often higher.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) conceived, announced a proposed rule covering payday loans, as well as other high-interest lending products like auto and installment loans. Previously, these high-cost loans were mostly regulated at the state level.
The rule takes direct aim at the core business of payday lenders: giving people loans that they can’t afford to pay back without refinancing.
Turning a short-term lack of cash into a chain of unaffordable loans “is the core of the payday loan business model,” payday loan expert Nick Bourke at Pew Charitable Trusts told The Huffington Post in November. “To any objective, fair-minded reviewer, that’s not in question.” CFPB research has found that more than half of payday loans are made to people as part of a string of 10 or more loans.
It's a bit "like getting into a taxi just to ride across town and finding yourself stuck in a ruinously expensive cross-country journey," CFPB director Richard Cordray said in prepared remarks, to be delivered in Kansas City on Thursday.
The CFPB’s proposal contains two key measures aimed at ensuring that borrowing once does not throw consumers into a spiral of unpayable debt. The first measure requires lenders to assess if the borrower has the income to fully repay the loan when it is due without reborrowing. This idea, known as “ability to repay,” targets at the cycle of debt that unaffordable payday loans can trap people in.
The proposed rule also prohibits lenders from making more than two unsuccessful attempts to withdraw money from borrowers bank accounts. Repeated debit attempts cause consumers to be hit with overdraft fees from their banks. Such fees hit half of all online borrowers, costing an average of $185.
In private, the payday lending industry admits unaffordable lending products that force borrowers to take out new loans to pay off old ones are core to the industry's profits. “In practice, consumers mostly either roll over or default; very few actually repay their loans in cash on the due date,” wrote Hilary Miller, a key figure in the industry’s fight against regulation, in an email obtained by open records requests in November.
A 2009 Center for Responsible Lending study found that people taking out new loans to repay old ones make up 76 percent of the payday market. And studies from the Deloitte Financial Advisory Services and Charles River Associates estimated that the CFPB’s proposed rule could reduce the volume of industry loans made by 60 to 74 percent, an indication that the rule would cut significantly into this.
However, Bourke said it doesn't go far enough and doesn't encourage banks to provide low cost loans to needy Americans. “The CFPB has an historic opportunity to encourage safe, affordable lending—and they’re missing it. Its proposal makes it too easy for payday lenders to complete additional paperwork and issue a $500 loan with $600 in fees, while making it difficult for a bank to offer the same loan for $80.”
The National Consumer Law Center said that while the proposed rule is promising, it is concerning that “lenders could make up to three back-to-back payday loans and could start the sequence again after only 31 days.”
The payday lending industry immediately attacked the rule. It "presents a staggering blow to consumers as it will cut off access to credit for millions of Americans who use small-dollar loans to manage a budget shortfall or unexpected expense," chief executive of the Community Financial Services Association Dennis Shaul said in a statement.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton applauded the proposed rule and assailed presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump for wanting to repeal the entire bank regulation law that, among many other things, created the CFPB. "Working families deserve a president who will look out for them -- not payday lenders and special interests on Wall Street," she said.
The agency will accept comments on the proposed rule until Sept. 14, 2016. Those comments will then be examined and considered before the final rule is released.
Once a media darling, the chief executive of the embattled blood-testing startup Theranos suffered a stupendous fall after the Wall Street Journal last October revealed major problems with the accuracy of company's tests. On Wednesday, her woes hit her finances.
In a report that will appear in the magazine's June 21 issue, Forbes reassessed Holmes' net worth, previously pegged at $4.5 billion, and lowered it down to zero.
Reporter Matthew Herper wrote:
Our estimate of Holmes’ wealth is based entirely on her 50% stake in Theranos, the blood-testing company she founded in 2003 with plans of revolutionizing the diagnostic test market. Theranos shares are not traded on any stock market; private investors purchased stakes in 2014 at a price that implied a $9 billion valuation for the company.
Since then, Theranos has been hit with allegations that its tests are inaccurate and is being investigated by an alphabet soup of federal agencies. That, plus new information indicating Theranos’ annual revenues are less than $100 million, has led FORBES to come up with a new, lower estimate of Theranos’ value.
Now, Forbes -- whose lists evaluating the world's richest people and companies are considered the most definitive measure of wealth -- values Theranos at about $800 million, far lower than the $9 billion valuation that launched it into "unicorn" status in 2014.
"At such a low valuation, Holmes’ stake is essentially worth nothing," Herper wrote. "Theranos investors own preferred shares, which means they get paid back before Holmes, who owns common stock."
Theranos could still raise a new round of funding at a higher valuation than $800 million. But little is known about the company's future, Forbes noted, and so far the firm seems at best badly managed and at worst a calamitous ruse. In March, federal health regulators proposed banning Holmes from the blood-testing industry for two years.
Theranos spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan told The Huffington Post in an email that people shouldn't put too much stock in the Forbes report. "As a privately held company, we declined to share confidential financial information with Forbes. As a result, the article was based exclusively on speculation and press reports," she wrote.
The whole affair underscores the problems that come from valuing the net worths of startup executives whose assets are not easily converted into cash, as Fortune's Dan Primack noted in his morning newsletter.
"[P]erhaps a future rule of thumb could be to avoid assigning net worth to entrepreneurs based on illiquid securities," Primack wrote, before hinting that such a change may bode ill for the chief executives of firms like Uber, which is valued at $62.5 billion. "Yes, that would include Travis Kalanick, et al."
Forbes estimates the Uber CEO to be worth $6.2 billion.
Note: The Huffington Post’s Editor-in-Chief Arianna Huffington is a member of Uber’s board of directors, and has recused herself from any involvement in the site’s coverage of the company.
In 2013, Janet Sparks and five co-workers went on strike at a Walmart store in Baker, Louisiana. The group rode in a caravan to Bentonville, Arkansas, taking their grievances to the company's shareholder meeting. The experience of walking off the job in protest was exhilarating, but also unnerving.
"It's always a scary thing for a worker to go up against the largest employer in the U.S.," Sparks, 55, said. "There are co-workers around you who are afraid. But we believed in what we were doing."
Three years later, Sparks still believes in what she's doing, even if her path to victory remains unclear. The labor group that orchestrated her strike, OUR Walmart, lost its benefactor last year, when the United Food and Commercial Workers union decided to stop funding the effort. OUR Walmart now faces the same predicament as other non-union groups in the labor movement: How to pay the bills without any dues-paying members.
OUR Walmart is trying to rebuild. This week, it's sending a delegation of workers to Bentonville for Walmart's shareholder meeting. It has a staff of 12 scattered around the country, including several former Walmart employees. Such work requires money, and the group hasn't figured out where it will find that that funding over the long term.
The Fight for $15 campaign in fast food may confront the same dilemma some day, should its main patron, the Service Employees International Union, decide it can no longer afford the investment.
Adrees Latif / Reuters
"We're in this place that's challenging, but also really exciting," said Dan Schlademan, a longtime organizer who co-founded OUR Walmart. "[We're] now a completely free organization, not connected to any single institution. I think we have the freedom now to take what we've learned over the last four years and build on that in ways that might have been harder under the old structure."
OUR Walmart launched in 2011 with the backing of the 1.3 million-member UFCW, a union that's battled Walmart for decades. Walmart is the largest retailer and private-sector employer in the world, with 1.5 million U.S. employees and more than 4,500 U.S. stores. The company is also famously anti-union. The UFCW has never succeeded in unionizing any of Walmart's U.S. workforce.
So the union turned to organizing workers in a less traditional way. Even if it couldn't unionize Walmart workers, the thinking went, the union still had an interest in pressuring Walmart to hike wages, since Walmart sets the tone for the entire brick-and-mortar retail sector. Rather than try to secure a standard union contract, OUR Walmart would pressure the company publicly into raising pay and offering employees better hours and benefits. The model is sometimes called a worker center or "alt labor" -- as in, an alternative to traditional unionism.
Alt-labor groups operate outside the normal parameters of collective bargaining, without recognition by the company or the federal government. They don't have the same power as a union like the UFCW, though they enjoy certain freedoms. (Unlike unions, they don't have to disclose the details of their spending to the government.) But as organized labor's clout has waned -- a mere 6.7 percent of private-sector workers now belong to a union -- alt-labor groups have been effective at making employers squirm and notching victories for workers, particularly in low-wage industries like food and retail. One Florida-based group, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, shamed major grocers and fast-food companies into signing agreements that improved pay and working conditions for immigrant farm workers in Florida.
OUR Walmart spearheaded strikes and protests that made national headlines around the retailer's Black Friday shopping frenzy. Organizers said hundreds of employees participated in these strikes each year; Walmart insisted the actual figure was much lower. (Schlademan declined to disclose OUR Walmart's membership numbers.) Regardless of who's counting, the strikers comprised a tiny minority of Walmart's massive workforce. But through their courage to walk out publicly, even for just a day, the workers dented Walmart's public image, helping to fuel a growing national debate over income inequality.
"People just took tremendous risks," said Andrea Dehlendorf, another co-founder of the group. "For a long time, nobody really imagined that there would be this kind of movement from within Walmart."
The group apparently succeeded in getting under Walmart's skin. The retailer went so far as to retain the snooping services of Lockheed Martin to deal with the protests, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported last year. UFCW lawyers filed a slew of charges against Walmart with the the National Labor Relations Board, saying the company illegally retaliated against strikers. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Walmart broke the law in firing 16 workers and ordered the company to reinstate them. Walmart has appealed.
Without UFCW this could not have been possible. They came and they undergirded us and helped us and taught us. But this was always a separate organization.Janet Sparks, Walmart worker
Walmart implemented some major changes since the strikes began. In 2015, the company announced it would phase in a wage floor of $10 per hour -- nearly $3 per hour more than the federal minimum wage -- in all of its U.S. stores, boosting pay for a half-million workers. After workers said they weren't getting enough hours, the company implemented a program aimed at helping part-time workers convert to full time. It also overhauled its policies for pregnant workers.
Though OUR Walmart and UFCW claim those changes as the result of activism, Walmart said it merely listened to employees and made a strategic investment.
"Remember, this is a $2.7-billion investment in education, training and higher wages to make Walmart a better place to work and shop," Kory Lundberg, a company spokesman, said of the pay hikes. "We’re doing this because we live in a rapidly changing world, and retail today requires new skills to meet the demands of customers who have everything at their fingertips. Walmart will lead by empowering our associates and creating opportunity. As they grow and succeed, so do our customers and so does Walmart."
Lundberg said the company had no comment on OUR Walmart or the UFCW.
Whatever successes the campaign may have had, the latest incarnation of OUR Walmart still needs to figure out how to keep the lights on. A non-union group may help win raises for workers, but it doesn't make dues-paying union members out of them.
It isn't clear how much money UFCW poured into the OUR Walmart campaign. According to the Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group that tracks union spending, the sum can't be determined because the union did not break out spending specifically to OUR Walmart in its disclosure forms. But the financing would have been considerable.
"You see on the one hand they have had an impact, and they have moved the policy agenda," Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Labor Center, said of non-union worker centers generally. "And on the other hand, the issue of their long-term sustainability has not yet been solved."
For some union members and officers, it's hard to justify spending millions of dollars on an endeavor that doesn't directly benefit the union's membership and expand its base. That was apparently the thinking of UFCW's new leadership. After electing a new president last year, the union pulled its funding from OUR Walmart, sending Schlademan and his team packing. The divorce was messy at first, including a dispute over who had the rights to the name OUR Walmart.
Workers affiliated with OUR Walmart said they hope the union and OUR Walmart will reunite their efforts at some point.
"I'm not going to lie and say I'm not saddened by it," said Denise Barlage, an OUR Walmart member who worked at the company's Pico Rivera, California, store for nine years. "They [UFCW] consider us an ally; we consider them one. I believe years down the road, we will get back together. But I feel in retrospect, it might be better for us to be independent."
"The old model has failed several generations ... We should encourage these experiments, but we shouldn't romanticize it. We still haven't figured this out."David Rolf, president of SEIU local 775 and author of "The Fight for Fifteen: The Right Wage for a Working America"
"Without UFCW this could not have been possible," said Sparks. "They came and they undergirded us and helped us and taught us. But this was always a separate organization. I never felt crippled by them pulling out their funding."
UFCW continues its own Walmart campaign, under the name Making Change at Walmart. Jessica Levin, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said the group is currently working with members of OUR Walmart.
"We will always work with those who are truly focused on changing Walmart," Levin said in an email. "We are aggressively reaching out to Walmart workers, as we always have. We always welcome any Walmart worker who wants be part of our national campaign to change Walmart for the better."
The union describes Making Change at Walmart as an effort to keep heat on the company and make it "a more responsible employer." The campaign appears focused less on in-store organizing than on trying to shape Walmart's image through advertising and PR -- a more affordable strategy, for sure, but a less militant one as well.
Levin said the union wouldn't discuss campaign tactics, but was focused on giving workers a voice to "tell their stories, whether that is to groups of Walmart workers, in television or multimedia campaigns, or in front of hundreds of thousands of people at the annual shareholders meeting."
OUR Walmart is searching for funding in its new incarnation. According to Schlademan, the support will be a mix of foundation grants, online donations and contributions from workers themselves. He said the group has secured some foundation money, but declined to name any donors or provide specific numbers.
"Our ability to build a sustainable organization is there," Schlademan said. "We believe this model has the ability to be successful. That is our grand experiment. It's the question we hope to answer."
Other labor groups should hope so, too. The union-backed Fight for $15 came on the heels of OUR Walmart and is funded by the 2 million-member SEIU, which, according to the Center for Union Facts, has devoted tens of millions of dollars to the cause over four years. By most measures, the campaign has been a huge success, spurring minimum wage hikes around the country, including $15 measures in both California and New York.
Yet the Fight for $15 has not yet translated into more dues-paying union members. It's possible that, through public pressure and regulatory channels, SEIU could broker a deal with McDonald's, or other fast-food giants, that paves the way for union contracts. And there's an argument to be made that the Fight for $15 has benefited union workers as well, by helping to raise the baseline pay in the service sector more broadly. But for now, the campaign's most concrete victories are clearly legislative ones. (Fight for $15 members may soon vote to formally affiliate with SEIU, but dues are not yet in the picture.)
Such experiments require investment and patience, said David Rolf, president of SEIU local 775 and the author of a new book about the Fight for $15. Rolf noted that some of the biggest achievements of the U.S. labor movement were years, if not decades, in the making, like the Treaty of Detroit, the groundbreaking contract won by auto workers in 1950. Rolf said unions are more or less doomed within their traditional structure, and must find a new framework for workers to bargain collectively, even if it isn't clear yet how it becomes self-sustaining.
"The old model has failed several generations. It's too inaccessible -- people can't get unions," Rolf said. "We should encourage these experiments, but we shouldn't romanticize it. We still haven't figured this out."
Rick Wilking / ReutersMaster of ceremonies for the 2015 Walmart annual meeting, actress Reese Witherspoon, speaks on stage in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Walmart hosts its annual shareholder meeting on Friday. OUR Walmart has had a presence outside the celebrity-studded confab for several years, and this year is no different. The group plans to deliver a petition calling for a minimum wage of $15, and full, stable work schedules for all employees who want them. UFCW is also in Bentonville this week, hosting a roundtable with workers on Wednesday night.
Sparks earns $13.25 an hour after 10 years at Walmart. She said she'll keep rounding up signatures for the petition, regardless of how much funding OUR Walmart has, or where it comes from.
"It's all looking forward for me. It's about change for Walmart workers and all American workers," Sparks said. "I'm not going to stop because of a few dollars being taken away."
The rules for dressing for the office are completely different for men and women.
Perhaps no two people better exemplify the double standard than the most well-known executives working at Facebook: cofounder and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, known for wearing the same grey T-shirt and jeans every day, and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who is typically seen perched atop towering high heels.
Sandberg is arguably the most influential female executive in Corporate America, inspiring (or pissing off) many women with her book Lean In. Her frank openness about dealing with the sudden death of her husband last year was both heartbreaking and admirable. She's incredibly successful by every measure.
Yet on Wednesday, while watching her talk to Recode's Kara Swisher and Facebook Chief Technology Officer Michael Schroepfer, I caught myself staring at her shoes. Just look at them:
Here's a closer look:
Facebook/Recode
I couldn't help but marvel at the fact that while Zuckerberg slomps around in super-casual clothes every day, Sandberg is smartly decked out in full corporate power garb: towering, patent leather, red peep-toe heels.
Here's a pair of shoes Sandberg wore to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January.
Ruben Sprich / Reuters
And another from the power confab:
Ruben Sprich / Reuters
Here's a photo of Mark Zuckerberg's closet:
Here he is speaking at a recent conference in San Francisco:
Stephen Lam / Reuters
You get it.
To be sure, these two are an extreme example. Sandberg, who holds an MBA from Harvard, is a seasoned executive and considered to be the "adult" in the room who brings balance to Zuckerberg's more introverted personality. And of course, nobody is forcing Sandberg to wear her (extremely stylish) stilettos.
Still, their case highlights the fact that even in the tech world, where the concept of dressing down was invented, and even at Facebook, a progressive company run by a guy in jeans, women and men don't quite play by the same rules.
Women can't just roll out of bed, toss on yesterday's jeans, brush their teeth and do well at work. If they do, they'll struggle in the professional world. One woman I spoke with recently, who works at a private equity firm, told me that she wasn't taken seriously at work until she started wearing stilettos.
In fact, women who spend more time grooming -- including efforts like putting on makeup -- are promoted more often and make more money than their bare-faced colleagues, according to one recent study.
“Although appearance and grooming have become increasingly important to men, beauty work continues to be more salient for women because of cultural double standards with very strict prescriptions for women,” the paper says.
So if you're looking to be the next Sheryl Sandberg, better bust out that lipstick and heels. You'll be be spinning your wheels without them.
