Soda tax is back in the spotlight
Philadelphia: the hometown of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire, the city of brotherly love, and it’s where your soda is taxed more than a beer. The sugary drink tax (also known as the soda tax), which was enacted in January, is in the spotlight once again as Pepsi announces 80-100 layoffs in its Philadelphia based distribution plants.
Pepsi Co spokesman Deva DeCecco wasn’t shy about putting the blame on the new tax.
“Unfortunately, after careful consideration of the economic realities created by the recently enacted beverage tax, we have been forced to give notice that we intend to eliminate 80 to 100 positions, including frontline and supervisory roles,” DeCecco said.
We warned you
The shade thrown at the soda tax is no surprise.
A coalition composed of store owners, beverage companies and labor unions previously warned the city of potential job loss due to the tax.
Danny Grace, Secretary Treasurer of Teamsters local 830 sent a letter to city officials soon after the tax passed. “This unfair tax that targets only one industry would be ruinous to the Teamsters, leading to the loss of thousands of family-sustaining jobs,” Grace warned.
Just the tip of the iceberg
While thousands of layoffs seems far fetched, we must consider that the layoffs at Pepsi could be the beginning of something huge.
In a statement to the Inquirer, Bob Brockway, COO of Canada Dry Delaware Valley announced plans to lay off 20% of its employees come March.
As for rival Coca-Cola, they haven’t detailed any layoff plans.
Blame it on the tax
Frank McGorry, president and general manager of Coca-Cola Refreshments Tri-State Metro Unit also put blame on the tax. “Everything we’ve said would happen by enacting this tax is proving to be true. We are evaluating how we will address the impact of this tax on our business. People are leaving the city to shop, small businesses are getting hurt, consumers are unhappy and people are losing their jobs,” McGorry tells the Philly Voice .
The potential rippling effect on Philadelphia’s distributors is due to the fact that the new tax is levied directly on distributors.
Distributors can absorb the tax themselves, or pass it on to consumers. In either case, distributors or their employees are threatened.
Soda tax supporters
Soda tax proponents are pumping the breaks on the blame.
Mayor Kenney argues that the soda industry is acting out of greed, passing the tax along to consumers and threatening layoffs, rather than lowering their own pay.
Bless his soul, did Kenney actually believe taxes wouldn’t be passed on to consumers? Mayor Kenney also believes that the soda industry may be leveraging the layoffs to scare other cities away from enacting their own version of the tax.
Old trend, new tactics
It may be too late. The soda tax trend has already taken root. Last November, three California cities- Albany, Oakland and San Francisco along with the town of Boulder, Colorado adopted their own soda tax.Unlike California’s soda taxes, which aren’t earmarked for a specific purpose, Philadelphia’s tax funds are reserved for Pre-K services, community schools and parks renovations. Click To Tweet
Also important to note, Mayor Kenney framed the sugar tax debate as a matter of revenue, not a public health crusade.
Bold move, cotton. Let’s see how this plays out
This was a bold move and a play that other cities may adopt as budgets tighten. Sin taxes are nothing new, according to this map, they’re levied across our whole “sinful” country.
However, framing the debate so strongly around revenue rather than health benefits is a new move and a move businesses should keep an eye one, even if they aren’t selling soda. When budgets are limited, are all vices may be up for grabs.
Too connected: FTC eyes Facebook antitrust lawsuit
(BUSINESS NEWS) Following other antitrust hearings, we’re expecting to hear more about the FTC’s antitrust lawsuit against Facebook, soon.
Facebook might be wishing it had kept the “dislike” button.
On September 15, the Wall Street Journal announced that the Federal Trade Commission was preparing a possible antitrust lawsuit against the social media titan. Although the FTC has not made an official decision on whether to pursue the case, sources familiar with the situation expect a determination will be made on the matter sometime before the end of 2020. Facebook and the FTC both declined to comment when asked about the story.
The news comes following a year-long investigation by the FTC that has looked into anti-competitive practices by the Menlo Park-based company. This past July, the United States House of Representatives held hearings in which they grilled the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook regarding their business practices. In August, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also testified in front of the FTC as part of the department’s antitrust probe into the organization.
The FTC seems to be especially interested in Facebook’s past acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, which they believe may have been done to stifle competition. In internal emails sent between Zuckerberg and Facebook’s former CFO David Ebersman back in 2012, the 36-year-old seemed worried that the apps could eventually pose a threat to the social media conglomerate.
“These businesses are nascent but the networks established, the brands are already meaningful, and if they grow to a large scale the could be very disruptive to us,” Zuckerberg wrote to Ebersman, “Given that we think our own valuation is fairly aggressive and that we’re vulnerable in mobile, I’m curious if we should consider going after one or two of them.”
When Ebersman asked him to clarify the benefits of the acquisitions, Zuckerberg stated the purchases would neutralize a competitor while improving Facebook.
“One way of looking at this is that what we’re really buying is time. Even if some new competitors springs up, buying Instagram, Path, Foursquare, etc. now will give us a year or more to integrate their dynamics before anyone can get close to their scale again.” Zuckerberg said.
This isn’t the first time the FTC has investigated Facebook either. Last year the agency fined the company $5 billion for the mishandling of user’s personal information, the biggest penalty imposed by the federal government against a technology company. As a part of the settlement with the FTC in that case, Facebook also promised more comprehensive oversight of user data.
If the FTC does pursue an antitrust suit against Facebook, it could end up forcing the social media giant to spin off some of the companies it has acquired or place restrictions on how it does business. Considering how long it will take to file the litigation and prove the case in a courtroom, however, it seems that Zuckerberg will once again be “buying time.”
What you need to know about the historic TikTok deal (for now)
(BUSINESS NEWS) No one really knows what’s happening, but the TikTok deal’s impact on business, US-China relations, and the open internet could be huge.
So, maybe you’ve heard that Oracle and Walmart are buying TikTok for national security!
Um, not exactly.
Also, Trump banned TikTok!
Sort of? Maybe?
The terms of the proposal seem to shift daily, if not hourly. The sheer number of contradictory statements from every player suggests no one really knows what’s going on.
Just one example: Trump said the deal included a $5 billion donation to a fund for education for American youth. TikTok parent ByteDance, said, “Say what now?”
Here’s what we think we know (as of this writing):
Oracle and Walmart would get a combined 20 percent stake in a new U.S.-based company called TikTok Global. Combine that with current US investors in China’s ByteDance, TikTok’s parent, that would give American interests 53 percent. European and other investors would have 11 percent. China would retain 36 percent. (On Saturday Trump said China would have no interests at all. But that does not jibe with the reporting on the deal.)
Oracle would host all user data on its cloud, where it is promising “security will be 100 percent” to keep data safe from China’s prying eyes. But reporting has differed on whether Oracle will get full access to TikTok’s code and AI algorithms. Without full control, skeptics say, Oracle could be little more than a hosting service, and potential security issues would remain unaddressed.
Walmart says they’re excited about their “potential investment and commercial agreements,” suggesting they may be exploring e-commerce opportunities in the app.
The US Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is overseen by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, still has to approve any deal.
As for the TikTok “ban” – which isn’t really a ban because current users can keep it – the Commerce Department postponed the deadline for kicking TikTok off U.S. app stores to September 27, to give time for the deal to be hammered out. Never mind that it’s still not clear whether the U.S. government has authority to do that. Unsurprisingly, ByteDance says it doesn’t in a lawsuit filed September 18.
Whatever happens with the whiplash of the deal’s particulars, there are bigger issues in play.
According to business news site Quartz, moving data storage to Oracle mirrors what companies like Apple have done in China: Appease the Chinese government by allowing all data hosting to be inside China. A similar move could “mark the US, too, shifting from a more laissez-faire approach to user data, to a more sovereign one,” says China tech reporter Jane Li.
In the meantime, TikTokkers keep TikTokking. White suburban moms continue to lip sync to rap songs in their kitchens. Gen Z continues to make fun of the president – and pretty much everything else.
And downloads of the app have skyrocketed.
Hobby Lobby increases minimum wage, but how much is just to save face?
(BUSINESS NEWS) Are their efforts to raise their minimum wage to $17/hour sincere, or more about saving face after bungling pandemic concerns?
The arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby announced this week that they will be raising their minimum full-time wage to $17/hour starting October 1st. This decision makes them the latest big retailer to raise wages during the pandemic (Target raised their minimum wage to $15/hour about three months ago, and Walmart and Amazon have temporarily raised wages). The current minimum wage for Hobby Lobby employees is $15/hour, which was implemented in 2014.
While a $17 minimum wage is a big statement for the company (even a $15 minimum wage cannot be agreed upon on the federal level) – and it is no doubt a coveted wage for the majority of the working class – it’s difficult to not see this move as an attempt to regain public support of the company.
When the pandemic first began, Hobby Lobby – with more than 900 stores and 43,000 employees nationwide – refused to close their stores despite being deemed a nonessential business (subsequently, a Dallas judge accused the company of endangering public health).
In April, Hobby Lobby furloughed almost all store employees and the majority of corporate and distribution employees without notice. They also ended emergency leave pay and suspended the use of company-provided paid time off benefits for employees during the furloughs – a decision that was widely criticized by the public, although the company claims the reason for this was so that employees would be able to take full advantage of government handouts during their furlough.
However, the furloughs are not Hobby Lobby’s first moment under fire. The Oklahoma-based Christian company won a 2014 Supreme Court case – the same year they initially raised their minimum wage – that granted them the right to deny their female employees insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Also, Hobby Lobby settled a federal complaint in 2017 that accused them of purchasing upwards of 5,000 looted ancient Iraqi artifacts, smuggled through the United Arab Emirates and Israel – which is simultaneously strange, exploitative, and highly controversial.
Why does this all matter? While raising their minimum wage to $17 should be regarded as a step in the right direction regarding the overall treatment of employees (and, hopefully, $17 becomes the new standard), Hobby Lobby is not without reason to seek favorable public opinion, especially during a pandemic. Yes, we should be quick to condone the action of increasing minimum wage, but perhaps be a little skeptical when deeming a company “good” or “bad”.
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
The actual reasons people choose to work at startups
Business News2 weeks ago
2020 Black Friday shopping may break the mold
Business Entrepreneur1 week ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Business Finance6 days ago
Small business owners furious over more PPP fraud this week
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Work from home – are we over it?
Tech News2 weeks ago
Incoming! Amazon drones will be dropping off packages soon (we hope)
Business News1 week ago
RIP office culture: How work from home is destroying the economy
Business News6 days ago
Hobby Lobby increases minimum wage, but how much is just to save face?