Stop Talking About ‘Winners and Losers’ from Corporate Tax Cuts

Dollar bill being cut up

(Photo: Tax Credits/Flickr)

Republicans are pushing a huge corporate tax cut bill through Congress. You might’ve seen a lot of coverage trying to sort out “who wins” and “who loses.”

All that misses the point.

The driving motivation behind this bill, rhetoric and packaging aside, is to deliver a whopping $ 1 trillion tax cut for a few hundred badly behaved global corporations — and another half a trillion to expand tax breaks and loopholes for multi-millionaires and billionaires.

All the other features of proposed tax legislation are either bribes (“sweeteners”) to help pass the bill or “pay fors” to offset their cost.

The news media has been talking about “winners and losers” like this were some sort of high-minded tax reform process with legitimate trade-offs, as in 1986.

But this isn’t tax reform. This is a money grab by powerful corporate interests.

The key question isn’t who wins and loses, but whether we should undertake any of these trade-offs to give massive tax breaks to companies like Apple, Nike, Pfizer, and General Electric — companies whose loyalty to U.S. communities and workers is historically abysmal.

These companies have been dodging their taxes for decades while small businesses and ordinary taxpayers pick up their slack to care for our veterans, maintain our infrastructure, and educate the next generation.

Apple alone is holding $ 250 billion in offshore subsidiaries to reduce their taxes.

For wealthy individuals, the proposed House tax bill eliminates the federal estate tax, which is paid exclusively by families with over $ 11 million, mostly residing in coastal states.

It eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, a provision that ensures that wealthy taxpayers chip in at least a few dollars after gaming all their possible deductions.

And while the top tax rate on high earners remains roughly the same, Congress is proposing to open up a “pass through loophole” that will enable wealthy people and their tax accountants to convert their income to be taxed at a lower tax rate.

We should avoid distracting debates over whether to reform one provision or another, such as the home mortgage interest deduction. The real estate industry understands the score. “These corporations are getting a major tax cut, and it’s getting paid for by the equity in American homes,” said Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders.

Reforming the home mortgage interest deduction makes a lot of sense — the current tax break mostly benefits the already wealthy and fails to expand homeownership. But we shouldn’t restructure housing tax incentives to pay for a massive tax cut for billionaires and badly behaved global corporations.

Nor should we eliminate the deductibility of student debt, eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, or require families with catastrophic health expenses to pay more to reduce taxes on big drug companies and Jeff Bezos of Amazon. This tax bill would do all of those things.

The good news is people aren’t falling for the marketing baloney that this tax cut will help the middle class. Fewer than 30 percent of voters support these tax cuts, and solid majorities believe that the wealthy and global corporations should pay more taxes, not less.

But this won’t stop Republicans who care more about their campaign contributors than they do about voters.

If the GOP majority in Congress were responsive to voters, they’d invest in updating our aging infrastructure and in skills-based education, as we did after World War Two. Instead of saddling the next generation with tens of thousands in student debt, real leaders would be figuring out how to lift up tomorrow’s workers and entrepreneurs, just as we did in previous generations.

Under this tax plan, small business and ordinary taxpayers will be the big losers. That’s the only score that matters.

The post Stop Talking About ‘Winners and Losers’ from Corporate Tax Cuts appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/Rlypn1l16qU/

The GOP’s Corporate Tax Giveaway Negates the Benefits of Closing the CEO Pay Loophole

ceo-pay-tax-plan-wealthy

Shutterstock

The just-released Republican tax bill would take long overdue action to close a loophole that encourages excessive executive compensation. But while I’ve been calling for this loophole to be closed for 20 years, I’d much rather see it remain in place than have it eliminated as part of a GOP tax bill that would be devastating for our country.

In an op-ed for Politico, I explained the origin of this CEO pay loophole: a 1993 tax bill that amended Section 162 of the code to set a $ 1 million limit on the amount corporations can deduct from their federal income taxes per executive for the expense of executive compensation. Unfortunately, lawmakers undermined the intent of the law by including a huge loophole for so-called “performance” pay. Essentially, this means the more corporations give their executives in stock options and certain other bonuses, the less they pay in taxes.

For example, Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn, one of the architects of the GOP tax plan, received more than $ 72 million in fully deductible “performance” pay in 2016 as president of Goldman Sachs. That payout for just one man lowered Goldman Sachs’s IRS bill by an estimated $ 25 million.

According to an Institute for Policy Studies report, between 2010 and 2015 the top 20 U.S. banks paid out more than $ 2 billion in fully deductible performance bonuses to their top five executives. At a 35 percent corporate tax rate, this translates into a taxpayer subsidy worth more than $ 725 million, or $ 1.7 million per executive per year.

Section 3802 of the Republican bill would eliminate the “performance” pay loophole. In other words, corporations could deduct a maximum of $ 1 million per top executive, regardless of the form of the compensation. Unfortunately, the bill does not extend this strict cap to employees beyond the CEO, CFO, and the three other highest paid employees. As a result, pay above $ 1 million going to Wall Street traders, celebrities, and other highly paid non-executives would remain fully deductible.

This Republican proposal builds on the Affordable Care Act, which eliminated the “performance” pay loophole for the health insurance industry and lowered the cap to $ 500,000. (Ironically, the failed GOP health care proposal of earlier this year would’ve eliminated those tighter limits.) Similar restrictions were also applied to financial bailout firms.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that if the GOP bill becomes law, closing this loophole would generate $ 9.3 billion in revenue over 10 years. That’s considerably lower than the $ 50 billion JCT revenue estimate for a Democratic bill, the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act, which would eliminate the “performance pay” exemption and cap the deductibility of compensation at $ 1 million for every employee.

And this $ 9.3 billion is peanuts compared to the staggering cost of the GOP’s proposal to slash the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that the rate cut would cost $ 2 trillion over 10 years.

I’ve long argued that eliminating this “performance” pay loophole would not only generate revenue fairly but also provide an incentive for lowering overall CEO compensation. But these benefits would be completely negated by other parts of the GOP plan.

Instead of encouraging more rational pay levels at the top, the legislation would be a huge jackpot for CEOs and other top earners. For example, they would benefit from the drastic cut in the corporate tax rate, since most executive pay today is in the form of stock options or other stock-based pay, which will be inflated by this move. Many top earners will also benefit from the huge reduction in the rate for pass-through entities, including hedge funds and private equity funds.

Closing this perverse CEO pay loophole would be nice — but not if it comes at the expense of the colossal damage that would be inflicted on the poor and middle class by the GOP’s tax giveaway for the wealthy and big corporations.

The post The GOP’s Corporate Tax Giveaway Negates the Benefits of Closing the CEO Pay Loophole appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/J-QmusuUPi8/

Report: Corporate Tax Cuts Boost CEO Pay, Not Jobs

House Speaker Paul Ryan is proposing to cut the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent. President Trump wants to slash the rate even further, to just 15 percent. Their core argument? Lowering the tax burden will lead to more and better jobs.

To investigate this claim, this report is the first to analyze the job creation records of the 92 publicly held U.S. corporations that reported a U.S. profit every year from 2008 through 2015 and paid less than 20 percent of these earnings in federal income tax. Did these reduced tax rates actually lead to greater employment within the 92 firms? The data we have compiled give a definitive — and sobering — answer.

Key findings: 

Tax breaks did not spur job creation

  • America’s 92 most consistently profitable tax-dodging firms registered median jobgrowth of negative 1 percent between 2008 and 2016. The job growth rate over those same years among U.S. private sector firms as a whole: 6 percent.
  • More than half of the 92 tax-avoiders, 48 firms in all, eliminated jobs between 2008 and 2016, downsizing by a combined total of 483,000 positions.

Tax-dodging corporations paid their CEOs more than other big firms

  • Average CEO pay among the 92 firms rose 18 percent, to $ 13.4 million in real terms, between 2008 and 2016, compared to a 13 percent increase among S&P 500 CEOs. U.S. private sector worker pay increased by only 4 percent during this period.
  • CEOs at the 48 job-slashing companies within our 92-firm sample pocketed even larger paychecks. In 2016 they made $ 14.9 million on average, 14 percent more than the $ 13.1 million for typical S&P 500 CEOs.

Job-cutting firms spent tax savings on buybacks, which inflated CEO pay

  • Many of the firms in our sample funneled tax savings into stock buybacks, a financial maneuver that inflates the value of executive stock-based pay. On average, the top 10 job-cutters in our sample each spent $ 45 billion over the last nine years repurchasing their own stock, six times as much as the S&P 500 corporate average.

ExxonMobil hiked CEO Tillerson’s pay while dodging taxes, slashing jobs

  • The oil giant paid an effective tax rate of only 13.6 percent during the 2008-2015 period, at the same time cutting more than a third of its global workforce (the company does not reveal U.S. jobs data). After pumping nearly $ 146 billion into stock buybacks, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, now the U.S. secretary of state, took home $ 27.4 million in total compensation in 2016, 22 percent more than he collected in 2008.

AT&T is the top job-cutter among the tax-dodging firms

  • The telecommunications giant managed to get away with an effective tax rate of just 8.1 percent over the 2008-2015 period, while cutting more jobs than any other firm in our sample. After accounting for acquisitions and spinoffs, the firm had nearly 80,000 fewer employees in 2016 than in 2008. Instead of job-preserving investments, the firm shoveled profits into stock buybacks ($ 34 billion over the past nine years) and CEO pay. AT&T chief Randall Stephenson pulled in $ 28.4 million in 2016, more than double his 2008 payout.

GE cut jobs while funneling offshore tax-dodging proceeds into CEO pay and buybacks

  • Through extensive use of overseas tax havens, General Electric achieved a negative effective tax rate during the 2008-2015 period, meaning the firm got more back from Uncle Sam than it paid into federal coffers. The company spent $ 42 billion repurchasing its own stock, which helped boost CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s pay to nearly $ 18 million in 2016. Meanwhile, the company’s employee count dropped by about 14,700 over the past nine years.

Read the full report here [PDF].
Find shareable graphics here.
Explore all Executive Excess reports from 1994 onward.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/OHy6qg0r1T0/

New Report Finds Corporate Tax Cuts Boost CEO Pay, Not Jobs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Full report and graphics

Washington, D.C. — When President Donald Trump launches his tax cut campaign today in Missouri, he will no doubt repeat the Republican mantra that slashing the corporate tax rate will lead to more and better jobs. He has proposed cutting the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 15 percent, while House Speaker Paul Ryan has called for a 20 percent rate.

To investigate this jobs claim, the Institute for Policy Studies has analyzed the employment records of the 92 publicly held U.S. corporations that exploited loopholes to pay less than a 20 percent effective U.S. tax rate from 2008 through 2015, despite making a profit every year.

Key findings: 

Tax breaks did not spur job creation

  • America’s 92 most consistently profitable tax-dodging firms registered median jobgrowth of negative 1 percent between 2008 and 2016. The job growth rate over those same years among U.S. private sector firms as a whole: 6 percent.
  • More than half of the 92 tax-avoiders, 48 firms in all, eliminatedjobs between 2008 and 2016, downsizing by a combined total of 483,000 positions.

Tax-dodging corporations paid their CEOs more than other big firms

  • Average CEO pay among the 92 firms rose 18 percent, to $ 13.4 million in real terms, between 2008 and 2016, compared to a 13 percent increase among S&P 500 CEOs. U.S. private sector worker pay increased by only 4 percent during this period.
  • CEOs at the 48 job-slashing companies within our 92-firm sample pocketed even larger paychecks. In 2016 they made $ 14.9 million on average, 14 percent more than the $ 13.1 million for typical S&P 500 CEOs.

Job-cutting firms spent tax savings on buybacks, which inflated CEO pay

  • Many of the firms in our sample funneled tax savings into stock buybacks, a financial maneuver that inflates the value of executive stock-based pay. On average, the top 10 job-cutters in our sample each spent $ 45 billion over the last nine years repurchasing their own stock, six times as much as the S&P 500 corporate average.

ExxonMobil hiked CEO Tillerson’s pay while dodging taxes, slashing jobs

  • The oil giant paid an effective tax rate of only 13.6 percent during the 2008-2015 period, at the same time cutting more than a third of its global workforce (the company does not reveal U.S. jobs data). After pumping nearly $ 146 billion into stock buybacks, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, now the U.S. secretary of state, took home $ 27.4 million in total compensation in 2016, 22 percent more than he collected in 2008.

AT&T is the top job-cutter among the tax-dodging firms

  • The telecommunications giant managed to get away with an effective tax rate of just 8.1 percent over the 2008-2015 period, while cutting more jobs than any other firm in our sample. After accounting for acquisitions and spinoffs, the firm had nearly 80,000 fewer employees in 2016 than in 2008. Instead of job-preserving investments, the firm shoveled profits into stock buybacks ($ 34 billion over the past nine years) and CEO pay. AT&T chief Randall Stephenson pulled in $ 28.4 million in 2016, more than double his 2008 payout.

GE cut jobs while funneling offshore tax-dodging proceeds into CEO pay and buybacks

  • Through extensive use of overseas tax havens, General Electric achieved a negativeeffective tax rate during the 2008-2015 period, meaning the firm got more back from Uncle Sam than it paid into federal coffers. The company spent $ 42 billion repurchasing its own stock, which helped boost CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s pay to nearly $ 18 million in 2016. Meanwhile, the company’s employee count dropped by about 14,700 over the past nine years.

“CEOs have used the proceeds from tax savings to enrich themselves at the expense of job-creating investments,” notes report author Sarah Anderson. “The debate over corporate taxes should focus on ensuring that the corporations these CEOs run pay their full and fair share.”

This 24th edition of the annual IPS Executive Excess series also includes the most comprehensive available catalog of CEO pay reforms, including proposed legislation to eliminate the CEO bonus loophole.

Full report and graphics.

About the lead author: Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS web site Inequality.org. She has been the lead author on all 24 of the Institute’s annual Executive Excess reports. Her executive compensation analysis has been featured recently in the New York TimesFortune, and the Los Angeles Times.

More Information:

Sarah Anderson, sarah@ips-dc.org(202) 787 5227
Domenica Ghanem, press@ips-dc.org(202) 787-5205
Jessica Pierre, jessicah@ips-dc.org

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) is a multi-issue research center that has conducted path-breaking research on executive compensation for more than 20 years. IPS also provides a constant stream of inequality analysis and solutions through our Inequality.org web site and weekly newsletter.

# # #

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/VKy3cGi-RDg/

It’s a Myth That Corporate Tax Cuts Mean More Jobs

corporate-taxes-job-cuts

Photo: Shutterstock

“The arithmetic for us is simple,” AT&T’s chief executive, Randall Stephenson, said on CNBC in May. If Congress were to cut the 35 percent tax on corporate profits to 20 percent, he declared, “I know exactly what AT&T would do — we’d invest more” in the United States.

Every $ 1 billion in tax savings would create 7,000 well-paying jobs, Mr. Stephenson went on to say. The correlation between lower corporate taxes and more jobs, he assured viewers, runs “very, very tight.”

As Congress prepares to take up tax legislation this fall, including an effort to reduce the corporate tax rate, this bold jobs claim merits examination. Notably, it comes from the chief executive of a company that’s already paying comparatively little in federal taxes.

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, AT&T enjoyed an effective tax rate of just 8 percent between 2008 and 2015, despite recording a profit in the United States each year, by exploiting tax breaks and loopholes. (The company argues that it pays significant taxes, at a rate close to 34 percent in recent years, but that includes deferred taxes and state and local levies.)

Read the full article on the New York Times’ website.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/oIiWYWbdebo/

Corporate Allies in Washington Take Aim at CEO Pay Reform

CEO-pay-median-worker

(Photo: Fred Ho / Shutterstock)

It’s not easy defending America’s overpaid CEOs, but somebody’s gotta do it. At least that seems to be the sentiment of the corporate lobby groups, politicians, and regulators who make up what might be called Washington’s CEO Pay Apologists Club.

Lately, this bunch has been on quite a tear. House Republicans’ health-care law will eliminate an Obamacare tax penalty on excessive compensation among insurance executives. Their Wall Street reform plan, scheduled for a vote this week, nixes several Dodd-Frank executive-pay reforms, including a ban on risk-inducing Wall Street bonuses and a regulation requiring publicly held corporations to report their CEO-worker pay gap.

These assaults take a certain amount of political courage at a time when corporate CEOs are making even President Donald Trump look like Mr. Popularity. In a March 2017 Harris poll, Americans gave corporate chieftains a favorability rating of only 24 percent, about half the share who approve of Trump’s job performance.

Even a majority of self-identified Republicans favor a fixed ceiling on CEO pay. Of course, none of the modest Obama-era reforms now on the chopping block went anywhere near that far. But that hasn’t dampened GOP hostility toward them.

Read the full article on The American Prospect.

 

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/RPEMFIqZFps/

If Washington Won’t Rein in Corporate Greed, Your State Might

ceo-worker-pay

(Photo: Shutterstock)

Josh Elliott is fed up with overpaid CEOs. As the owner of a Connecticut natural foods market with 40 employees, he says he could never justify pocketing hundreds of times more pay than his employees.

“I’m very much a capitalist,” Elliott told me in an interview. “But there need to be limits.”

Skyrocketing CEO pay and inequality last year motivated this 32-year-old businessman to launch a successful bid for a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly. Elliott hit back hard on the campaign trail against right-wing claims about high taxes driving wealthy job creators out of his state.

“This is not an issue of over-taxation — it’s an issue of taxing the wrong people and the wrong entities,” he told the New Haven Register. “When the middle class has to subsidize huge corporations like Wal-Mart that criminally underpay their workers, the narrative that we are overtaxed ought to be outed as ludicrous.”

Since taking office, Rep. Elliott has co-sponsored several bills aimed at narrowing our economic divide, including two that directly address the CEO pay problem.

One of these bills mirrors a Portland, Oregon law enacted last December that imposes a tax penalty on publicly traded corporations with CEOs making more than 100 times their typical worker pay.

These laws don’t set a ceiling on how much corporations can pay their executives. But they do provide an incentive to rein in excess CEO pay and lift up workers at the bottom end. They can also generate significant revenue for urgent needs like funding pre-school programs or fixing roads and bridges.

Legislators in Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and San Francisco are also considering CEO pay tax proposals.

Elliott’s other bill would use the power of the public purse to reduce pay disparities. If enacted, companies with CEO-worker pay ratios of more than 100 to 1 wouldn’t qualify for state subsidies and grants.

That would help ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Research has shown that narrower pay gaps make businesses more effective by boosting employee morale and reducing turnover rates.

Elliott pointed out that he’s able to go to the state capital in Hartford four times a week when the General Assembly is in session because he trusts his managers to do a good job running the market in his absence. “You need to have good employees to make money,” he told me.

While efforts to narrow CEO-worker pay gaps are spreading around the country, Republicans in Washington are working to undercut them.

How? By killing a federal disclosure law requiring corporations to report the gap between their CEO and median worker pay. This data, scheduled to become available in early 2018, would make the kinds of policies Elliott is promoting much easier to administer.

But overpaid CEOs — and their lobbyists — want to throw up as many obstacles as they can. The massive Financial CHOICE Act, which just passed a House committee, would eliminate the pay ratio disclosure regulation, along with loosening other regulations on big Wall Street banks. It could come up for a full House vote soon.

But as the debate shifts, Elliott is confident that bold proposals for change will eventually gain traction.

“The conservative narrative is that business owners are the job creators,” he told me. “But if the CEOs and owners of capital have unlimited potential for their own compensation, they’re just taking money away from their employees. And that’s a system that is simply unsustainable.”

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/YQzSlX4ogd8/

How Will the White House Try to Sell its Corporate Tax Cuts?

Steve-Mnuchin-Swearing-In

(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

If the spinmeisters in the Donald Trump White House had any marketing nerve — and a mischievous sense of irony — they’d frame the new Trump tax package as a long-overdue move to protect the health and safety of America’s workers.

That’s not, of course, how Trump’s folks are billing the tax plan the White House released last week. Trump’s top economic aide, former Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn, is calling the Trump package the most significant tax reform legislation “since 1986.” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former hedge fund manager, is hailing the Trump plan as “the biggest tax cut” in American history.

Critics of the Trump plan, meanwhile, are labeling the package a “plutocrat’s dream” chock full of enormous giveaways to America’s super rich and the corporations they run.

The first of these proposed giveaways: a whopping cut in the corporate tax rate, from 35 to 15 percent. The White House wants that same 15 percent rate applied to the income of “pass-through” companies, the partnerships and other businesses that “pass through” their profits to their principals. Taxes on these passed-through earnings currently face individual income tax rates that can go as high as 39.6 percent.

To top off this sundae of luscious giveaway goodies, the White House is asking Congress to let CEOs bring home the billions in untaxed profits they’ve parked overseas at just a 10 percent tax rate.

What could all these lavish tax breaks for corporate titans possibly have to do with protecting the health and safety of American workers?

In real life, nothing at all. But good spinmeisters don’t ever let reality get in their way. They just spin out of that reality whatever tale makes their patrons look good. And Donald Trump desperately wants to look good to the American workers he claims to champion.

So let the spinning begin. Trump’s people could start their mischief by pointing to alarming new research that appears in the Journal of Accounting and Economics. The two business management analysts behind this research, Judson Caskey of UCLA and N. Bugra Ozel of the University of Texas at Dallas, took a long hard look at how corporate CEOs react when they get anxious about meeting Wall Street’s expectations.

CEOs have good reason to worry about what Wall Street thinks. If high-finance movers and shakers feel a corporation isn’t “performing” as well as expected — not reporting enough earnings – they’ll start selling off that company’s shares. That sell-off will sink the company share price and, in the process, put a big hurt on the personal compensation the company’s CEO stands to collect.

How far will CEOs go to avoid disappointing Wall Street? Researchers Caskey and Ozel set out to see. They combed through years of data to determine whether corporate chiefs would put the health and safety of their workers in jeopardy to keep Wall Street happy.

Executives, turns out, most definitely would. To meet the profit targets Wall Street expects them to meet, one analysis of the Caskey-Ozel research notes, corporate execs “will try to lower costs by increasing employees’ workload and cutting back on safety-related expenditures.”

As a society, Caskey and Ozel point out, we’d like to assume that corporate managers would never “sacrifice people’s health” to meet their performance targets. But their data show that the stretching execs undertake to meet those targets leads to “a 10 to 15 percent increase in employee injuries.”

What could on-the-ball Trump spin kings do with research like this? The Trump tax plan, they could proudly acknowledge, will add countless millions to corporate bottom lines, so many millions that corporate CEOs won’t have to worry anymore about meeting Wall Street’s expectations. If Congress adopts the Trump corporate tax cuts, the spinners could shamelessly pronounce, CEOs would no longer feel pressured to cut back on worker safety.

Caskey and Ozel, for their part, have their own remedy for countering the pressure to jeopardize worker safety — and that remedy has nothing whatsoever to do with cutting corporate taxes.

“Our evidence,” the researchers note, “suggests that unions mitigate the extent to which pressure to meet earnings expectations translates into reduced safety.”

A Trump administration that actually cared about worker safety, in other words, would do everything possible to increase the union presence in America’s workplaces.

In real life, the Trump White House is moving in the exact opposite direction. The President, Politico reports, will soon nominate for the National Labor Relations Board — the federal agency that oversees the nation’s labor relations — a fiercely anti-union attorney.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/O-w2nbr69pA/

Mom’s the word: 50 things corporate India can do for new working mothers – Quartz

Mom's the word: 50 things corporate India can do for new working mothers
Quartz
1. Fully paid maternity leave. This leave could be for 12 weeks or more, depending on the prevailing local regulations or company best practice policies. 2. Performance rating for new and entrant mothers will not be affected by their absence from work

and more »

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNGb4uKbC62_ms76p3MDce0goFI6hQ&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52779033190135&ei=2OajVoDnMcX6wAHa5IiYCQ&url=http://qz.com/596795/moms-the-word-50-things-corporate-india-can-do-for-new-working-mothers/

Sustainable Australian agriculture under corporate attack from mining, banks and agribusinesses – Green Left Weekly

Sustainable Australian agriculture under corporate attack from mining, banks and agribusinesses
Green Left Weekly
Its owners CocaCola-Amatil has severely cut suppliers and quantities, forcing the mass bulldozing of orchards as farmers cannot afford the maintenance costs to keep them pest-free. Many jobs in rural and regional … The film ignores the nitrates

and more »

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNFWxSdovvAdc4FWoLXGj_zxVgxN9A&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52779035042669&ei=93OjVoiJCsP48QGGoZvoDA&url=https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60928