Tag Archives: Regulation

President Biden’s Executive Order Opens New Front in Battle With Big Tech

WASHINGTON—President Biden’s sweeping new competition order targets big tech companies in ways that could fundamentally alter how they do business.

But it will fall to government agencies to carry out the order, and they could take years to put its ideas into action. The Federal Trade Commission that already has Big Tech companies in its sights is likely to become a particular battleground.

A core thrust of the order is to encourage regulatory agencies such as the FTC to adopt new rules and policies to rein in the growing size and power of large tech platforms such as Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. That could prove to be a tall order for the FTC, the principal federal regulator of internet commerce. Some observers say the agency—which had its sails trimmed by Congress in the deregulatory era of the 1970s and 1980s—has struggled to keep up with unfair practices online, particularly in the areas of user privacy, big data and tech mergers.

As the White House detailed its executive order, one Democratic FTC commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, said in a tweet, “So excited about @POTUS’s EO on competition; it is an ambitious agenda that will help our markets work better and create a more equitable economy for all people – esp workers, marginalized communities, entrepreneurs, small biz.”

Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association that counts Apple Inc., Facebook and Google among its members, defended the tech industry as competitive and vibrant and took issue with the White House’s action.

Read original article here

Some Chinese Stocks Are Starting to Look Like Bargains. Where to Look.

Investing in China is even trickier than usual these days, leading some to wonder if it’s worth the trouble. And it’s not likely to get easier in the near term, though volatility over the next couple of months could create bargains for long-term investors.

Since scuttling the anticipated public offering of Ant Group last fall, Chinese regulators have been targeting the country’s biggest and most widely held internet companies. On July 2, Beijing struck again, launching a cybersecurity review of

DiDi Global

(ticker: DIDI) and ordering its app to be pulled from mobile stores, as it tightened controls over data security and rules for companies listed overseas.

The move, just days after DiDi had raised $4.4 billion in the year’s biggest IPO, led the stock to lose a fifth of its value on July 6, and rattled other Chinese internet shares. The

KraneShares CSI China Internet

exchange-traded fund (KWEB) has fallen 15% since June 30, as investors braced for more scrutiny of tech companies’ data practices and other regulatory moves.

“We now know this is a regulatory minefield, and those who expose themselves to the sector are taking on a lot of volatility,” says Arthur Kroeber, Gavekal Research’s head of research. “If your horizon is long term, this is going to be one of the growth stories of the next decade and you have to ride it out. But if you are more short term, you may say it’s too complicated and come back in a year when things have calmed down.”

The wave of regulatory measures has created the type of uncertainty that draws bargain hunters. Technology giants like

Alibaba Group Holding

(BABA), whose shares are down 11% this year, are popping up on value managers’ radars. But caution is warranted, especially for investors in U.S.-listed shares of Chinese companies. Regulatory pressures could continue. “It’s probably just the start of the enforcement actions,” says Kenneth Zhou, a partner at law firm WilmerHale in Beijing.

Fund managers have described China’s regulatory drive as a move to gain better control and set up guardrails for fast-growing digital industries and internet titans. It’s also a way for Beijing to deal with escalating U.S.-China tensions, in part resulting from recent legislation in Washington that sets the stage for delisting Chinese companies if they don’t offer more auditing disclosures within three years.

One concern for China’s regulators: the valuable troves of data collected by Chinese tech companies listed in the U.S., creating a possible national security threat.

“Control of data is shaping up to be a major domestic and geopolitical issue, with direct equity market implications for firms operating on both sides of the Pacific,” Rory Green, head of China and Asia research at TS Lombard, said in a recent research note.

Beijing is trying to gain better control of Chinese companies, including those listed abroad. Many of the largest Chinese techs, like Alibaba,

Tencent Holdings

(700.Hong Kong) and

JD.com

(JD), are registered in the Cayman Islands and use a variable interest entity (VIE) structure, allowing them to get around Chinese restrictions on foreign ownership. Though largely ignored by investors, the complex structure is a gray area because, under it, foreigners don’t actually own a stake in a Chinese company. Instead, they must rely on China honoring contracts that tie them to the company.

For decades, China has largely turned a blind eye to the extralegal structure, but it’s paying more attention now. Bloomberg News reported this past week that Beijing is considering requiring companies that use this structure to seek its approval before listing elsewhere. Already-listed companies might have to seek approval for any secondary offerings.

Analysts and money managers say they don’t expect China to unravel the VIEs, which are used by the country’s largest and most successful companies and would take decades to undo. Many are also skeptical that the U.S. will follow through with its delisting threat.

But Beijing could use VIE scrutiny to exert increased control over companies and to push back against U.S. regulators’ calls for more disclosure. Indirectly, the scrutiny will likely bolster Beijing’s efforts to lure domestic companies back home—a drive that’s already led to secondary listings in Hong Kong for Alibaba,

Yum China Holdings

(YUMC), and JD.com.

Analysts also expect the heightened scrutiny to slow, if not halt, the number of Chinese companies coming public in the U.S. in the near term. It could also shrink the tally of U.S.-listed Chinese companies—more than 240 with over $2 trillion in combined market value—that appeal to do-it-yourself retail investors. Any of these unable to secure secondary listings in Hong Kong or China might go private, says Louis Lau, manager of the Brandes Emerging Markets Value fund.

U.S.-listed stocks could see volatility as a result. Increasingly, fund managers and institutional investors—Lau included—have been gravitating toward stocks listed in Hong Kong or mainland China whenever possible. For retail investors, the best way to access these foreign listings, as well as the more domestically oriented stocks that some fund managers favor, is through mutual or exchange-traded funds.

Money managers are better positioned to navigate some of the logistical complications created by U.S.-China tensions, such as the fallout from a recent executive order that banned U.S. investment in companies that Washington says has ties to China’s military complex. The S&P Dow Jones Indices and FTSE Russell decided this month to boot more than 20 Shanghai- and Shenzhen-listed concerns affected by the order.

Other companies could also be banned and face similar fallout, with Reuters reporting on July 9 that the Biden administration is considering adding more Chinese entities to the banned list over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

As investing in China gets more complicated, the case builds for investors to choose a fund manager who can navigate these complexities and invest locally. Failure to do so could be costly. The

iShares MSCI China A

ETF (CNYA) is up 3% over the past three months, while the

Invesco Golden Dragon China

ETF (PGJ), which focuses on U.S.-listed Chinese companies, is down 14% in the same span.

“Regulation is here to stay. Investors will just have to get used to this,” says Tiffany Hsiao, a veteran China investor who is a portfolio manager on Artisan’s China Post-Venture strategy. “This is capitalism with Chinese characteristics. China is obviously still a Communist state. It embraces capitalism to drive innovation and improve productivity, but it’s important for companies that do very well to give back to society—and Chinese regulators will remind you of that.”

As a result, she says, investors must move beyond the widely held internet titans to find stocks that could benefit from the regulatory scrutiny that the giants face. Veteran investors are stressing selectivity, searching in local markets for companies that are outside the crossfire.

“A company can have great fundamentals and interesting opportunities, but get blindsided by government action, which is increasingly active,” says David Semple, manager of the

VanEck Emerging Markets

fund (GBFAX). “You need a higher degree of conviction than normal to be involved.”

Semple is gravitating toward companies he’s familiar with, in sectors that could get hit by regulation, but with less impact than investors think.

One example: China is targeting after-school course providers, as it tries to lower child-care costs and encourage families to have more children. Nonetheless, Semple sees opportunity in

China Education Group Holdings

(839.Hong Kong), which could make acquisitions as Beijing forces public universities to divest affiliated private ones.

Of the large internet stocks, Semple favors Tencent, the top position in his fund, over Alibaba, another holding. Alibaba faces more competitive pressures, Semple says, and Tencent has an advantage with its Weixin messaging and videogaming franchises, which provide a high-quality, relatively low-cost flow of users for its other businesses.

Tencent also has quietly complied with the government’s requirements, with CEO Ma Huateng keeping a low profile, says Martin Lau, managing partner and a portfolio manager at FSSA Investment Managers, which oversees $37 billion. That’s a positive, given the backlash that met outspoken Alibaba and Ant co-founder Jack Ma.

Many Chinese internet companies’ fundamentals are sound. However, complying with the stringent rules on collecting and safeguarding user data probably will reduce their profits from that area, says Xiaohua Xu, a senior analyst at Eastspring Investments.

Alibaba and other internet companies, including JD.com, are cheap enough to attract value investors. But volatility is likely, with investors recalibrating growth expectations as Beijing rolls out new rules, and reviews past deals. In addition, widely held U.S.-listed Chinese stocks, including Alibaba, could become proxies for investors’ China angst.

Despite the yellow flags, investors have reason to keep China in the mix. “If you are buying growth, the world has twin engines: the U.S. and China,” says Jason Hsu, chairman and chief investment officer of asset manager Rayliant Global Advisors and co-founder of Research Affiliates. But, he adds, the U.S. is more expensive. “And whenever there is risk—and the world sees China as risky, with this deepening that bias—that means opportunity.”

Write to Reshma Kapadia at reshma.kapadia@barrons.com

Read original article here

China Shuts Down Software Maker Over Suspected Crypto-Related Activity, Issues Industry-Wide Warning – Regulation Bitcoin News

The People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the country’s central bank, has shut down a software firm over suspected involvement in cryptocurrency transactions. The central bank also warned organizations not to “provide premises, commercial display, advertising … and other services for cryptocurrency-related business activities.”

  • China’s central bank warned companies on Tuesday against assisting cryptocurrency-related businesses as it shut down a software firm over suspected involvement in crypto transactions, AFP reported.
  • The Beijing office of China’s central bank ordered the closure of a software firm called Beijing Qudao Cultural Development. The central bank alleged that the company had been involved in providing software services for cryptocurrency transactions.
  • The central bank claims that the shutdown was necessary “to prevent and control the risk of speculation in virtual currency transactions, and protect the safety of the public’s assets.”
  • The bank also warned organizations not to “provide premises, commercial display, advertising … and other services for cryptocurrency-related business activities.”

  • The PBOC recently instructed financial and payment institutions not to provide cryptocurrency-related services to customers.
  • The announcement came shortly after provinces in China, including Sichuan, Inner Mongolia, and Qinghai, shut down cryptocurrency mining farms, causing miners to move their operations abroad.

What do you think about China shutting down a software firm over suspected involvement in crypto transactions? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.



Read original article here

Bitcoin Fraud Concerns Draw Scrutiny From Regulators

Regulators are signaling they want more control over an expanded cryptocurrency universe that has pushed further into Wall Street activities without the investor and consumer protections that apply to traditional securities and financial services.

The catch: no single regulator inspects crypto exchanges or brokers, unlike in the securities and derivatives markets. Regulators step in only when they believe U.S. law applies to a particular cryptocurrency or transaction, based on the way the asset was sold or traded.

Once a quirky asset that required navigating special exchanges to buy, cryptocurrencies can now be easily purchased on mobile apps from PayPal Holdings Inc., Square Inc.’s Cash app and Robinhood Markets Inc.

“A lot more money is being put into it, there is a lot of trading and the uses seem to be expanding,” said Dan Berkovitz, a commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “I see a concern about whether we have a shadow financial system developing, and that should be a question for all of the regulators.”

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler has told House lawmakers that investor protection rules should apply to crypto exchanges, similar to those that cover equities and derivatives. Regulated exchanges are required by law to have rules that prevent fraud and promote fairness. But crypto exchanges face no such standard, Mr. Gensler said at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange and FinTech conference last month.

Read original article here

Didi and Other U.S.-Listed Chinese Tech Companies Tumble Amid Beijing Crackdown

Text size

A Didi Chuxing autonomous taxi during a pilot test drive on the streets in Shanghai.


Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images

U.S.-listed shares in

Didi Global

and other Chinese app makers tumbled on Tuesday after regulators intensified a crackdown on the country’s New York-listed technology companies.

Didi Global (ticker: DIDI) stock fell more than 25% on Tuesday after Beijing’s Cyberspace Administration ordered app stores to remove the Chinese ride-hailing giant’s services from its platforms on Sunday. 

The cybersecurity regulator widened its attack on Monday, launching a review of two U.S.-listed Chinese app makers:

Full Truck Alliance

(YMM), which operates truck-hailing apps; and online recruiting app

Kanzhun

(BZ).

The regulator ordered the companies to stop adding users while the investigations were conducted, The Wall Street Journal reported. Full Truck Alliance stock was 20% lower in New York premarket trading on Tuesday, while Kanzhun was down 9%.

And on Tuesday, China released guidelines through state-run Xinhua News Agency that would revise rules and strengthen supervision for companies listed in overseas markets, according to the Journal. The additional scrutiny could make it harder for Chinese companies to raise money in the U.S.,

A spokesperson for Full Truck Alliance told Barron’s the company would fully cooperate with the regulator during the cybersecurity process, saying, “FTA is conducting a comprehensive self-examination of any potential cybersecurity risks and will continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities.”

The spokesperson added: “Apart from the suspension of new user registration in China, FTA and its mobile applications maintain normal operation.”

The trio of Chinese app makers went public in the U.S. last month.

Ahead of Didi’s initial public offering, which raised $4.4 billion, reports emerged the company was facing an antitrust probe by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) over whether its pricing mechanism is transparent enough and whether it has been unfairly squeezing out smaller rivals.

Didi made its U.S. debut on Wednesday before attracting the attention of another regulator on Sunday. The cyberspace regulator removed Didi’s Chinese services from their platforms, citing illegal collection of personal data, the Journal reported.

“China is cracking down on big tech, but the decision to remove the app from domestic platforms appears to be timed for maximum impact and embarrassment,” said Markets.com analyst Neil Wilson. “China’s Communist Party is bristling at the number of Chinese companies listing in the U.S. this year, but there is genuine concern at the heart of this—regulators are not impressed with the way Didi and other Chinese tech companies handle data,” he added.

Wedbush analyst Brad Gastwirth struck a similar note, writing that “while Chinese regulators are pointing to Didi’s collection of user data as the impetus for their actions, with the move coming right after its US IPO, there is speculation that China targeting Didi because of its decision to list outside of China.”

In a statement, Didi said that users who had already downloaded and installed the app could continue using it, though it would no longer be available in China.

“The Company will strive to rectify any problems, improve its risk prevention awareness and technological capabilities, protect users’ privacy and data security, and continue to provide secure and convenient services to its users,” Didi said on Sunday. “The Company expects that the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.”

Kanzhun said on Monday it would fully cooperate during the review process. “The Company plans to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks and continue to enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities.”

Perhaps not unrelated, Chinese social-media company

Weibo

(WB) on Tuesday jumped 15% on reports it’s planning to go private.

Write to Callum Keown at callum.keown@dowjones.com

Read original article here

Facebook, Twitter, Google Threaten to Quit Hong Kong Over Proposed Data Laws

HONG KONG—

Facebook Inc.,

FB 0.09%

Twitter Inc.

TWTR 1.60%

and

Alphabet Inc.’s

GOOG 1.86%

Google have privately warned the Hong Kong government that they could stop offering their services in the city if authorities proceed with planned changes to data-protection laws that could make them liable for the malicious sharing of individuals’ information online.

A letter sent by an industry group that includes the internet firms said companies are concerned that the planned rules to address doxing could put their staff at risk of criminal investigations or prosecutions related to what the firms’ users post online. Doxing refers to the practice of putting people’s personal information online so they can be harassed by others.

Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in May proposed amendments to the city’s data-protection laws that it said were needed to combat doxing, a practice that was prevalent during 2019 protests in the city. The proposals call for punishments of up to 1 million Hong Kong dollars, the equivalent of about $128,800, and up to five years’ imprisonment.

“The only way to avoid these sanctions for technology companies would be to refrain from investing and offering the services in Hong Kong,” said the previously unreported June 25 letter from the Singapore-based Asia Internet Coalition, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Tensions have emerged between some of the U.S.’s most powerful firms and Hong Kong authorities as Beijing exerts increasing control over the city and clamps down on political dissent. The American firms and other tech companies last year said they were suspending the processing of requests from Hong Kong law-enforcement agencies following China’s imposition of a national security law on the city.

Jeff Paine, the Asia Internet Coalition’s managing director, in the letter to Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, said that while his group and its members are opposed to doxing, the vague wording in the proposed amendments could mean the firms and their staff based locally could be subject to criminal investigations and prosecution for doxing offenses by their users.

That would represent a “completely disproportionate and unnecessary response,” the letter said. The letter also noted that the proposed amendments could curtail free expression and criminalize even “innocent acts of sharing information online.”

The Coalition suggested that a more clearly defined scope to violations be considered and requested a videoconference to discuss the situation.

A spokeswoman for the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data acknowledged that the office had received the letter. She said new rules were needed to address doxing, which “has tested the limits of morality and the law.”

The government has handled thousands of doxing-related cases since 2019, and surveys of the public and organizations show strong support for added measures to curb the practice, she said. Police officers and opposition figures were doxed heavily during months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.

“The amendments will not have any bearing on free speech,” which is enshrined in law, and the scope of offenses will be clearly set out in the amendments, the spokeswoman said. The government “strongly rebuts any suggestion that the amendments may in any way affect foreign investment in Hong Kong,” she said.

Representatives for Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment on the letter beyond acknowledging that the Coalition had sent it. The companies don’t disclose the number of employees they have in Hong Kong, but they likely employ at least 100 staff combined, analysts estimate.

China’s crackdown on dissent since it imposed a national security law a year ago has driven many people in Hong Kong off social media or to self-censor their posts following a spate of arrests over online remarks.

While Hong Kong’s population of about 7.5 million means it isn’t a major market in terms of its user base, foreign firms often cite the free flow of information in Hong Kong as a key factor for being located in the financial hub.

The letter from the tech giants comes as global companies increasingly consider whether to leave the financial center for cities offering more hospitable business climates.

The anti-doxing amendments will be put before the city’s Legislative Council and a bill is expected to be approved by the end of this legislative year, said Paul Haswell, Hong Kong-based head of the technology, media, and telecom law practice at global law firm Pinsent Masons.

The tech firms’ concerns about the proposed rules are legitimate, Mr. Haswell said. Depending on the wording of the legislation, technology companies headquartered outside Hong Kong, but with operations in the city, could see their staff here held responsible for what people posted, he said.

A broad reading of the rules could suggest that even an unflattering photo of a person taken in public, or of a police officer’s face on the basis that this would constitute personal data, could run afoul of the proposed amendments if posted with malice or an intention to cause harm, he said.

“If not managed with common sense,” the new rules “could make it potentially a risk to post anything relating to another individual on the internet,” he said.

Corrections & Amplifications
Doxing was prevalent during protests in Hong Kong in 2019. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the year was 2109. (Corrected on July 5)

Write to Newley Purnell at newley.purnell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

64 Cryptocurrency Firms Have Withdrawn Applications to Operate in UK, FCA Says – Regulation Bitcoin News

A growing number of crypto firms in the U.K. are withdrawing their applications to register with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Around 64 firms have already withdrawn their applications and will not be able to operate in the U.K.

  • The list of cryptocurrency companies abandoning their attempts to register with the U.K.’s financial regulator is growing, Reuters reported Monday.
  • Under the current crypto regulation, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is responsible for ensuring crypto companies’ compliance with laws on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.
  • Companies wanting to provide crypto-related services in the U.K. must register with the FCA before conducting business.
  • An FCA spokesperson said Monday that registration data shows the number of companies that have ditched their applications jumped by 25% in less than a month.
  • Around 64 companies have withdrawn their applications, the spokesperson said, up from 51 in early June.

  • Only six firms have successfully registered with the FCA so far, the publication conveyed, adding that dozens more companies are being assessed but they are not yet deemed “fit and proper.”
  • The FCA issued a consumer notice on Binance Friday, banning the exchange from engaging in “regulated activities” in the U.K.

What do you think about crypto firms exiting the U.K. due to regulation? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.



Read original article here

NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Gets Set for Historic First Flight on Another World

In a hardscrabble crater on Mars, a tiny helicopter with a smartphone brain is now days away from attempting the first powered flight on another world. NASA hopes its spindly robot copter, named Ingenuity, will prove that powered flight is possible in the perilously thin Martian air and help usher in a new era of planetary exploration in which drones play a vital role.

Ingenuity reached Mars like a stowaway, folded up on the underside of NASA’s Perseverance rover, which landed on the red planet in February after a seven-month, 293-million-mile voyage from Earth. For its maiden flight, the 4-pound, $85 million craft will simply rise about 10 feet above the surface and hover—no higher than the rim of a regulation basketball hoop—before returning to the surface. The whole flight should be over within 90 seconds.

The brief excursion—one of five planned for a one-month period expected to start on or about April 11—is a short hop by the measures of interplanetary travel. But agency officials said it would be a giant leap for Mars exploration. In the future, they said, autonomous drones like Ingenuity could take to the skies to explore canyons, ice caps and other terrain that is inaccessible to rovers. Should human explorers ever land on Mars, drones could serve as scouts and aerial sensors.

“We are hoping that Ingenuity allows us to expand and open up aerial mobility on Mars,” said Bob Balaram, the project’s chief engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.

The flight of Ingenuity, part of a broader mission to seek signs of past life on the red planet, is the latest in a flurry of notable Mars moments this year.

Read original article here

Tesla must rehire fired worker and Elon Musk must delete anti-union tweet, NLRB rules

The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday ordered Tesla Inc. to reinstate an employee it fired in 2017 and said Chief Executive Elon Musk must remove a three-year-old tweet urging against unionizing.

The NLRB in Washington, D.C., agreed with a 2019 ruling by an NLRB judge in California, who found that the electric-car maker violated labor laws related to unionization efforts at its Fremont, Calif., plant.

Tesla
TSLA,
+1.61%
must offer to reinstate Richard Ortiz to his former job as a production associate within 14 days, as well as give him back pay and benefits. The company must also compensate him for any resulting tax consequences, according to the ruling.

Tesla said in filings that Ortiz was fired for lying during an investigation into a Facebook post about union activity at the company.

Margo Feinberg, an attorney with Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers who was retained by the United Auto Workers on behalf of Ortiz, told MarketWatch on Thursday that as far as she knows, Ortiz had wanted to return to work at Tesla.

The decision in the Tesla case, first reported by Bloomberg News, comes as the Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, or HR 482, was passed by the House earlier this month. The legislation — which would give workers new protections when they seek to unionize and penalize companies that violate workers’ rights — is expected to be taken up by the Senate.

See: PRO Act, called ‘most important labor legislation in several generations,’ passes House

“If this was OSHA, there would be fines,” Feinberg said. “The NLRB ruling is not enough, but it’s an important message.”

“Ultimately, we need reform,” she added, saying the PRO Act would provide for injunctive relief and damages in a case like this.

The UAW echoed that sentiment.

“While we celebrate the justice in today’s ruling, it nevertheless highlights the substantial flaws in U.S. labor law,” said UAW Vice President Cindy Estrada in a statement. “Here is a company that clearly broke the law and yet it is three years down the road before these workers achieved a modicum of justice.”

As for the tweet by Musk that must be taken down, the NLRB deemed it to be threatening. In 2018, as the UAW continued to try to organize Tesla employees, the Tesla CEO tweeted: “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare.”

Tesla must also delete a warning from the file of another employee who was disciplined when he interacted with Ortiz about union-related activity, the NLRB said in its Thursday ruling. The company was additionally ordered to rescind rules barring employees from distributing union-related literature during non-work hours and from wearing union insignia, and threatening, disciplining or terminating an employee over union activity. In addition, Tesla must post a notice at its plant that it was found to have violated labor law.

The company must also delete language from a confidentiality agreement it asks employees to sign that they cannot talk to the media, because labor law “protects employees when they speak with the media about working conditions, labor disputes or other terms and conditions of employment.”

The company, which has reportedly dissolved its public relations team, has not returned a request for comment.

Read original article here

United’s Recent Engine Failure Spooked Denver. It’s Happened Before.

When a Boeing 777’s engine cover broke apart and rained parts on a Denver suburb on Feb. 20, the news rang familiar to Christopher Behnam. In February 2018, the 777 he was piloting as captain suffered a similar emergency with the same engine type.

His plane, United Airlines Flight 1175 to Honolulu, was over the ocean 120 miles from the runway carrying more than 370 passengers and crew when a violent blast rocked it.

The jet shook uncontrollably, rolled sharply, and the noise was deafening, said Capt. Behnam. An engine had suffered severe damage. Years of training kicked in, the pilots regained control and shut the engine down. Even so, the plane was hard to handle. A third pilot went into the cabin and looked out the window: The engine hadn’t just failed; its cover had ripped away.

“After the explosion, it felt like she was going to fall apart,” Capt. Behnam said. “I knew I could fly the airplane. The issue was, can I fly it long enough to land it?” The pilots brought the plane to a safe landing in Hawaii.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates U.S. aviation failures, concluded that a roughly 35-pound fan blade broke in the plane’s Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engine due to fatigue, spiraling forward and causing parts of the engine cover to drop into the sea.

Read original article here