Corporate Office HQ

News

Yahoo’s Employee Rating System Challenged in Court

One of the first policy changes that the current CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, introduced  was a quarterly employee review process. Every single employee at the company is rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Since this policy was initiated in 2012, hundreds of employees have been fired for poor performance reviews.

On Monday, February 1st, a former editor who oversaw the Yahoo shopping, autos and homes in Sunnyvale, California, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in San Jose, California. Gregory Anderson, who was fired in November of 2014, states that managers routinely manipulate the employee review process numbers in order to let go of hundreds of personnel for no other reason than to meet certain financial goals. Anderson states that these cuts amount to nothing more than illegal “layoffs” . Anderson was terminated along with about 600 other low scoring personnel that month.

California law clearly states that when companies layoff more than 50 persons in a 30 day period from a single location, they are required to give employees at least 60 days notice. A federal law requires advance notice if employers lay off more than 500 people from the business in general, not just a single location. Yahoo gave no notice to employees at all, even though they terminated the employment of more than 1,100 persons in late 2014 and early 2015.

Violations of either law carry some stiff penalties; back pay for whatever time the company failed to give proper notice for, as well as a possible $500 fine per employee.

The lawsuit claims that many managers are forced to give numerous employees poor scores, regardless of the employees actual job performance. In some cases, ratings given by front-line managers were changed by their superiors who never met the employee they were rating nor any real knowledge of what the employee did or did not do. Employees are not given their actual review, their score, the name of the manager who submitted the final score and there is no appeal process.

Anderson claims that his firing occurred after he took a short leave of absence to attend a Knight-Wallace Fellowship. Although his leave had been approved by two senior executives, his boss’ supervisor, Megan Liberman, called him on November 10th to inform him that he was among the lowest 5 percent in employee performance reviews and that he was being terminated, even though he was on a leave of absence at the time.

Anderson states that he was terminated due to company problems that had nothing to do with his performance. He had received glowing reviews before his leave of absence. He is also claiming gender discrimination, stating that Yahoo routinely favors women in terms of hiring, promotions and layoffs.

 

 

 

Source: New York Times

x

One of the first policy changes that the current CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, introduced  was a quarterly employee review process. Every single employee at the company is rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Since this policy was initiated in 2012, hundreds of employees have been fired for poor performance reviews.

On Monday, February 1st, a former editor who oversaw the Yahoo shopping, autos and homes in Sunnyvale, California, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in San Jose, California. Gregory Anderson, who was fired in November of 2014, states that managers routinely manipulate the employee review process numbers in order to let go of hundreds of personnel for no other reason than to meet certain financial goals. Anderson states that these cuts amount to nothing more than illegal “layoffs” . Anderson was terminated along with about 600 other low scoring personnel that month.

California law clearly states that when companies layoff more than 50 persons in a 30 day period from a single location, they are required to give employees at least 60 days notice. A federal law requires advance notice if employers lay off more than 500 people from the business in general, not just a single location. Yahoo gave no notice to employees at all, even though they terminated the employment of more than 1,100 persons in late 2014 and early 2015.

History

Violations of either law carry some stiff penalties; back pay for whatever time the company failed to give proper notice for, as well as a possible $500 fine per employee.

The lawsuit claims that many managers are forced to give numerous employees poor scores, regardless of the employees actual job performance. In some cases, ratings given by front-line managers were changed by their superiors who never met the employee they were rating nor any real knowledge of what the employee did or did not do. Employees are not given their actual review, their score, the name of the manager who submitted the final score and there is no appeal process.

Anderson claims that his firing occurred after he took a short leave of absence to attend a Knight-Wallace Fellowship. Although his leave had been approved by two senior executives, his boss’ supervisor, Megan Liberman, called him on November 10th to inform him that he was among the lowest 5 percent in employee performance reviews and that he was being terminated, even though he was on a leave of absence at the time.

Anderson states that he was terminated due to company problems that had nothing to do with his performance. He had received glowing reviews before his leave of absence. He is also claiming gender discrimination, stating that Yahoo routinely favors women in terms of hiring, promotions and layoffs.

 

 

 

Source: New York Times

Uber-High Bill? Uber Could be Pricing Itself Out of the Market

Although most people expect to pay a bit more for Uber car service, the sheer convenience, privacy, and perceived sense of safety appears to many to be worth the cost. However, when people don’t double check the price in advance, they could be in for an Uber-high hit on their pocketbook!

Just ask Bonnie Lieb of Virginia. She thought she was agreeing to a $250 dollar ride to the airport from her home. Imagine her shock when she sat down in the lobby after check-in and found a receipt on her cell phone for $640.94!  This means that Bonnie’s 30 mile ride cost her a bit more than $21 per mile, a bit steep for most people. After speaking to the corporate office, Bonnie discovered that the $250 she thought she would be paying was for Uber’s cheapest ride, however, Bonnie ordered an SUV, which is Uber’s most expensive option.

Uber uses what they call “surge pricing”, which means that at particular times or events, such as Christmas day or, in Bonnie’s case, immediately after a huge snow storm, prices are increased. Rep’s at Uber say that they urge people to check the fare estimator as well as, if possible, asking to be notified when the surge price drops and returns to normal.

Many customers, however, are very unhappy with Uber’s surge pricing policy. Some claim that surge pricing is the same thing as price gouging. It’s as if there were a drought and Uber suddenly changes the price of their water (if they sold water) from $5 a gallon to $25 a gallon until a thunderstorm hits, when water returns to $5. Uber defends their pricing policy saying that they don’t see it as gouging, but a means of attempting to get people to use other means of transportation so that their vehicles can be freed up for clients who have no other options.

Although Bonnie says that she just plain overlooked the base $140 charge for an SUV, she still feels that Uber is price gouging. Uber did give Bonnie a credit of $140 towards her next ride but she has said she isn’t sure if or when she will ever use Uber again.

 

Source: Chicago Tribune

 

x

Although most people expect to pay a bit more for Uber car service, the sheer convenience, privacy, and perceived sense of safety appears to many to be worth the cost. However, when people don’t double check the price in advance, they could be in for an Uber-high hit on their pocketbook!

Just ask Bonnie Lieb of Virginia. She thought she was agreeing to a $250 dollar ride to the airport from her home. Imagine her shock when she sat down in the lobby after check-in and found a receipt on her cell phone for $640.94!  This means that Bonnie’s 30 mile ride cost her a bit more than $21 per mile, a bit steep for most people. After speaking to the corporate office, Bonnie discovered that the $250 she thought she would be paying was for Uber’s cheapest ride, however, Bonnie ordered an SUV, which is Uber’s most expensive option.

Uber uses what they call “surge pricing”, which means that at particular times or events, such as Christmas day or, in Bonnie’s case, immediately after a huge snow storm, prices are increased. Rep’s at Uber say that they urge people to check the fare estimator as well as, if possible, asking to be notified when the surge price drops and returns to normal.

History

Many customers, however, are very unhappy with Uber’s surge pricing policy. Some claim that surge pricing is the same thing as price gouging. It’s as if there were a drought and Uber suddenly changes the price of their water (if they sold water) from $5 a gallon to $25 a gallon until a thunderstorm hits, when water returns to $5. Uber defends their pricing policy saying that they don’t see it as gouging, but a means of attempting to get people to use other means of transportation so that their vehicles can be freed up for clients who have no other options.

Although Bonnie says that she just plain overlooked the base $140 charge for an SUV, she still feels that Uber is price gouging. Uber did give Bonnie a credit of $140 towards her next ride but she has said she isn’t sure if or when she will ever use Uber again.

 

Source: Chicago Tribune

 

Everyone Is Up In Arms Over Guns: Even Facebook

The gun debate has certainly heated up during the past decade. Who should have them, who shouldn’t, who can sell them, what they can sell, not to mention open carry laws. Everyone seems to have strong feelings one way or the other regarding firearms, apparently even Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook is now banning private sales of guns on both the social media site as well as its Instagram photo sharing site.

Facebook is not necessarily a website involved in sales of any kind, but many people connect with other gun enthusiasts and use messenger as a means of completing sales. The site has already banned the sale of illegal drugs, marijuana, and other pharmaceutical drugs, and it is now adding firearm sales to their list.

This ban does not apply to licensed gun dealers or gun clubs, only private sales between individuals.

With at least 1.6 billion users, Facebook is perhaps the perfect “server” for the negotiation of gun sales.  Adding firearms to their list of banned items really puts Facebook in the spotlight of a very heated debate, especially after the mass shootings that occurred late in 2015 in San Bernardino, California. Once President Obama gave a speech regarding the need to tighten the enforcement of gun sales, many individuals openly stated that they would turn to the internet, and sites such as Facebook, to conduct their gun sales.

Of course, Facebook cannot police every single post made on their site and they appear to be aware of this fact as well. Spokespersons for the world’s largest social media site stated that they hoped that users will be willing to report violations or suspicious activity. In addition to banning individuals who violate the rules, Facebook says that they will work with law enforcement in any way necessary.

For every person who is unhappy about Facebook’s new policy, there is another who is pleased. Eric T. Schneiderman, attorney general for New York, has praised the company’s decision. He has attempted for years to pass tougher laws and restrictions regarding illegal gun sales on websites such as Facebook.

This isn’t the first time Facebook has made hard line decisions regarding firearms. In 2014, the company said it would limit gun sales and attempted to protect minors from seeing pages that advertised guns for sale. Perhaps these decisions are being reached because Facebook is also being pressured by gun safety groups to stop unlicensed gun sales on their site. In December of 2014, Facebook was presented with evidence that Brian Harleman of Ohio, shot and wounded an ex-girlfriend and killed the woman’s daughter before committing suicide with a gun he purchased off another Facebook user. Harleman was a convicted felon who was unable to buy a gun through licensed dealers who require background checks.

 

 

Source:  CNBC

x

The gun debate has certainly heated up during the past decade. Who should have them, who shouldn’t, who can sell them, what they can sell, not to mention open carry laws. Everyone seems to have strong feelings one way or the other regarding firearms, apparently even Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook is now banning private sales of guns on both the social media site as well as its Instagram photo sharing site.

Facebook is not necessarily a website involved in sales of any kind, but many people connect with other gun enthusiasts and use messenger as a means of completing sales. The site has already banned the sale of illegal drugs, marijuana, and other pharmaceutical drugs, and it is now adding firearm sales to their list.

This ban does not apply to licensed gun dealers or gun clubs, only private sales between individuals.

History

With at least 1.6 billion users, Facebook is perhaps the perfect “server” for the negotiation of gun sales.  Adding firearms to their list of banned items really puts Facebook in the spotlight of a very heated debate, especially after the mass shootings that occurred late in 2015 in San Bernardino, California. Once President Obama gave a speech regarding the need to tighten the enforcement of gun sales, many individuals openly stated that they would turn to the internet, and sites such as Facebook, to conduct their gun sales.

Of course, Facebook cannot police every single post made on their site and they appear to be aware of this fact as well. Spokespersons for the world’s largest social media site stated that they hoped that users will be willing to report violations or suspicious activity. In addition to banning individuals who violate the rules, Facebook says that they will work with law enforcement in any way necessary.

For every person who is unhappy about Facebook’s new policy, there is another who is pleased. Eric T. Schneiderman, attorney general for New York, has praised the company’s decision. He has attempted for years to pass tougher laws and restrictions regarding illegal gun sales on websites such as Facebook.

This isn’t the first time Facebook has made hard line decisions regarding firearms. In 2014, the company said it would limit gun sales and attempted to protect minors from seeing pages that advertised guns for sale. Perhaps these decisions are being reached because Facebook is also being pressured by gun safety groups to stop unlicensed gun sales on their site. In December of 2014, Facebook was presented with evidence that Brian Harleman of Ohio, shot and wounded an ex-girlfriend and killed the woman’s daughter before committing suicide with a gun he purchased off another Facebook user. Harleman was a convicted felon who was unable to buy a gun through licensed dealers who require background checks.

 

 

Source:  CNBC

Facebook Rolling in Cash but At Your Expense

Mark Zuckerberg’s startup days are well behind him, but that doesn’t mean he is traveling the world, living the high life, no longer concerned with his mega-site,  Facebook.  Wednesday, January 27th, saw Facebook post impressive earnings, sending Wall Street into a shock and awe campaign that drove stock prices higher after trading hours.

Not only did Facebook beat expectations, but during the last quarter of 2015, the company brought in $5.8 billion. That is an impressive growth of 52 %, however, if that were not enough, Facebook revealed that they cleared a profit of $1.6 billion – which is a whopping increase of 123%! The biggest increase comes from Mobile ad revenue, which now makes up for 80% of total advertising revenue. This is up considerably from the 69% the company earned in 2014.

Where is all this growth, and money, coming from? You – the user. Facebook now has 1.5 billion users each and every month. The company is making more money off each of these users at the same time. Facebook is earning almost 50% more off of each user in the U.S. and Canada than it did in 2014. Globally speaking, Facebook is making more than 33% from each user. This is also an increase from the 24% Facebook posted just last quarter.

New features that Facebook introduced last year, including GIF’s, live video feed, collages, the capability to hide from your ex, improved notifications, as well as a more powerful search tool, have obviously paid off. These new tools and features not only attract new users, but they keep current users using the site for longer periods of time. This allows Facebook to find out more about individual users and therefore, target their advertising more effectively.

With such immense growth in 2015, it is hard to imagine how Zuckerberg can match or increase these numbers in 2016 but he doesn’t appear to be worried. Although this young CEO divulged very little about his plans for Facebook this year, he did seem pleased with the pre-order sales of the virtual reality display Oculus Rift. Zuckerberg feels that this device is a step towards the future, but is it a step in the right direction for the world’s largest social media site?

Unstable global economic conditions and world currency rate fluctuations are both making for a wild ride on Wall Street so far. Only time will tell if Facebook’s expected investments in new features and other products, such as Oculus, will pay off handsomely or if users will balk at being Zuckerberg’s cash cows.

 

 

Source: https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20160127/NEWS02/301279891

x

Mark Zuckerberg’s startup days are well behind him, but that doesn’t mean he is traveling the world, living the high life, no longer concerned with his mega-site,  Facebook.  Wednesday, January 27th, saw Facebook post impressive earnings, sending Wall Street into a shock and awe campaign that drove stock prices higher after trading hours.

Not only did Facebook beat expectations, but during the last quarter of 2015, the company brought in $5.8 billion. That is an impressive growth of 52 %, however, if that were not enough, Facebook revealed that they cleared a profit of $1.6 billion – which is a whopping increase of 123%! The biggest increase comes from Mobile ad revenue, which now makes up for 80% of total advertising revenue. This is up considerably from the 69% the company earned in 2014.

Where is all this growth, and money, coming from? You – the user. Facebook now has 1.5 billion users each and every month. The company is making more money off each of these users at the same time. Facebook is earning almost 50% more off of each user in the U.S. and Canada than it did in 2014. Globally speaking, Facebook is making more than 33% from each user. This is also an increase from the 24% Facebook posted just last quarter.

History

New features that Facebook introduced last year, including GIF’s, live video feed, collages, the capability to hide from your ex, improved notifications, as well as a more powerful search tool, have obviously paid off. These new tools and features not only attract new users, but they keep current users using the site for longer periods of time. This allows Facebook to find out more about individual users and therefore, target their advertising more effectively.

With such immense growth in 2015, it is hard to imagine how Zuckerberg can match or increase these numbers in 2016 but he doesn’t appear to be worried. Although this young CEO divulged very little about his plans for Facebook this year, he did seem pleased with the pre-order sales of the virtual reality display Oculus Rift. Zuckerberg feels that this device is a step towards the future, but is it a step in the right direction for the world’s largest social media site?

Unstable global economic conditions and world currency rate fluctuations are both making for a wild ride on Wall Street so far. Only time will tell if Facebook’s expected investments in new features and other products, such as Oculus, will pay off handsomely or if users will balk at being Zuckerberg’s cash cows.

 

 

Source: https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20160127/NEWS02/301279891