Mediaboss Marketing

Despite efforts to reverse a federal district courts order, Walmart is still on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in lost trucker wages, an appeals court decided on Monday.

On Monday, Jan. 6, a panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower courts decision to award Walmart truck drivers in California $54.6 million in lost wages in addition to nearly $6 million in restitution.

Like similar cases, Walmarts wage lawsuit is based on whether the company controlled the drivers.

During oral arguments, Walmart argued that drivers should not have been awarded damages for layovers. That portion of the verdict accounted for $44.7 million of the $54.6 million in damages. A jury decided that drivers should be compensated for the 10-hour layover period when they cannot work and are free to engage in rest, sleep and leisure activities away from their truck.

Walmart argues the verdict makes it sound like the payment plan requires pay for every minute of the 10-hour layover. However, the plan does not say that drivers must take their layover in the truck. In fact, if truckers want to earn a $42 inconvenience fee, only then does Walmart require the layover period take place inside the truck.

Attorneys for the drivers claim that truckers need permission to sleep anywhere other than the cab. Company policy states that drivers must park at a safe and secure location, typically a distribution center. According to oral arguments, drivers cannot conduct personal errands. If drivers want to leave the cab, they must first receive permission. Truckers hauling an expensive load rarely receive that permission.

In its appeal, Walmart argued that layovers are not compensable. However, the federal court applied California law to the case.

The appeals court ruled that under California law, time drivers spent on layovers was compensable if Walmart exercised control over the drivers during those breaks. On that note, the panel also agreed that Walmarts written policies, if applied as written, resulted in Walmart exercising control over employees during mandated layovers as a matter of California law.

In California, an employer must pay minimum wages whenever it controls the employee, the appeals court states. And there is no reason to think that, as a matter of law, an employer cannot exercise control of a trucker even when the driver is taking a legally-mandated break.

Second, Walmart argues that even if that is the case, it has no control over the drivers during layovers. The companys pay manual only requires a driver to seek approval for the $42 for a layover taken at home. Walmart argues that the pay manual does not require employees to seek approval to go home during layovers. Rather, it requires drivers to seek preapproval to obtain the $42 inconvenience payment.

The manual states that a driver can take a break at home only after receiving approval from a member of transportation management, according to the appeals court. The manual also states that taking an unauthorized break at home is unacceptable and may lead to immediate termination.

The court also ruled the following:

Walmarts policy restricted drivers freedom of movement and prevented drivers from making a unilateral decision to spend layovers at home without preapproval. Walmart employees may have been free to leave the truck and engage in personal activities during layovers, but they could not go home. This foreclosed drivers from numerous activities in which they might otherwise engage while on layovers. As a result, employee liberty and freedom of movement was controlled by Walmart.

Consequently, the appeals court affirmed the $54.6 million in damages. Those damages include (rounded up):

The appellate decision also affirms restitution in the amount of $5.86 million and more than $300,000 for class representatives.

Walmart can still request an en banc rehearing or petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

See the article here:
Walmart on the hook for $54.6M in trucker wage lawsuit - Land Line - Land Line Media

Last year, tech companies couldnt get enough of letting you use their products less.

Executives at Apple and Google unveiled on-device features to help people monitor and restrict how much time they spent on their phones. Facebook and Instagram, two of the biggest time sucks on the planet, also rolled out time spent notifications and the ability to snooze their apps new features meant to nudge people to scroll through their apps a little less mindlessly.

These companies all became fluent in the language of time well spent, a movement to design technology that respects users time and doesnt exploit their vulnerabilities. Since the movement sprang up nearly seven years ago, it has invoked mass introspection and an ongoing debate over technology use, which people blame for a swath of societal ills including depression and suicide, diminished attention spans, and decreased productivity.

But a year after Big Tech rolled out their time-well-spent features, it doesnt seem like theyre working: The time we spend on our devices just keeps increasing.

Fortunately, the problem might not be that bad in the first place. Though correlations exist, theres no causal link between digital media usage and the myriad problems some speculate it causes.

Every time new tech comes out, theres a moral panic that this is going to melt our brains and destroy society, Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Center for Civic Media at MIT, told Recode. In almost every case, we sort of look back at these things and laugh.

What time well spent has done is spurred a whole cottage industry to help people digitally detox, and its being led in part by the big tech companies responsible for and that benefit from our reliance on tech in the first place. As Quartz writer Simone Stolzoff put it, Time well spent is having its Kendall Jenner Pepsi moment. What began as a social movement has become a marketing strategy.

Politicians are also jumping on the dogpile. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has proposed a bill to reduce what some call social media addiction by banning infinite scrolling and autoplay and by automatically limiting users to spending a maximum of 30 minutes a day on each platform. The bill currently has no cosponsors and is unlikely to go to a vote, but does demonstrate that the topic is on lawmakers radar.

These efforts, however, have yet to dent our insatiable need for tech.

By all accounts, the time we spend attached to our digital devices is growing.

American adults spent about 3 hours and 30 minutes a day using the mobile internet in 2019, an increase of about 20 minutes from a year earlier, according to measurement company Zenith. The firm expects that time to grow to over four hours in 2021. (Top smartphone users currently spend 4 hours and 30 minutes per day on those devices, according to productivity software company RescueTime, which estimates average phone usage to be 3 hours and 15 minutes per day).

Were spending more time online because pastimes like socializing that used to happen offline are shifting online, and were generally ceding more of our days to digital activities.

The overall time Americans spend on various media is expected to grow to nearly 11 hours per day this year, after accounting for declines in time spent with other media like TV and newspapers that are increasingly moving online, according to Zenith. Mobile internet use is responsible for the entirety of that growth.

Nearly a third of Americans said they are online almost constantly in 2019, a statistic that has risen substantially across age groups since the study was conducted the year before.

Not all our online activities are on the uptick, however.

Online measurement company SimilarWeb has found that time spent with some of the most popular social media apps, like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, has declined in the wake of time well spent efforts though the decline could instead reflect the waning relevance of those social media behemoths. At least for now, the average amount of time on those apps is still near historic highs:

Since overall time spent online is going up, the data suggests were just finding other places online to spend our time, like with newer social media like TikTok or with online video games.

Some have argued that sheer time spent isnt important psychologically, but rather its what were doing with that time online. And what were doing is very fragmented.

Rather than use our devices continually, we tend to check them throughout the day. On average, people open their phones 58 times a day (and 30 of those times are during the workday), according to RescueTime. Most of those phone sessions are under two minutes.

Even on our phones, we dont stick to one thing. A recent study published in the journal Human-Computer Interaction found that people switched on average from one screen activity to another every 20 seconds.

And whats the result of all these hours of fragmented activity? Just one in 10 people RescueTime surveyed said they felt in control of how they spend their day.

Its tough to separate finger-wagging judgments about tech from valid concerns about how tech could be degrading our lives. But the perception, at least, that tech is harming our lives seems to be very real.

Numerous articles instruct people on how to put down their phones. And richer Americans including the people making the technology in the first place are desperately trying to find ways to have their kids spend less time with screens.

MITs Zuckerman suggests building better pro-civic social media, since he thinks its already clear were going to spend lots of our time online anyway.

I am deeply worried about the effects of the internet on democracy. On the flip side, I was deeply worried about democracy before everyone was using the internet, he said. What we probably have to be doing is building social media thats good for us as a democracy.

This social media would emphasize the best aspects of social media and would better defend against scourges like content that promotes political polarization and misinformation. He gave the example of gell.com, which uses experts to outline arguments for and against major social issues, and then encourages user participation to further develop and challenge the ideas.

Nir Eyal, author of Indistractable: How to Control Your Attention and Choose Your Life, thinks were overusing the language of addiction when it comes to technology usage. If we really want to limit our technology usage, he told Recode, solutions are close at hand.

We want to think that were getting addicted because an addiction involves a pusher, a dealer someones doing it. Whereas when we call it what it really is, which is distraction now in the US, we dont like to face that fact that means we have to do something thats no fun, Eyal said.

Instead of blaming tech companies, he asks people, Have you tried to turn off notifications, for Gods sake? Have you planned your day so that you dont have all this white space where youre free to check your phone all the time?

For those who are addicted a percentage he says is probably in line with the portions of the population that are addicted to anything else, like alcohol or gambling he thinks tech companies should notify users that theyre in the top percentiles of usership and offer them resources, such as software tools and professional assistance (and his book).

In the meantime, the time we spend on our digital devices will continue to increase, and theres still a need for conclusive research about whether that actually matters. Perhaps while we wait for clarity, we can turn off our notifications about how much time we spend on our phones.

Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.

Read more here:
Americans spent about 3.5 hours per day on their phones last year a number that keeps going up despite the "time well spent" movement -...

The City of Boulders Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Departmentisseeking publicfeedbackon a draft approach and an evaluation of potential actions to manage irrigable agricultural landwithlarge populations of prairie dogs.

OSMPsidentificationofa draft approach and its evaluation of potential actions isaresponse todirection from the Boulder City Council,following a recommendation from the Open Space Board of Trustees(OSBT)last spring, to undertake an expedited public process to look at agricultural uses on the citys northern grasslands. Potential management actions evaluated includeways to help foster soil health and carbon sequestration and options forbothnon-lethal and lethal control measures.

The city welcomes public feedback on the draft approach and the evaluation of potential actions online at http://bit.ly/Actions-Approach until 5 p.m., Sunday, Feb. 16.Community membersare invitedto theOSMPHub at 2520 55thSt. from5to7p.m.,Monday, Jan. 27, and2 to 4 p.m.,Tuesday, Feb. 4,if they needassistancein using the citysonline inputtool.

City policiesplans and ordinances have prioritized non-lethal control measures and have sought to protect prairie dogs and their habitats because they are important in helping to maintain healthy ecosystems. However, monitoring has indicated that OSMP irrigable agricultural lands currently have thehighest levels of prairie dog occupation they have seen since the department beganprairie dogmapping in 1996.

Such high abundance of prairie dogs on irrigable landsnorth of Bouldermakesit difficult forOSMPand farmers and rancherstofulfillagricultural-related open space purposes in the city charter and to implement soil carbon farming and climate mitigation practices.Elected and appointed leaders, in their direction to staff last May,indicatedthat it may beinfeasible to address large prairie dog populations on agricultural lands in a timely or economical fashion by current non-lethal practices alone.Currently,the city has 967 acres of irrigable agricultural land that is occupied by prairie dogs,butitcan only accommodate the relocation ofabout40 acres of prairie dog colonies each yearbecause of costs, contractor availabilityand permitting requirements.

The preliminary potential managementactionsevaluated as part of this public process focus on thesemanagement categories:

Comments received throughTuesday, Feb. 4, will be provided to the Open Space Board of Trustees(OSBT)in advance of a study sessionWednesday, Feb. 12, when board members willdiscussstaffs potential strategies and actions.Community members are welcome to provide comments to the OSBT during a public comment period before theWednesday,Feb. 12,study session.Staff willthenuse community input and OSBT feedback on the draft approach and evaluated actions to developfinal recommendations, which the department expects to present to the OSBTduring a public hearingin March.

For more information, please visit the project website or call OSMP at 303-441-3440.

Published: Jan. 6, 2020

Phillip Yates, Media Relations, 303-349-2438Bryan Rachal, Media Relations, 303-441-3155

Read the original post:
City Seeks Input on Potential Approach and Actions to Manage Irrigable Agricultural Areas With a High Abundance of Prairie Dogs - City of Boulder

Johnson will govern like he campaigned, by running away from the press.

Hes barely back from his post-election Carribean holiday but we it is already clear that Boris Johnson will govern as he campaigned by hiding from the press.

After Boris Johnson chickened out of an interview with Andrew Neil during the election campaign, his ministers are now going to avoid appearing on BBCs Newsnight.

According to the Mail, the governments excuse for this is that Newnight has appointed a journalist called Lewis Goodall as its policy editor and hes apparently too left-wing.

Goodall has joined Newnight from Sky News, where he worked as a political correspondent for right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

The governments evidence that Goodall is anti-Tory, the Mail says, is that he is the author of a string of aggressively anti-Tory comments on social media.

So what did he say? F**k Tory scum. All hail Corbyn.? No, just the kind of reasoned criticism every political journalist makes about any party. The most anti-Tory example the government/Mail could dig out is this one:

And of course, hes also been critical of Labour too. He called Labours election performance lamentably bad and accused Corbyn of looking stiff and robotic at Prime Ministers Questions.

The government/Mails other piece of evidence against Goodall is that, when he was a student, a Guardian profile described him as a Labour activist.

But plenty of political journalists used to be active in politics in their youth.

Today Show presenter Nick Robinson was the chair of the Young Conservatives and the BBCs Andrew Neil used to be a Conservative Party researcher and now edits the right-wing Spectator magazine.

Yet Johnson dodged Neils election interview and his ministers have been told to avoid Robinsons Today Show. So it looks like its not Lewis Goodall but any media scrutiny they are afraid of.

This impression is reinforced by government moves to change the location of press briefings from parliament to Downing Street where they can control the guestlist more tightly.

At present, any media outlet with a parliamentary pass can attend government press briefings. If theyre moved to Downing Street, publications which displease the government could be disinvited.

If this is the case, lets hope that the favoured journalists and outlets stand up for press freedom and boycott the briefings.

Joe Lo is a co-editor of Left Foot Forward

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for 5 a month?

See original here:
Johnson's government continue to hide from press scrutiny by dodging Newsnight - Left Foot Forward

BAGHDAD (AP) A push led by pro-Iran factions to oust U.S. troops from Iraq following the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general is gaining momentum, bolstered by a Parliament vote calling on the government to remove them.

But the path forward is unclear, and in Iraqs deeply divided terrain, with a resigned prime minister and raging proxy war between Iran and the U.S., ending Americas 17-year military presence in Iraq is a risky undertaking.

Iraq was barely starting to recover from a devastating four-year war against the Islamic State group when a mass uprising against the countrys ruling elite erupted on Oct. 1, forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi two months later. He hasnt been replaced.

A pullout of U.S. troops could cripple the fight against Islamic State militants and allow the extremists to make a comeback. Militants affiliated with IS routinely carry out attacks in northern and western Iraq, hiding out in rugged desert and mountainous areas. Iraqi forces rely on the U.S. for logistics and weapons in pursuing them.

An American withdrawal could also enable Iran to deepen its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority Shiite country.

It is not that simple, Lebanese political analyst Ibrahim Bayram said of any withdrawal. This will increase the complications inside Iraq, the conflicts and contradictions ... and the clash, both political and non-political, between the Iranians and Americans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, meanwhile, said Monday the United States has made no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq, adding that the U.S. remains committed to the campaign to defeat the Islamic State group in Iraq and the region.

The Iraqi parliamentary vote Sunday calling for the ouster of the 5,200 American troops in Iraq requires Iraqi government approval. But it highlights the sharp deterioration in relations between Washington and Baghdad amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport .

American forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the government to help battle the Islamic State group. The extremists had seized vast areas in the north and west of the country after Iraqs armed forces collapsed, including the second-largest city, Mosul. A U.S.-led coalition provided crucial air support as Iraqi forces, including Iran-backed militias, regrouped and drove IS out in a costly three-year campaign.

Unlike the previous U.S. deployment, which was governed by the Status of Forces agreement that clearly spelled out the rules of termination, American troops in Iraq are now in the country based on a less formal request by the then prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Pressure has been escalating for a U.S. troop withdrawal since the defeat of IS in 2017, particularly among factions loyal to Iran. But calls for their removal grew louder amid outrage over the U.S. strike last week that killed Soleimani along with senior Iraqi militia leaders.

Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament on Sunday to take urgent measures to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country. In a sign of the divisions, the parliament session was boycotted by many Sunni and Kurdish legislators who oppose abolishing the deal with the Americans, and most of the lawmakers who voted were Shiite.

It was not clear what steps Abdul-Mahdi would take following the parliamentary vote. Experts were split on whether, as a resigned prime minister, he has the authority to request the termination of the U.S. presence.

Thafer al-Aani, a Sunni lawmaker, said Abdul-Mahdi doesnt want to risk aggravating the Americans too much by acting alone, which is why he turned to Parliament for backing, adding that the vote was mostly for a domestic audience.

He feels that America isolated his government by siding with the protesters. ... He decided to side completely with the Iranians after the killing of Soleimani and because of the U.S. position toward the protests, he said.

The U.S. government repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to stop using excessive force on peaceful protesters. Nearly 500 people were killed by security forces in three months of protests against the countrys top political and religious leaders. The protests have also turned into a revolt by the countrys Shiites against Iranian influence in the country, with protesters burning Iranian interests in the southern provinces.

On Monday, Abdul-Mahdi met with U.S. Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, according to a statement from his office.

In their meeting, Abdul-Mahdi said relations with Washington must be built on a sound basis. He didnt elaborate, but said the situation in Iraq was critical and that all efforts were being exerted to prevent sliding towards an open war.

Speaking in Washington, Esper said the U.S. was not pulling troops out of Iraq.

Theres no decision to leave, nor did we issue any plans to leave or prepare to leave, the defense secretary said. He spoke to reporters in response to a letter from a senior U.S. commander that seemed to suggest a withdrawal was underway.

The Iraqi parliament vote angered President Donald Trump, who promptly warned Iraq that he would levy punishing sanctions if the government expelled American troops. He said the U.S. wouldnt leave without being paid for its military investments in Iraq over the years

We will charge them sanctions like theyve never seen before, ever. Itll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame, Trump said.

The alarming rhetoric by the two allied nations comes amid a recent series of unclaimed attacks targeting military bases that host U.S. troops in Iraq. One attack killed an American contractor in Kirkuk late last year, and was blamed on an Iran-backed militia. That attack sparked a deadly U.S. airstrike targeting that militia, which in turn led to a New Years Eve assault by militias loyal to Iran on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Abbas Kadhim, head of the Washington-based Atlantic Councils Iraq Initiative, said because Abdul-Mahdi has resigned as prime minister, he didnt want to give the impression that he was acting unilaterally and wanted Parliament to be on board, although he has the right to approve the U.S. troop removal himself.

He said there was no reason the Americans should stay now that the mission to defeat IS is over.

The troops are there and its called the coalition to defeat ISIS not the coalition to re-occupy Iraq, Kadhim said. ISIS was defeated and they have no reason to be there now. Kadhim added that an agreement could be worked out whereby some U.S. trainers can stay behind.

Bayram, the Lebanese analyst, said, however, that Trumps reaction shows that the Americans have no intention of exiting smoothly from Iraq.

The United States considers its presence in Iraq fundamental, especially since it rid Iraq in 2003 from Saddam Hussein. America also considers itself an essential partner in Iraq, he said.

___

Karam reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers A.J. Naddaff in Beirut and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Push to oust US troops from Iraq a risky undertaking