Uber Rebukes Drivers' Push For Tipping Option Because Of Racism

Uber drivers have for months been pushing the company to give riders the option to leave a tip, as the ride-hailing titan's main competitor, Lyft, does.

As part of Uber's $100 million settlement with drivers, the company now permits them to let riders know that tips aren't included in their fare, either with a sign or by directly asking them. But the app still doesn't include an option to add gratuity, so people looking to reward their drivers have to pay cash -- even though Uber otherwise operates using cashless transactions.

On its website, Uber actively discourages tipping, too. So, why's the company so against an optional service charge?

Racism, apparently.

A spokesperson for the company told the Boston Globe that giving customers the option to tip would inevitably lead some drivers to get paid more than others. The spokesperson pointed to two reports showing that minorities on average get tipped less than white people. 

But drivers told the Globe that the potential for discrimination doesn't bother them:

Some drivers reacted with strong skepticism, saying Uber’s low fares -- currently $1.24 per mile and 20 cents per minute, plus fees, for an Uber X in Boston -- mean that any tip would be a big help, even if some drivers unfairly get more. The company should at least test a tipping function on its app in one city, they said, and see how strong the bias effect really is.

 

Uber explained in a blog post on Thursday that tipping might also encourage drivers to stay away from low-income areas (which already tend to be underserved by taxis) because they might get smaller tips. 

More broadly, the company "felt it would be better for riders and drivers to know for sure what they would pay or earn on each trip  -- without the uncertainty of tipping."

Many restaurants have done away with gratuity and have begun paying servers a liveable wage instead. It makes sense: tipping does sometimes lead to discrimination, and studies have shown that it doesn't even necessarily lead to better service.

The difference is that Uber doesn’t pay drivers wages. Drivers, who are considered independent contractors rather than employees, rely on fares to get by rather than receiving a salary or set hourly rate. They also don't get health care and other benefits.

So, depending on the time or day, the length of rides, and any number of other factors, an Uber driver might not even make minimum wage. And that's why extra tips matter so much to them.

As part of the settlement, Uber created a "drivers association" in the two states where drivers brought the class action suit. It's unclear what, if any, power the group will have, but tipping is likely going to be an issue that comes up in the future. 

Note: The Huffington Post's Editor-in-Chief Arianna Huffington is a member of Uber's board of directors, and has recused herself from any involvement in the site's coverage of the company.

Ikea Has Bright Idea To Sell Solar Panels In UK Stores

The store that sells every home good under the sun now also sells solar panels.

The company announced on Monday that it will sell and install solar panels in the United Kingdom.

Three stores, in Glasgow, Birmingham and Lakeside, will act as a U.K. pilot for the company’s new “solar shops,” where the panels will be sold. Customers across the pond can also order and get a cost estimate of the panels online, and Ikea hopes to have solar shops in all of its U.K. stores by the end of the summer.

The announcement coincided with research conducted by Ikea that found that 33 percent of U.K. homeowners would like to invest in home solar panels as a way to help cut their electricity bills. According to the release, the same study says that customers could save up to 50 percent on their electricity bills with the solar panels.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Ikea uses solar power in its stores. In this photo, Joseph Roth checks the installation of South Florida’s largest solar panel array atop the future IKEA store in Miami.

The Guardian reports that Ikea U.K. has made the move to sell the panels even after solar installations experienced a recent decline due to the government cutting subsidies to householders installing rooftop solar panels by a whopping 65 percent. That cut was made just days after the U.K. agreed to help the nation quickly shift to a low-carbon energy future at the climate change conference in Paris in late 2015.

This is Ikea U.K.’s second attempt at selling solar panels. The company had a two-year agreement with the Chinese company, Hanergy, but their partnership ended last year. Ikea UK is now working with the London-based company, SolarCentury, which will provide more efficient panels with a better aesthetic.

“At Ikea we believe that renewable energy is undoubtedly the power of the future,” Joanna Yarrow, head of sustainability at Ikea UK and Ireland said in the announcement. “We’re already using solar power across our operations, and it’s exciting to be able to help households tap into this wonderful source of clean energy.”

Feds Okay Charter And Time Warner Mega Merger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Monday approved Charter Communications Inc's <CHTR.O> proposed purchase of Time Warner Cable Inc <TWC.N> and Bright House networks, which would create the second-largest broadband provider and third-largest video-provider.

Following the deal, the merged company will be called New Charter. Under terms, New Charter agreed to refrain from telling its content providers that they cannot also sell shows online, the Justice Department said in a statement.

The Justice Department wanted to ensure that cable companies do not stop video from moving online.

The Justice Department valued the purchase of Time Warner Cable at $78 billion and Bright House at $10.4 billion.

The deal must also be approved by the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said Monday he circulated an order seeking approval of the merger with conditions that "will directly benefit consumers by bringing and protecting competition to the video marketplace and increasing broadband deployment."

Shareholders of both companies have approved the deal. Charter needs approval from just one more state, California.

The deal was announced last year after Comcast withdrew its $45 billion offer for Time Warner Cable in April because of opposition from regulators.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz, David Shepardson and Malathi Nayak; Editing by Chris Reese and Bernard Orr)

Tackling Climate Change Could Jump-Start The Economy

There's little doubt that curbing pollution and halting the relentless rise in global temperatures would improve the environment. Turns out, it could also create countless jobs and stimulate the global economy.

That's the takeaway from remarks by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who spoke at the United Nations on Thursday ahead of the planned signing of the Paris climate accord on Friday, which is Earth Day.

Nearly 200 nations agreed last December to reduce pollution in order to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over average temperatures at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. More than 170 nations are expected to sign the agreement.

To Carney, an influential central banker, implementing the Paris agreement and tackling climate change is just one effort global leaders should pursue to lift the world's economy out of its "current malaise" of persistent low growth.

Goals like arresting climate change and ending poverty are an "economic imperative," Carney said. "Their achievement would mean greater productivity, increased labor supply and ultimately, stronger growth. In short, they could pull the global economy out of its current malaise of secular stagnation."

Secular stagnation is a theory recently popularized by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers that describes an economy shackled by low growth despite low interest rates and little inflation. Carney had spent much of the past few years arguing that Summers is probably wrong, but he appears to be reconsidering his position. Aside from a massive amount of additional government spending, there's likely little that can be done to improve prospects in such an economy -- and that could well be the case in the U.S.

But perhaps the shift away from a fossil fuel-powered global economy could do the trick. Putting a price on carbon emissions, which forces fossil fuel producers and users to pay for the pollution they cause, might be the best way to get there.

"Carbon pricing is an invaluable tool for redirecting investments and transforming markets to build low-carbon, climate-resilient economies that will drive prosperity, strengthen security and improve the health and well-being of billions of people," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said.

Ban and heads of other global organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are pushing nations to quickly implement carbon pricing schemes, calling them "essential" if the world is to deliver on the promises of the Paris climate agreement. They want national leaders across the world to double the amount of carbon emissions subject to pricing by 2020 and quadruple today's levels by 2026.

Just 12 percent of today's emissions carry explicit costs, according to the IMF. About 40 nations have attached prices to carbon pollution. The U.S. has not.

Officials such as World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said they hope that attaching a price to emissions will cut pollution and stimulate more investment in green energy.

"Prices for producing renewable energy are falling fast, and putting a price on carbon has the potential to make them even cheaper than fuels that pollute our planet," Kim said.

Companies and the financial industry could encourage a green revolution if they start reporting the risks they face from climate change, Carney said, and if they increase the issuance of so-called green bonds, which are securities that finance environmentally friendly projects.

Less than one percent of the world's outstanding bonds are "green," he said, adding that "financing the de-carbonization of our economy is a major opportunity for investors."

Moody's Investors Service this week increased its forecast of green bond issuance this year from $50 billion to as much as $70 billion.

Some U.S. environmental groups are skeptical that financial markets can bring about the kind of change necessary to halt global warming. They've also criticized the Paris agreement as inadequate.

"The Paris Treaty is largely symbolic and wholly toothless in dealing with the threat of climate change," said Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of the consumer protection group Food & Water Watch. "False 'solutions' like market-based schemes and carbon pricing will only keep us using and abusing fossil fuels when what we need is a clean energy revolution."

Ángel Gurría, the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said this week that his organization of mostly rich countries has been pushing carbon pricing for decades.

But OECD members and other nations still have nearly 800 spending programs and tax breaks on their books that encourage fossil fuel production or usage.

Apparently No One Hates Their Job Anymore

American workers are feeling a lot better about their jobs.

Propelled by a stabilizing economy, employee satisfaction is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to a new survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, an association of HR professionals.

Eighty-eight percent of the employees polled reported being satisfied overall with their jobs in 2015. Of them, 37 percent described themselves as “very satisfied,” and 51 percent said they were “somewhat satisfied.” Compare that to results from the organization's 2005 survey, which found just 77 percent of people were pleased with their jobs. 

As you can see in the chart below, satisfaction took a hit between 2009 and 2013, the years following the recession. By now, though, people are feeling more confident about the job market, and workers who were unhappy and switched jobs five or six years ago have likely settled into their new roles, contributing to the higher satisfaction level, the SHRM researchers say.

SHRM

Age apparently has little to do with how much people enjoy their work. Millennials' satisfaction ranks about as high as that of older generations.

“Stop the stereotypes," SHRM researcher Christina Lee wrote in a paper released alongside the survey. "Although Millennials may have slightly different mindsets, on the whole, they tend to place significance on several of the same aspects of job satisfaction that Generation Xers and Baby Boomers do.” 

Compensation remains highly important in how employees feel about their jobs, with 63 percent of those surveyed citing it as a contributor.

Paychecks, meanwhile, just aren’t growing fast enough. A report last year from the Economic Policy Institute found that growth in worker productivity is outstripping wage growth. From 2000 to 2014, productivity increased by 21.6 percent, while median compensation in the U.S. rose by only 1.8 percent.

Yet compensation ranked only as the second-highest factor contributing to job satisfaction, per the new survey. Topping the list was “respectful treatment of all employees at all levels,” which 67 percent of respondents cited.

“The day-to-day experience is what governs their perspective on their work,” Evren Esen, director of survey programs at the Society for Human Resource Management, told The Huffington Post. “That’s where corporate culture comes into play. You want your supervisor to ask for your ideas.”

Workplaces that promote openness, community and equality are increasingly becoming the norm. While these are aspects valued by all employees, millennials in particular have helped to push that shift forward by being direct about what they expect from their employers.

“They see themselves as equal with who they work with in terms of expressing ideas,” Esen said of millennials. “In that way, by sharing their beliefs with the higher-ups, they are heard more than other generations.”

The expectation that employees are treated equally and fairly, in addition to things like having trustful leaders and transparent management, will only grow as millennials take over the workforce.

Take parental leave: Having a family and young children is hardly a new development, but millennial workers have been more vocal than their older counterparts about having decent company support when they have a newborn. Paid time off is gaining traction quickly, and more and more companies are now offering paid time off to new moms and dads. 

“It’s just what they think is normal,” Esen added. “Millennials say, ‘It’s not that way? Why isn’t it that way?’”

These Are The Highest-Paying Companies In America

Career review site Glassdoor on Wednesday released a list of the 25 highest-paying companies in America for 2016 -- and surprise, surprise, tech firms dominate the report. 

Major tech companies (Google, Facebook and Twitter, to name a few) account for nearly the entire list, though a few consulting firms and one credit card company made the cut, too.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Google software engineers work in a game room at the campus in Washington. 

“In technology, we continue to see unprecedented salaries as the war for talent is still very active, largely due to the shortage of highly skilled workers needed,” said Dr. Andrew Chamberlain, Glassdoor chief economist, in a release. “High pay continues to be tied to in-demand skills and higher education.”

The report shares each company’s median total compensation and median base salary. The companies were ranked by their median total compensation figures, based on salary reports anonymously shared on Glassdoor by employees.

Here are America’s 25 highest paying companies for 2016.

1. A.T. Kearney

• Median Total Compensation: $167,534
• Median Base Salary: $143,620
• Industry: Consulting

2. Strategy&

• Median Total Compensation: $160,000
• Median Base Salary: $147,000
• Industry: Consulting

3. Juniper Networks 

• Median Total Compensation: $157,000
• Median Base Salary: $135,000
• Industry: Technology

4. McKinsey & Company

• Median Total Compensation: $155,000
• Median Base Salary: $135,000
• Industry: Consulting

5. Google

• Median Total Compensation: $153,750
• Median Base Salary: $123,331
• Industry: Technology

6. VMware

• Median Total Compensation: $152,133
• Median Base Salary: $130,000
• Industry: Technology

7. Amazon Lab126

• Median Total Compensation: $150,100
• Median Base Salary: $138,700
• Industry: Technology

8. Boston Consulting Group

• Median Total Compensation: $150,020
• Median Base Salary: $147,000
• Industry: Consulting

9. Guidewire

• Median Total Compensation: $150,020
• Median Base Salary: $135,000
• Industry: Technology

10. Cadence Design Systems

• Median Total Compensation: $150,010
• Median Base Salary: $140,000
• Industry: Technology

11. Visa

• Median Total Compensation: $150,000
• Median Base Salary: $130,000
• Industry: Finance

12. Facebook

• Median Total Compensation: $150,000
• Median Base Salary: $127,406
• Industry: Technology

13. Twitter

• Median Total Compensation: $150,000
• Median Base Salary: $133,000
• Industry: Technology

14. Box

• Median Total Compensation: $150,000
• Median Base Salary: $130,000
• Industry: Technology

15. Walmart eCommerce

• Median Total Compensation: $149,000
• Median Base Salary: $126,000
• Industry: Technology

16. SAP

• Median Total Compensation: $148,431
• Median Base Salary: $120,000
• Industry: Technology

17. Synopsys

• Median Total Compensation: $148,000
• Median Base Salary: $130,000
• Industry: Technology

18. Altera

• Median Total Compensation: $147,000
• Median Base Salary: $134,000
• Industry: Technology

19. LinkedIn

• Median Total Compensation: $145,000
• Median Base Salary: $120,000
• Industry: Technology

20. Cloudera

• Median Total Compensation: $145,000
• Median Base Salary: $129,500
• Industry: Technology

21. Salesforce

• Median Total Compensation: $143,750
• Median Base Salary: $120,000
• Industry: Technology

22. Microsoft

• Median Total Compensation: $141,000
• Median Base Salary: $125,000
• Industry: Technology

23. F5 Networks

• Median Total Compensation: $140,200
• Median Base Salary: $120,500
• Industry: Technology

24. Adobe

• Median Total Compensation: $140,000
• Median Base Salary: $125,000
• Industry: Technology

25. Broadcom

• Median Total Compensation: $140,000
• Median Base Salary: $130,000
• Industry: Technology

Obama Should Price Carbon Emissions To Curb Climate Change, Report Argues

The U.S. government doesn’t attach a price to harmful greenhouse gas emissions when it evaluates long-term energy projects. An influential Washington policy group with close ties to the Obama administration argues that it should.

The Center for American Progress said in a report Monday that President Barack Obama ought to order federal agencies to take into account the hypothetical price of every metric ton of carbon emitted by potential projects such as pipelines, power plants and other proposals they assess that generate and transport energy.

Because pollution costs typically aren’t taken into account now, CAP said, the U.S. economy consumes more fossil fuels than it would if the price of fuels such as oil and coal accurately reflected the costs of pollution.

Putting a price on carbon would force government agencies and businesses that need government money or approval to finally consider the long-lasting effects of pollution on the world’s climate when evaluating the costs and benefits of future projects, CAP said.

Carbon pricing also could spur new investments in sustainable projects that cleanly generate energy such as solar power and windmills because these projects might be less costly than energy from oil or coal, according to CAP’s report.

It also would help the U.S. do its part to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the goal that nearly 200 nations agreed upon in December to combat climate change.

“As the world unites to fight climate change, more and more countries are turning to carbon pricing as a means to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions,” CAP said. “By putting a price on carbon, governments can correct the market’s failure to account for the climate costs of burning fossil fuels; in so doing, carbon pricing mechanisms encourage polluters to find cleaner, lower-carbon processes.”

Big companies such as Microsoft, General Motors and Walt Disney already apply a price to carbon, CAP said, in part to avoid over-investing in carbon-heavy projects that could lose value in a world seeking to limit carbon emissions.

Federal and state governments should do the same, CAP said.

“Unwise commitments to carbon-intensive energy infrastructure could leave the broader U.S. economy unable to adapt quickly in a world that needs to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,” CAP said.

CAP’s recommendation carries particular weight in Washington because of its ties to the Obama administration and the Democratic front-runner to replace him, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Top officials at CAP held senior positions in the Obama administration. The organization’s founder, John Podesta, is chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The policy group urged Congress to approve a new law that would require federal agencies to consider the cost of carbon emissions when reviewing permit applications for energy infrastructure projects, but “given Congress’ current intransigence on climate change policy,” CAP said, either Obama or his successor should enact the provision through executive orders.

For example, CAP identified three existing executive orders from the White House (orders 12893, 13653 and 13677) that Obama could use to require federal agencies to consider the price of each ton of carbon emissions.

States, too, should follow suit when their local utility commissions rule on permit applications for potential energy projects, CAP said.

Already, the federal Energy Department and utility commissions in Minnesota and Colorado have utilized carbon pricing when evaluating some projects, CAP said.

The federal government has employed some estimates for the cost of each metric ton of carbon emitted, which ranges from $11 to $105 per ton, CAP said.

The International Energy Agency estimates that carbon emissions should be priced at $140 per ton by 2040 in order to keep global warming below 2 degrees, according to CAP’s report.

The federal government ought to act soon: In 2012, the International Energy Agency estimated that the world’s existing power plants, factories and other projects already were responsible for nearly 80 percent of all carbon pollution that could be emitted by 2035 before exceeding the 2-degree limit.