I am SHOCKED at how fast these people can get an update information and get to be friends with such a person who you never know or have never seen. I saw a lot of these similar incidents in movies, but this documentary is just shocking in how clever a person can be to disguise herself so completely.
After I watched this film, the thought that this world will never be able to keep privacy of different people came to me immediately. If we go on like this, there is, and will be no more privacy.
This video from TEN news demonstrates the danger of facebook in how people, especially technical experts and businesses use people's private information for their own profits.
This video examines the historical perspective of facebook privacy.
Walmart
is of great controversies all over the world, and we can easily feel the heat
when we type in ‘Walmart’ in Google or Youtube. Some nearly worship Walmart as
their saviour for bringing in a lot of industries and giving great positive
impact to many communities, while others are infuriated by the brutality of the
company. In some of Youtube videos, Walmart employees express their anger by
fierce demonstrations and creating provocative videos criticizing Walmart. The
truth is, both sides are right; Walmart serves a function of a boomerang, as it
seems to benefit citizens, but then people soon realize that Walmart creates a
viscious cycle.
At
first, after watching a Youtube video < When Walmart Comes to Town: ASuccess Story >, I was persuaded to believe that Walmart actually improves
the lives of people for a moment. The video showed the complaints that the
citizens of Chicago were making on lack of places to buy fresh vegetables and
other materials. People were shouting, "We want Walmart so that we can
have something more than some dollar stores…", and they were actually
demonstrating to demand the establishment of Walmart in their town. In 2006,
Chicago finally got what it wanted, and Walmart successfully fulfilled the
needs of town people right away. First of all, Walmart boosted employment rate in
Chicago. According to the video, statistics showed that 726 jobs were created,
298 were lost, as a result gaining 428 jobs total after the bringing in
Walmart. Not only that, but also, since Walmart came in, it brought in 22 new
businesses to the area, including the Bank of America, Chase bank, CVS, and
Menards. As more and more businesses were coming in, Chicago kept on moving
towards more economic development, also creating new streets and leading more
population to Chicago. All of these make it seem plausible to support Walmart
chains, as these things actually happened.
To
sum up, Walmart seems to bring in a lot of things and give positive impact to
many communities, but viewing Walmart in long term, the situation goes back to
the original state, if not worse. In this way, I would describe Wal-Mart as
industrialization, since industrialization also seemed to greatly improve the
lives of people with no negative impact at all, but then people understood
later that there are even more disadvantages than benefits. And also, as my
title indicates: A BOOMERANG.
This video states that a lot of people from some communities actually wanted Walmart and are satisfied with what it brought with its emergence; huge industries, great increase of employment rate and activating the whole neighboring town overall.
(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will no longer offer health insurance to new part-time U.S. employees who work fewer than 24 hours a week and will charge workers who use tobacco more for coverage as healthcare costs rise, the company said on Friday.
Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. retailer and the nation's largest private employer, is also slashing the amount that it puts in employees' healthcare expense accounts by 50 percent.
The changes, which affect U.S. associates who work for Walmart and Sam's Club, are being explained during the current fall enrollment period before they take effect in January.
Preventive care such as annual checkups remains fully covered. Wal-Mart will now provide $250 for associates to use for healthcare expenses that are not covered, down from $500, and will provide $500 for families, down from $1,000.
Those who use tobacco products will also pay more, with rates varying by the type of plan someone chooses.
"The current healthcare system is unsustainable for everyone and like other businesses we've had to make choices we wish we didn't have to make," said Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter. "Our country needs to find a way to reduce the cost of healthcare, particularly in this economy."
Wal-Mart said that it will continue to pay the majority of costs for its employees' healthcare.
Not all of the company's 1.4 million U.S. employees sign up for its healthcare plans. Wal-Mart said it currently insures more than 1 million people, including workers' family members.
Wal-Mart is not alone in looking for ways to cut spending on healthcare. Starting next year, Wells Fargo & Co will ask employees to fund their own medical expense accounts or choose to pay higher insurance premiums and have the company fund them, following the lead of companies such as General Electric that offer account-based healthcare plans.
A study last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer increased 9 percent to $15,073 in 2011 from the year before. Since 2000, premiums have risen 134 percent.
Employers pay nearly three-quarters of that premium, a rate that has held fairly steady for the last 10 years, according to the foundation's data.
A Mercer survey found that health benefits costs on average will rise 5.4 percent in 2012, the smallest increase since 1997, because employers have been so aggressive about cutting these expenses.
WAL-MART'S CHANGING PLANS
At Wal-Mart, part-time associates become eligible for healthcare coverage after working for the chain for one year.
One of Wal-Mart's basic plans for an associate costs $15 per two-week pay period, or just over $1 per day. A tobacco user will now be charged an additional $10 per pay period.
Associates will use an honor system to say whether they use tobacco products.
Wal-Mart has offered part-time workers the option of signing up for healthcare coverage since 1996, regardless of how many hours per week worked. Now, part-time associates who work less than an average of 24 hours per week will no longer be eligible for the company's health insurance plans.
Those who were already eligible may still participate, even if they work fewer than 24 hours per week.
The changes were met with disappointment from some who have spoken out against Wal-Mart in the past.
"(Wal-Mart) may get away with these attacks on workers' rights in other parts of the country, but we won't stand for it in New York City," said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has pushed to keep the chain out of New York City.
Those who work about 24 hours to 33 hours a week can still sign up for coverage for themselves and for their children.
Wal-Mart has not said what percentage of its U.S. associates work fewer than 24 hours a week. Those who work 34 hours a week or more are considered full-time associates.
Changes to the company's healthcare plans were first reported by the New York Times.
Shares of Wal-Mart were up 1.1 percent at $56.98 in afternoon trading on Friday.
(Corrects to show that part-time employees become eligible for healthcare coverage after working for one year, paragraph 13; also adds dropped word "in" to quote in paragraph 19, adds "of" instead of "on" in paragraph 19)
(Reporting by Maneesha Tiwari in Bangalore and Jessica Wohl in Chicago. Additional reporting by Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
NEGATIVE IMPACT #2:
Wal-Mart: Merchant of Shame
Background: In the years leading up to naming Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame, NOW leaders and members received numerous complaints regarding workplace environment and employment practices at the chain's retail stores and distribution centers, as well as its regional and corporate offices. NOW reviewed the extensive public record on cases filed against Wal-Mart and found the allegations disturbing. These included sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation, wage abuse, exclusion of contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, violations of child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Cases have also been filed regarding firing pro-union workers, eliminating jobs once workers joined unions, and discouraging workers from unionizing.In 2002, the National Organization for Women named Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame as part of its Women Friendly Workplace Campaign. Wal-Mart's dismal record contradicts the worker-friendly image it projects to the public. Join NOW in its campaign to demand changes in Wal-Mart's unfair practices.
In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes -- the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history, filed on behalf of 1.5 million women employees who were discriminated against while working for the retail giant -- NOW will continue to fight to bring justice to these women. The Supreme Court heard the case, which included 120 affidavits relating to 235 stores, and ruled that "[e]ven if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination.'" Essentially, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and women as a group not worthy of class action status.
NOW is partnering with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and other leaders from the women's movement and labor movement to support the Making Change at Wal-Mart Campaign, which aims to transform the nation's largest employer into a good employer. Read on for more about NOW's efforts to get Wal-Mart to clean up its act.
Wal-Mart v. Dukes: A Failure of the Supreme Court
October 5, 2011
Wal-Mart v. Dukes was the largest class action lawsuit ever filed in the U.S., representing as many as 1.5 million women associates who were systematically discriminated against by the retail giant on the basis of sex in determining pay and promotions.
In a 5-4 Supreme Court opinion revoking the right of underpaid women associates to sue as a class, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and claimed a lack of commonality among the plaintiffs.
The facts pose no question as to whether Wal-Mart discriminates against women. An analysis conducted for the lawsuit showed that women employees were paid five to 15 percent less than men in similar positions, even after taking into account factors including seniority and performance.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Even if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination … Respondents have identified no 'specific employment practice'--much less one that ties all their 1.5 million claims together. Merely showing that Wal-Mart's policy of discretion has produced an overall sex-based disparity does not suffice."
Penning the minority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores … A system of delegated discretion … is a practice actionable … when it produces discriminatory outcomes."
In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, NOW calls on women's rights activists and supporters around the country to support legislative and worker-led remedies that will support justice for women associates:
First, holding Congress accountable to passing a Paycheck Fairness Act, which will provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination.
Second, supporting unions and in particular the associate-led Organization United for Respect at Wal-Mart (OUR Wal-Mart). Women workers in unions earn 11.2 percent more, or $2.00 more per hour, than non-union women workers, and the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.
NOW also reaffirms Wal-Mart as a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters continue to lead countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of women.
My mom just took away my Mp3 player. Her reason is
that I listen to songs while I'm studying. I feel horrible because I love you so much that it feels really empty when I don't have my Mp3 in my hands, as if it became a part of my body. I'm not just saying this, it literally feels like there's an empty space that was initially filled. So when I don't have it, I cannot concentrate on my studies or anything. People usually say listening to music while studying is really a bad habit because it will distract you, but I'm the opposite. When I'm listening to it, I can feel myself concentrating 100%. I don't know why, I'm born this way.
Since I was very young, I especially loved watching
movies and singing and listening to songs. I didn't know how to download
movies, nor did my parents take me to theaters very often, so I had no choice
but to choose movies from the ones downloaded by my dad. As for you, Music, I
had no Mp3 player then, and I remember bringing my friend's Mp3 player and my
electronic dictionary to an empty classroom, just to record my favorite music
into the dictionary. I know it's so embarrassing, but I did this, just to get
to you.
I guess my dad felt so sorry for me, so he came with
an iPod Nano, telling my mom he got it from one of his colleagues to give it to
me as my birthday present. Thinking of it right now, after 6 years, I wonder if
it really was his colleague who bought it for me? I really doubt that, and I
guess my dad was the one who bought it and he was just telling my mom that to
prevent any nagging.
I wasn't, can't, and will never be able to describe my
exact feelings when I grabbed the iPod in my hands. I could literally feel my
heart bursting into tears of joy. However, I still wasn't free to listen to
your voice then. It was my parents' orders to use the Mp3 only for practicing
English. I would have downloaded you by myself, but I didn't know how to, and
even if I did, I didn't even have my own computer with my own iTunes.
Thus, I had no choice but to beg my dad to download
just four of my favorite examples of you from the album of Sweetbox. Even
though it was just a little, I was happy then. You were the only origin of my
happiness, although my friends thought it was weird to just have 4 of your
works of art in a 4-gigabyte Mp3 player. I still remember always having it in
my hands wherever I went. I've always wanted to be with you, always, for you
made me happy and comfortable whatever my mood was. I was holding my Mp3 player
so frequently that it was often mistaken as my cell phone.
By the time I reached 6th grade, I had an opportunity
to stay in the Philippines for almost a year, and as always, I brought the four
you guys with me. I wasn't able to download more of you, so I literally
listened to your voice for over a thousand times. Later, I came to learn the
artist's exact 'ways' of singing, and could distinguish points where she
vibrated in different levels, where the minute volume changes occurred or where
she dubbed over her songs, being able to play the songs in my head without
actually listening to them through my ears.
My passion towards music also made me love singing
them. However, the only time I could practice singing was when I took a shower,
because my mom hates music of all kind. (she said that this music always made
her manic, so I asked her if she liked classics then, but she said no). Because
of my mom's hatred towards music, my singing voice eventually faded. I still
have such a small voice when I sing that I have trouble performing on stage at
KMLA parties without very nice stage equipment.
After all those pressures of not being able to sing
freely, I finally could practice singing you when I went to the Philippines,
for the rooms were usually quite distant from each other. I was so crazy about
High School Musical that I memorized all the lyrics from every one of your
songs in that movie, even though the majority of which I could not understand.
At the time, I was really flattered by my roommates' compliments on my singing.
It was the first time in my life that I'd ever sang a song in front of another
person, so I was so glad. Also, I guess that was my first experience to start
taking pride in my singing.
While in middle school, I could finally start
downloading you. As for me, who has a very narrow experience of music beyond
Sweetbox, I couldn't resist the feelings that other songs were utterly
unfamiliar. However, that only lasted about a few days. I was beginning to
broaden the range of my favorite artists and became aware that thousands of
great songs exist for me.
Slowly, listening to great hit songs and famous songs
in the world, my ability to judge music has been heightening exponentially. As
I listened to more and more songs, I learn that there are hundreds of genres
other than ballad, which I'm literally in love with.
Then, after some time later, I started recording my
voice into my computer. At first, all I did was download a karaoke version and
record my voice over top. I also downloaded music scores and tried revising my
skills. As time went by, my skills were improving, and I later came to learn
that recording my voice with earphones plugged in would make my voice sound
much clearer. Learning these little details, later I downloaded simple music
editing programs and worked on it for a bit.
Afterwards, I downloaded programs that professional
songwriters use and learned how to work them. I recorded, dubbed, harmonized my
melody and put effects on my own voice. This whole procedure might be seen as a
really tedious task, but it's really fun directly recording my voice, editing,
cutting away and pasting in places, doing whatever I want with my own voice! I
just do this for my own pleasure, so I do not want to show the results to
anybody or upload them anywhere.
Now, I'm a huge fan of 2AM and IU. I personally think
the real singers among Korean Idols are these people. They can assimilate any
genre of music perfectly, so I regard them as the best Idol singers in Korea.
I'm also a big fan of Glee music. They are really hard
not to like, since these songs are modernly-edited versions of greatest hit
songs of the history of music, sung by professional singers.
Now, I can't stand a day without listening to your
voice. You have to hover in my ears if I don't listen to you. You are my life.
In 2002, the National Organization for Women named Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame as part of its Women Friendly Workplace Campaign. Wal-Mart's dismal record contradicts the worker-friendly image it projects to the public. Join NOW in its campaign to demand changes in Wal-Mart's unfair practices.
Background: In the years leading up to naming Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame, NOW leaders and members received numerous complaints regarding workplace environment and employment practices at the chain's retail stores and distribution centers, as well as its regional and corporate offices. NOW reviewed the extensive public record on cases filed against Wal-Mart and found the allegations disturbing. These included sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation, wage abuse, exclusion of contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, violations of child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Cases have also been filed regarding firing pro-union workers, eliminating jobs once workers joined unions, and discouraging workers from unionizing.
In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes -- the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history, filed on behalf of 1.5 million women employees who were discriminated against while working for the retail giant -- NOW will continue to fight to bring justice to these women. The Supreme Court heard the case, which included 120 affidavits relating to 235 stores, and ruled that "[e]ven if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination.'" Essentially, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and women as a group not worthy of class action status.
NOW is partnering with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and other leaders from the women's movement and labor movement to support the Making Change at Wal-Mart Campaign, which aims to transform the nation's largest employer into a good employer. Read on for more about NOW's efforts to get Wal-Mart to clean up its act.
Wal-Mart v. Dukes: A Failure of the Supreme Court
October 5, 2011
Wal-Mart v. Dukes was the largest class action lawsuit ever filed in the U.S., representing as many as 1.5 million women associates who were systematically discriminated against by the retail giant on the basis of sex in determining pay and promotions.
In a 5-4 Supreme Court opinion revoking the right of underpaid women associates to sue as a class, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and claimed a lack of commonality among the plaintiffs.
The facts pose no question as to whether Wal-Mart discriminates against women. An analysis conducted for the lawsuit showed that women employees were paid five to 15 percent less than men in similar positions, even after taking into account factors including seniority and performance.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Even if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination … Respondents have identified no 'specific employment practice'--much less one that ties all their 1.5 million claims together. Merely showing that Wal-Mart's policy of discretion has produced an overall sex-based disparity does not suffice."
Penning the minority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores … A system of delegated discretion … is a practice actionable … when it produces discriminatory outcomes."
In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, NOW calls on women's rights activists and supporters around the country to support legislative and worker-led remedies that will support justice for women associates:
First, holding Congress accountable to passing a Paycheck Fairness Act, which will provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination.
Second, supporting unions and in particular the associate-led Organization United for Respect at Wal-Mart (OUR Wal-Mart). Women workers in unions earn 11.2 percent more, or $2.00 more per hour, than non-union women workers, and the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.
NOW also reaffirms Wal-Mart as a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters continue to lead countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of women.
What's at stake in the Walmart women's lawsuit
The case before the US supreme court is critical for the future of class action litigation – at a critical moment for American workers
The US supreme court heard oral arguments Tuesday on what could be the largest class action civil rights suit in US history. Or it could be the case that stops class action history in its tracks. Monster megastore Walmart is challenging a lower court's decision to permit women employed at thousands of Walmart stores to join together to contest alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion practices.
"This has been a ten-year process," says plaintiff Edith Arana. What keeps the women of Dukes v Wal-Mart going, she says, is the belief that something bigger than them is at stake. (Walmart revised the form of its name a few years back.) Says Arana:
"I know what happened to me and it's not just me. The women of this lawsuit are the poster children for the all the women who couldn't do this, and they each have families and names and faces."
That, when it comes to class action lawsuits, is the whole point. Class action lawsuits have probably been the best tool since the passage of the 1964 civil rights act to bring forth claims and win cases against companies that discriminate. The case now before the court will decide not only if women like Arana and Betty Dukes experienced discrimination, but if an entire class of workers did.
It couldn't be a more contentious issue, at a more contentious moment. As Columbia University political science professor Dorian Warren noted on GRITtv this week, the Walmart case comes before a court that has been sceptical not just of discrimination cases, but of the very idea of "class action". And it comes before a nation that – from Madison to Main Street in just about every state – is in the streets over that very concept.
Coming up on 4 April is a nationally coordinated day of action by US trade unions and their allies: We Are One. The protesters will be recalling Dr Martin Luther King's legacy – on the anniversary of his assassination. But they could do worse than to take a tip from the Tea Party types and read the US Constitution while they're at it. Listen in to one of those Tea Party recitations and you'll find constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech, of the press and of the right peaceably to assemble and petition government for redress. For working Americans living in the most dramatically divided economy in a century, every one of those avenues is under attack.
Freedom of the press? Concentration of media ownership is consolidating press power into a few mighty hands. As in the recently approved NBC/Comcast merger, the power in question is the power to shut others out.
Assembly? After weeks of inconvenient public protest for labour rights and against draconian cuts to public services and the people who provide them, the city of Madison just restricted speech in the people's Capitol building to a small "free speech zone" – for the first time in Wisconsin history. In Albany, New York, protesters faced a sign that told them only "senators, staff and lobbyists" were welcome in the state's house.
The Roberts court has ruled for business interests 61% of the time,according to the New York Times, compared with 46% for the similarly conservative-leaning Rehnquist court, and 42% for all since 1953. The US Chamber of Commerce has been involved in many of those decisions – and had their wishes gratified 68% of the time. "There has been a return on investment, not to sound too crass," Robin S Conrad, executive vice president of the chamber's litigation unit, told the Times.
And then, of course, there's the Citizens United v FEC decision, by which the supreme court ruled to lift limits on anonymous corporate spending on elections.
The courts, the court of opinion, elections, the banks, the workplace – you'd be forgiven for thinking the powerful had the US pretty much sewn-up. As Dorian Warren put it:
"If the courts strike down the women's ability to sue Walmart, this pretty much fundamentally weakens a core tool of collective action for workers. Similarly, what we see in the public sector – it's targeting workers' ability to come together."
On the other hand, there is still that pesky Constitution. And the very real possibility of overreach by the corporate-backed right. Take a look around on 4 April. I suspect this battle's not over yet.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
