Category: Blog

A new law in Iceland is requiring all companies to prove that their wage practices don’t discriminate against women, in what is thought to be a global first in the effort to reduce gender pay gaps.

The law, which was passed with a large majority by parliament in June, took effect at the New Year. It seeks to erase a current pay gap between men and women of about 5.7 per cent that can’t be explained by differing work hours, experience or education levels, as measured by Statistics Iceland.

While other countries, and the U.S. state of Minnesota, have equal-salary certificate policies, Iceland is believed to be the first to make it mandatory for both private and public firms.

The North Atlantic island nation, which has a population of about 330,000, wants to eradicate the gender pay gap by 2022. The country has ranked first on the World Economic Forum’s global gender equality index for nine straight years and 38 per cent of its parliamentarians are female — above the global average — including Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir.

Companies with more than 25 workers will have to obtain an “equal pay certification” from an accredited auditor showing that they are basing pay differences on legitimate factors such as education, skills and performance. Big companies with more than 250 employees have until the end of the year to get the certification, while the smallest have until the end of 2021. The certification must be renewed every three years.

Employers’ associations came out against the law, saying that it imposed costly compliance burdens and involved too much government interference in the labour market. Some academic economists also were skeptical of the certification requirement, arguing that the gap resulted from non-gender related factors that would be apparent if the statistical measures were perfect.

Care tasks

While the law might help eliminate the unexplained pay gap, it likely won’t address the larger, explainable pay difference of 22 per cent between the sexes that is based on different work volumes, according to a report by Stefan Olafsson of the University of Iceland for the European Social Policy Network. The network provides independent policy analysis to the European Commission.

“That is still a gendered pay difference rooted in the fact that women take greater responsibility for care tasks within the household, while men spend more time in paid work,” Olafsson wrote.

“Still, one may assume that the certification requirement will forward the ethos of gender and other equality issues in Icelandic society, both directly and indirectly,” he wrote.

Go to Source

Go to Source

You mean there are more new state laws taking effect this month than the one legalizing pot, which California has spent the last half-century putting hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the slammer for?

Yes, Virginia, there are more. Over 100 more. Perhaps none as sexy — or maybe that’s stoner-y — as the one that rescinds century-old prohibitions on cannabis, allowing sale and possession for recreational use of up to one ounce of the formerly noxious weed.

But in the end is the result of the positive vote for Proposition 64 back in 2016 going to make California that much different? Our state has had legalized medical marijuana for two decades, and all your nieces and nephews — and perhaps you as well — have a physician’s card to treat your many ailments.

Some of the new laws are efficacious, insofar as it is possible for any new regulation to do good in this world. Some, not so much. And, no, we did not get our long-held wish that for every new one passed by the Legislature, two old laws — or let’s call it three — are done away with. So maybe that could be a New Year’s resolution for the esteemed members of what the late Texas columnist Molly Ivins used to refer to as the Leg — pronounced “Ledge,” as in teetering on the brink of. Get rid of the ones that are old and in the way before passing any more.

In the real world, the new California laws for 2018 run the gamut, from merely making technically legal things Californians are already doing to razzing Washington, D.C. with a Bronx cheer to actually making major changes in the way things are done in the state.

In the first category, count being allowed to cross the street when that red hand signal is flashing. Assembly Bill 390 takes away the former penalty for entering a crosswalk after a “Don’t Walk” symbol appears. Except that you need to live in a fancy community in which there is a countdown showing how much time is left for pedestrians to cross.

In the razzing-the-feds category, we would include Senate Bill 54, making California a “sanctuary state” for immigrants without papers. It’s a slap at President Donald Trump’s threat to ramp up federal deporting of undocumented immigrants by limiting the ability of local and state police officers to cooperate with ICE and other federal officials. Many of our state’s cities already limit such cooperation.

And the minimum wage is going up again, by 50 cents, to $11 per hour for workers at companies with at least 26 employees, and to $10.50 for smaller firms. The law could backfire, limiting job creation, the last thing California needs.

Advertisement

Assembly Bill 19 is the first step to a “free college” program waiving the first year of fees for any first-time student who enrolls full-time in community college. There’s a catch: The state has yet to provide enough money in its 2018-19 budget to cover the waivers.

Some laws just appropriately keep up with the times. Senate Bill 179 removes requirements that transgender Californians undergo treatment before applying to change the gender on their birth certificate. It also adds a “nonbinary” option for those who do not identify as either male or female, available on driver’s licenses as well starting in 2019. Never say you don’t live in a state at the cutting edge of the whole … thing.

Southern California News Group

Go to Source

Go to Source

Go to Source

Go to Source

Go to Source

This is a guest post courtesy of Marc Yonker, a personal injury attorney at Winters & Yonker, a law firm in Tampa, Florida.

Miami, Florida is one of the premier vacation destinations in the world for those who treasure white sand beaches, balmy weather and access to all the sights and sport that the western Atlantic Ocean has to offer. Every year, thousands of global travelers touch down in Miami, but very few of them understand what might happen if they are injured.

Unlike many countries, the United States does not have a national public health system. Instead, insurance companies form relationships with networks of hospitals to manage care. Those who are not insured in the U.S. may face costs into the tens of thousands of dollars. VZP may cover some injuries sustained during travel, but not necessarily all of them. The best chance of recovering the cost of an injury, and some extra, may be with the US court system.

Can Non-US Citizens Make Injury Claims in US Court?

Yes. Those who are visiting the US from Prague can make personal injury claims in US courts under many circumstances. National status does not restrict access to the US court system, and it is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen or to be married to one, to file a claim.

That said, claims filed through the court are rarely resolved there. When a claim is filed against an American or business, their insurance company will most likely negotiate on their behalf. US court costs can be very high, so local lawyers will likely recommend negotiating a settlement (an amount both parties agree to) overtaking the claim in front of a judge.

How Can a Lawyer Assist with a Claim?

Lawyers are recommended for navigating the complex US legal system. Lawyers provide a number of services while pursuing an injury claim, including gathering evidence for claims, making necessary court filings and coordinating the negotiations. In Miami, most law firms have experience working with international clients and have resources to provide Czech language support when necessary.

Is it Necessary to Remain in the US?

It is not necessary to remain in the US when a lawyer is handling the claim. In most cases, the claim can be brought to a complete resolution without another visit to the US. However, for this to be the case, it is necessary to make arrangements and provide information to a lawyer before leaving.

If in Doubt, Contact the Czech Embassy in DC

Injuries that happen in the US, and the charges that can come with them, should be resolved carefully. It is best not to sign any documents or make any agreements without speaking to a lawyer first. Most lawyers will not charge for the first consultation when discussing a personal injury. If working with a US lawyer isn’t possible, first contact the Czech embassy in DC for official information at (202) 274-9100.

Even injuries in the United States may be covered by VZP, and the embassy can connect travelers to that information and those options.

About the Author:

Marc Yonker is a personal injury attorney in Tampa, Florida. He has a great passion for serving the public and providing justice for those in need through his position at the Winters and Yonker law firm. He believes that teamwork is a key element for great success. This is one of the beliefs that helped form the law firm, with his partner Bill Winters. When someone is wrongfully injured, they deserve just compensation for the hardships they have been put through. Winters and Yonker help clients in their fight for justice. They strictly handle personal injury cases which mostly comprises of auto accidents and slip and fall accidents, among many other types of vehicle-related accidents, death cases, and even electrocutions.

Go to Source

Jan 03, 2018 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) — NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / January 3, 2018 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Suisse Group A.G. (“Credit Suisse” or the “Company”)

CS, +1.01%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse’s American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) between March 20, 2015 and February 3, 2016, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Credit Suisse securities between March 20, 2015, and February 3, 2016, both dates inclusive, you have until February 20, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Credit Suisse is a Swiss multinational financial services holding company, with one of its four primary divisions focused on investment banking. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted in SEC filings that Credit Suisse maintained “comprehensive risk management processes and sophisticated control systems” governing its investment operations. A notable component of the Bank’s risk management structure was its high-level Capital Allocation and Risk Management Committee (“CARMC”), which was responsible for, among other obligations, establishing and allocating appropriate trading and risk limits for the Bank’s various businesses. Significantly, Credit Suisse represented in its Class Period filings that the trading and risk limits set by the CARMC were “binding” on the Bank’s businesses and trading desks. In addition, only senior management had the authority to temporarily increase a divisional risk committee limit and, even in those cases, such authority was limited to an “approved percentage for a period not to exceed 90 days.”

Contrary to Defendants’ representations, however, Credit Suisse’s trading and risk limits were not actually binding, and were routinely increased to allow the Bank to accumulate billions of dollars in extremely risky, highly illiquid investments. Indeed, Defendants’ scheme enabled the Bank to surreptitiously accumulate nearly $3 billion in distressed debt and U.S. collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”), which were notoriously difficult to liquidate and required significant capital investments. This outsized investment position – which was undisclosed to shareholders – violated Credit Suisse’s purported risk protocols and rendered the Bank highly susceptible to losses when credit markets contracted.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit Suisse’s risk protocols and control systems were routinely disregarded; (ii) Credit Suisse was amassing billions of dollars of risky, highly illiquid securities, in violation of those risk protocols; and (iii) as a result, Credit Suisse’s statements about Credit Suisse’s business, operations, and risk controls were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

By the beginning of 2016, with credit markets tightening, Defendants could no longer hide the truth. On February 4, 2016, Credit Suisse announced its Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2015 financial results, which included a massive $633 million write-down from the sale of the Bank’s outsized, illiquid distressed debt and CLO positions – an incredible loss that would swell to nearly $1 billion in the ensuing weeks. Even worse, Defendant Tidjane Thiam, Credit Suisse’s recently-appointed CEO, explicitly admitted that these risky and outsized investments were only allowed because trading limits were continuously raised, which enabled traders take larger and larger positions in violation of the Bank’s publicly-touted risk policies. In addition, Thiam acknowledged that Credit Suisse’s investment bank had acquired these securities over the years as it was “trying to generate revenue at all costs.”

In the wake of Credit Suisse’s revelations, the price of the Bank’s ADRs declined from a close of $16.69 on February 3, 2016 to a close of $14.89 on February 4, 2016 – an 11% drop that wiped out approximately $230 million in market capitalization.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

http://www.accesswire.com/img.ashx?id=485321

Copyright 2018 ACCESSWIRE

Go to Source

Go to Source