Encounter the Most Crowded Airlines: Load Factor Reaches a Record High

Summer has finally arrived. That means even more stacked planes and close airports. If one thinks that airline trips are much crowded than how they were before, then they are absolutely right. The passenger load factor otherwise known as (PLF) of commercial airways has risen tremendously over the past decade. In 2005, airlines had a mean load factor of 75.2%. Therefore on average, only three seats for every four seats were traded.

The recession of 2007-2010 halted the load factor growth. However, by 2018, the average load factor reached 81.7% globally. In the United States, the load factor has risen on domestic flights. It has inflated from 67.88% in 2002 to 86.08% by 2018. During that time, the number of domestic trips has had an almost stationary status. This is from 8,085,083 in 2002 to 8,176,610 in 2017. The US airline sector has gotten even better in documenting seats as revenue passenger miles rose. It has seen a significant increase from 471,652,206 in 2002 to 684,221,393 in 2017.

The era of having an entire row to space up in coach is a thing of the past. It is also inclusive of having an empty middle seat disjointing one from his or her neighbor. The airlines rarely mourn over it. On the contrary, these airlines of global repute are busy shrinking seats and cramming additional seats. As one might anticipate, the reduced cost carriers typically have the highest load factor. However, the load factor can at times fluctuate. An example is the Frontier Airlines. Its load factor grew from 73.5% in 2004 to an incredible 91.28% in 2013. From that moment, however, the load factor no matter how robust, has dropped significantly. It was noted in 2017 when it turned back to 86.36%. It may due to heightening competition from major airlines. They offer the dread “basic economy” fare. It starts with Delta’s “experiment” in 2014.

According to Forbes, as of July 2017, Ireland’s Ryanair was the most packed airline. Its load factor was 93.1% in 2016. Furthermore, the airline propelled the figure further to 94.7% in 2017. The airline is somehow involved in a “cattle car” reputation. Regardless, Ryanair successfully stacked in 130 million Millennials in the 2017-2018 fiscal years. However, other carriers challenged it for its passenger packing size. Four other different carriers boasted of 90% or even enhanced load factor in 2017. It was headed by India’s very own Spicejet. It flew an average of 92.8% full.
Reference

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Privacy Advocates

Telephones were the last thing on the mind of the Founders when the U.S. Constitution was written, as no one of that time had any idea that technology would become what it is today. Personal privacy was actually such a non-issue that that it was not even directly addressed when the document was being written, as books and newspapers were the only form of societal communication. In addition, crime had a completely different dynamic as well, with most criminal cases involving physical attack, gun fights, or various forms of theft. But, in today’s world, there are myriad ways in which a crime can be committed, commonly involving the use of a personal phone that leaves a wide array of information available for police authorities when attempting to solve crimes. The question today is one of priority, along with the view of the Supreme Court that people have at least a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in certain areas of their life. Today that area includes personal cell phone records.

The high court decided this issue in an appeal from a convicted individual who was accused of orchestrating several coordinated robberies of electronics stores while using the his personal cell phone to connect with other ring members. At issue was the concept of “reasonable means” of obtaining the information police used to solve the case. They used cell phone tower information that was accessed without a warrant and covered a time frame of over four months. According to the court, this extended swath of information gleaned from cell phone tower records was excessive.

The significance of this decision has much more impact than many people realize, as it will govern all investigations from now on when officers want to access phone records. The concept of “being secure in personal papers” is now extended to cell phone use as well, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion that the need for a personal cell phone is a fundamental necessity to function in modern society. Not only can phone information reveal individual private facts about the owner, but information extracted from phone records over a four-month period gives police officials much more personal information than needed to prove the charge.

The court ruled that because the requested records were not specific concerning what the police needed, this case was an example of governmental overreach that should be protected by a reasonable right to privacy concerning aspects of the defendant’s life that do not pertain to the case. Privacy rights advocates surely consider this decision a victory for the common person, even when being accused of a crime that can be proven they committed. And of course, police departments across the nation are saying it impedes their ability to do their job, but the U.S. Constitution has historically been pesky in that regard as well.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

Will California’s Public Workers’ Unions Frustrate United States Supreme court’s decision?

Diana Corral, a soft-spoken young lady who is aged 36 years, doesn’t even look fit to be a County social worker. She even hardly fits into the typical pedigree of being a county boss. She is reported to love her job so much because she enjoys helping people. She is considered a helper who likes guiding the poor, the homeless and the disabled. She assists them in securing food stamps, cash assistance, medical care and insurance. Diana Corral is among the army that is on the warpath in California to stand against the effects of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision. The protestors were trying to overturn the decision that was passed by the Supreme Court that seemed not be in their favor. They intended to outlaw the so-called fair share that was being taxed by the government unions.

The levies that are paid by employees that later decline to join the government unions have offset the collective bargaining costs. Unions are involuntary asked to represent the ‘free riders’. Experts have foreseen the extensive issues of dues-paying members. This has, in turn, crippled the labor movement. However, in California, there are 1.5 million union-protected public workers and also a labor-friendly council. That supposition might be incorrect. Corral reported that the Janus case had sparkled an issue in the workers. The employees have been sitting seeing the inequity, the rich continuing to be rich while the poor have grown to be poorer. Corral revealed that it was the moment for the working class American citizens to stand up and fight for the little that they have left.

According to her tone, Corral seemed more renewed and with energy. She meant a new action team for all the fourteen work sites. She asked all her colleagues to sign commitment cards. She reported that the cards had been approved by over 90% of her work members. She intended to legally re-enrol them for another year. If they were re-enrolled, it meant that they had to bargain their contracts. The cards were more significant as they represented the statewide representation of the worker’s plea. They were to push for a change after the Supreme Court passed a law that seemed not to favour them. She urged her work members to open their eyes and see what was happening. The court’s decisions was a wakeup call for them. It was a signal to the entire labour movement that had to fight for their rights so that the court can prioritize their demands.

Read Full Report: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article214022469.html

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to step down

Much of the media coverage surrounding U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has focused on how and when his soon-to-be-vacant seat should be filled, but the 81-year-old jurist’s announcement that he would be stepping down after three decades on the court also raises a number of thorny legal questions. Justice Kennedy was widely viewed as a reliable conservative when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1988, but he has provided a crucial liberal vote in a number of important recent Supreme Court decisions.

This has progressive groups worried as President Trump has said that Justice Kennedy’s successor will be selected from a list of 25 names vetted and approved by a group of conservative legal activists. Pro-life and pro-choice organizations were especially vocal in the days following Justice Kennedy’s announcement as several cases dealing with abortion rights, and laws that have been passed in several states to restrict them, are likely to be argued before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

However, advocacy groups both liberal and conservative may be wise to remember that the voting records of Supreme Court justices rarely follow strict ideological lines. While Justice Kennedy provided a key vote to protect abortion rights in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he also voted to restrict these rights in cases including Hodgson v. Minnesota and Gonzales v. Carhart.

Justice Kennedy has long been admired by the LGBT community for his stance on gay rights, and he became one of their heroes in 2015 when he penned the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. However, his voting record on other liberal hot-button issues is not quite as progressive. He voted to strike down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and he wrote the majority opinion in the 2009 case Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which allowed an Alaskan mining company to use a technique that environmentalists said would flood a large area with contaminated water.

Some Americans see lifetime appointments and the power to make law as unusual in a democracy, but the judicial branch has provided a robust defense against government overreach. The Supreme Court has been dominated by either conservatives or liberals many times during its 229 year history, but the nation has never fallen victim to the extreme versions of these ideologies as a result.

 

China’s Legal Retaliation

China responded to the United States trade rules by disapproving Washington’s move to the supremacists of its foreign investment supervisory body. The Chinese administration expresses fears that this move means that the US will use general security apprehensions unlawfully to confine Chinese investments. Chinese Tech industries investing in the US are the targets of the new investment rules. The recent trending trade wars have sparked retaliation in imports and exports between China and the US. The levies are valued at $34 billion.

The Trump administration imposed tariffs on its allies a month ago which, has brought heat-ups in trade. All Washington’s trade associates vowed to retaliate in case president Trump refused to evoke the new rules. Following Trump’s declination, countries in the European Union and China began strike backs on certain US commodities. These trade wars have affected the Forex platform with investors avoiding risks given the deteriorating value of currencies against the greenback.

The US President Donald Trump whispered his support on the legislation that would magnify the influences of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). CFIUS exists as an inter-agency group that inspects the state security and effects of trade deals resulting in foreign proprietorship of US firms. The president has the mandate to cease agreements if recommended by the body. However, in run-through, a lousy CFIUS outcome only is so often sufficient to halt a deal. In a statement, Mr Trump hailed the move claiming that it was combat for the predatory venture practices menacing the US tech industry, and future economic fortune.

Deals that would pose a threat to the US tech prosperity can be halted by the stretched out role of CFIUS legislation. The critical striking point in the US and China trade tensions revolves around intellectual property. For long the US has been accusing China of stealing the country’s tech. The legislation is highly opposed by China with Gao Feng, saying China will monitor it to evaluate its potential impact on Chinese firms. Gao is the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman. According to BBC, China is the primary investor in the US which should exempt it from harsher foreign investment legislation.
China has been focusing on its initiative, Made in China 2025, that focuses on tech progress. Since the election of Trump, Chinese investment depreciated with values from the Rhodium Group showing a more than 90% fall in 2017. China’s investment in the US totaled $24.2 billion in 2017 according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Will the Anti Trump Faction want an Investigation into the Retirement of Justice Kennedy?

The District of Columbia can be a crazy place at times. While the battle for power before the election of Donald Trump has typically been between the Democrats and the Republicans, the climate of Washington today is such that the paradigm is possibly overlapping. An example of this merging of what were once opponents is the call from a former Bush Administration official for an investigation into what spurred Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire abruptly, as though another investigation will expose a morsel of another something regarding Trump that appears underhanded.

When the announcement was made at the end of this court session it also included the actual date of July 31 as Kennedy’s last day as a member of the Supreme Court, meaning President Trump will now have an opportunity to impact the court for many years to come. This is also a transition that segveral on both sides of the aisle may not want to see, not to mention all of the left who want to attack Donald Trump for even eating Russian dressing.

University professor Richard Painter, who was once an official in the Bush Administration, claims the facts surrounding Justice Kennedy’s decision to step down must be investigated before Trump even gets an opportunity to name a nominee, citing Trump’s personal relationship with Kennedy’s son who works at Deutsche Bank. What many people do not realize is that Trump’s business bankruptcies impacted his personal credit rating as well after his companies went into bankruptcy, but Kennedy’s son found a way to influence the bank into re-establishing Trump’s credit status. According to a story published in the New Republic, Trump and Kennedy have been friends for many years with Kennedy’s son being a very trusted financier for the Trump brand.

Of course, the real problem for many who do not want to see the court transition is the potential revisiting of Roe vs. Wade, which is the decision that made abortion a fundamental right instead of just a medical option for women seeking the procedure. And, that is not to mention the direction the SCOTUS will take on future rulings. Trump has vowed to make a decision on a nominee in very short order with a potential vote coming before the fall, a vote the Democrats are already gearing up to avoid or stall. Critics of the “shady” relationship between Trump and Kennedy are even claiming Kennedy is “too young” to consider retiring from the bench that is a constitutionally protected lifetime appointment.

The fact that Kennedy is 81 years of age and may want to spend his remaining years in retirement is not an acceptable notion for many, as many justices stay on the court until death. But, one thing is for certain in this court appointment situation. The jury is still out.

Superior Court Rules against the California Crisis Pregnancy Facility Law

The justice court terminated a California bill that requires anti-abortion disaster pregnancy to issue content on matters like the termination of a pregnancy. The ruling also cast doubts on similar bills in Illinois and Hawaii. The California law was reported to have taken action in the year 2016. It required the health centers that were licensed to inform clients about the availability of various services like abortion, contraception and prenatal care that are at no cost. All the centers that were not licensed were required to put up a sign that said so. However, the Supreme Court struck down the law. The health centers reported that they were forced to deliver the information on which most of them had disagreed. The state of California reported that it wanted all the poor women living in the State to understand their options clearly.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the health centers are more likely to prosper in their constitutional protest. Justice Clarence went on to reveal that even as the law is currently on the papers, the petitioners can still go back to court and receive an order that will halt the enforcement. The attorney for the challengers reported that they expect whatever Justice Clarence had ruled with immediate effect. However, the state of California had not been enforcing the law. Thomas wrote for himself and others like Justices Samuel Alito, Kennedy Anthony, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, that California can’t co-option the licensed health facilities to deliver the message that they intended. He termed the requirement by the State of California to the unlicensed centers as rude, burdensome and unjustified.

Justice Breyer reported that among the reasons that the California law should be upheld is because the Supreme Court had already upheld the laws. It required the doctors working in these facilities to inform all women who came seeking an abortion to tell them about other services offered like adoption. Beyer stated in a dissenting opinion that the law should be evenhanded. All anti-abortion groups and the US Attorney General Jeff Session were among the people that were singing and celebrating when the law was upheld by the court. President Donald Trump’s administration reported that the State of California was violating the rights of all the health centres that were licensed but had no objection to the directive that was issued. The Trump’s administration went on to say that speakers shouldn’t be forced by their governments to report things that they disagree.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-voids-part-of-crisis-pregnancy-center-law/2018/06/26/cba2e0c6-794a-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.21c6b58c4ce3

How US Politics, though Illegal, are affecting the US Market

Trade tensions have been rising every passing day which is affecting the forex trading platform. The effect has been felt everywhere in the market since the threats turned to reality. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump’s administration announced imposing tariffs on aluminum and steel. Target countries included the European Union (EU) markets and China that are prominent producers of steel worldwide. The notice came by surprise to many of the United States trade allies as well as some politicians in America.

Investors have been shunning away from risk in the forex trade as currencies continue to lose value in the market. Forecasters warn of greater impacts and effects should this continue, risking business and the economy. Recently, German received an increased levy on their cars just when the Merkel government is struggling with immigration issues. However, the tensions are favorable to some currencies such as the Japanese Yen that continues to rise against the greenback significantly.

Today, the forex platform was all about trade tensions with the increasing threats and protective measures from Washington. These continue to intensify weighing on the upper betas generally while a slowdown of the increased trade plays out. The US trade allies in response to the tariffs by Trump warned of raising taxes on specific US commodities. The EU announced targeting particular products such as motorbikes among others in retaliation. Trump, having imposed the levies, forced his allies to pose trade barriers in retaliation to the tariffs. In retaliation, President Donald Trump has again threatened China and the EU to withdraw these barriers, failure to which there will be severe consequences.

Among the new threats, the administration will add tariffs to Chinese tech firms. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration plans to stop Chinese tech industries from investing in American tech corporations. Additionally, Beijing’s tech exports will be blocked. Currencies continue to deteriorate in value against the USD in the Forex space recording a significant fall with the Euro in New York closing at 1.1703. Ahead of the EU Summit, GBP/USD was stable then uneven to the top closing at 1.3280. On the NY session at +0.13% within the N. American range of 1.3289 to 1.3251.

Oil was lower besides copper that in the June rout was nose-diving. For the first time since late last year, gold recorded a close beneath the 200-D SMA. The Aussie nosedived to 0.7397 from 0.7440 ranking it as one of the most underperforming commodities. However, Kiwi hiked from 0.6901 to 0.6890 in the equity market.

The Netherlands Hopes To Eliminate Sexism In Muslim Culture Within Its Borders

Islam is the second-most popular religion on planet Earth behind Christianity with about 1.8 billion followers of the spiritual belief system around the world. Without writing a novel to explain the differences between Christianity and Islam, Muslims – followers of the religion of Islam – believe that Muhammed is the last prophet to spread the word of Allah – or the one, true God. Whereas Christians believe Jesus spread the proper word, Muslims believe that Muhammed’s version of religion is the only true interpretation of such prophecies.

Another major difference between the two religions is that the Qur’an – the holy book of Islam – is considerably more conservative than the Holy Bible. For example, Muslim women are required by religion, culture, and even law to wear garments like the hijab whenever they’re out in public or otherwise exposed to men outside of their respective families.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia’s province of Aceh all require women to dress in hijab when outside of their homes. Men aren’t required to abide by the same rules and can essentially wear whatever they want. Women in the three aforementioned places also have far fewer rights than men, though the three countries’ respective laws regarding women are different; even those women who do want to challenge their respective governments’ laws aren’t able to successfully influence them.

Unfortunately for women hoping to live with the same rights as men – whether those rights are dictated by Saudi Arabian law or simply by Muslim culture both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia and other countries throughout the Middle East – not all governments around the world attempt to level the proverbial playing field between Muslim males and females.

The Netherlands is now striving to bring greater equality to Muslim women in respect to men

In an effort to eliminate the gap between men and women who follow the spiritual reasoning of Islam, the Netherlands recently announced that its federal government had successfully passed a law that outlaws women – the bill effectively only targets Muslim women, though it applies to all females – from wearing garments that cover their faces when worn in public, including government facilities like hospitals, schools, universities, and on modes of public transportation like trains, buses, and trolleys.

The Netherlands outlawed both the niqab, a face-covering veil, and the burqa, a full-body veil, on Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Read full report on vox.com.

Legal Medication vs. Ethics

There have been changes in the US since the election of President Donald Trump. Ranging from immigration to transgender conflicts among other factors, things are becoming even harder. They might not be directly linked to Trump personally, but widely encouraged by his administration. According to hellogiggles, life has been harder for the American woman. The Trump administration has been enacting rules and laws that the public is up against. This includes former ex-first ladies and notable figures of the country.

A post has gone viral on both Instagram and Facebook about a woman’s experience from Arizona. Nicole Arteaga, a school teacher, shared how a pharmacist from Walgreen denied her legitimate medication. According to a statement given by Nicole to BuzzFeed News, she was nine months pregnant when her doctor said that her baby had ceased to grow. In fact, they couldn’t feel the baby’s heartbeat. Nicole opted for medication instead of surgery to terminate the pregnancy. Even with the doctor’s prescription, the pharmacist at Walgreen refused to sell it to her based on ethics.

Every discipline has ethics, and some, such as the medical institutions, have strict rules and repercussions for failure to comply. The (American Medical Association) AMA Code of Medical Ethics instructs doctors to meet the moral challenges of medical practice. The Principles of Medical Ethics requests a physician to respect the law. Additionally, to identify an obligation to pursue alterations in those necessities that are dissimilar to the paramount benefits of the patient.

According to Hello Giggles, reproductive rights are a long-term battle that women have been fighting against. The doctor prescribed the medication given the pregnancy wasn’t fully functional, and that the baby would die in the long-run. It wasn’t Arteaga’s wish to end the pregnancy. However, situations forced her to go ahead with the procedure. Nicole continues to express her feelings on the pride that comes with carrying a healthy baby. The miscarriage was the last thing Arteaga wanted, but given the situation, it was the last choice she had.

There is strictness in some countries when it comes to moral and religious beliefs. Pharmacists in Arizona are lawfully allowed not to fill prescription contrary to moral beliefs. This law extends to six other states as well where the Code of Medical Ethics is strictly observed. However, people feel the need for changes in these rules saying they are unfit for women. The opinion expressed by the contributor terms it unacceptable for physicians to deny patients prescriptions based on their beliefs.

Men Accused of Ending the Life of a Missing Woodland Teen Pleads not Guilty

Three men that were accused of killing two woodland teenagers that disappeared in the year 2016 pleaded not guilty before the court. On Friday, the three men were arraigned in Yolo Superior court. Jonathan Froste 21 years and Chandale Shannon 21 years were earlier arrested this month and were charged with murder. Jonathan’s elder brother David Froste whose aged 27 years was much older in prison serving a sentence of an unrelated case. On Friday, David Froste was charged with murder after the hearing. During the trial, all the three gentlemen pleaded not guilty. There was a fourth defendant that was aged 18 years. His name was Jesus Campos. Jesus had previously been arraigned in a juvenile court.

The four men were accused of killing Elijah Moore and Enrique Rios. The two teenagers were students at Cesar Chavez Community School that is based in Woodland. Moore was 17 years while Rios was just 16 years. The two were reported to have disappeared few weeks apart. Yolo County Sherriff’s partnered with Woodland authorities and the FBI to investigate the disappearance of these two teenagers. Elijah’s mother, Alicia Moore, revealed that the not-guilty pleas that were said by the three men were ridiculous and never made sense at all. Alicia went on to say that the men seemed arrogant about the issue. They were cocky and never took the issue as severe as it would have been.

Alicia continued to say that they appeared as if they had something that they were hiding. She added that what they were hiding had seemed to be so powerful and that it was going to free them. Alicia started getting emotional, saying that they ended the life of her baby and another baby. It was so evil of them and that the law was going to serve them right. After the suspects pleaded not guilty, the three attorneys representing the three parties spent most of the time arguing on when the preliminary hearing will take place. David Froste’s public defender, Martha Sequeira, suggested that the hearing takes place after ten court days.

Martha Sequeira revealed that the allegations against David Froste were not new to her. She continued to say that Froste was so eager and ready to proceed with the hearing. The other two private attorneys representing the rest of the defendants reported that they were issued with more than 500 pages of possible evidence from the prosecution a night before. They were pleading to be given more time so that they could go through the book and prepare for the next hearing.

Sacramento City Abides by the Newly Launched Program

Sacramento City Unified was facing a $24.3 million deficit. However, the unified board had earlier sat and unveiled $555.3 million budget that included eliminating a recently introduced summer program and dipped further into reserve funds. The budget was approved on Thursday night. It included $4 million in cuts to the existing programs. These included slashing a new Expanded Learning Summer Program. The program started on Monday in various Sacramento schools. The summer program was thoughtfully designed to deliver to more than 4,300 Sacramento K-12 students grade –level. The program aimed to offer assistance and other academic related advancement opportunities.

The cutbacks of the program were necessary. Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown had signed a budget that expanded the state’s education spending by $3.9 billion. According to Sac Bee’s report, this is an increase of 5%. This is the seventh year in a row that the Governor has been able to expand school funding. According to the chief communications officer for SCUSD, Alex Barrios, teachers and students did not feel if there was any difference that Jerry Brown was making. The added school funds were intended to be used in the rising health costs and the elevated mandatory state pension contributions. The budget had decreased from $567 million from the previous year to $555 million. Gov. Brown Jerry also warned of a possible recession. The district said in a press release that Sacramento, like other vast urban centers, it had prepared and make cuts for the upcoming budgets. This was in preparation for a potential slowdown.

The remainder is up to $24.3 million from $15.3 million. The amount is likely to project and reach $34.4 million in the coming years 2019-20120. In a press release that was held on Friday, Jorge Aguilar revealed that after a year, it has been crystal clear that the district had frequently faced significant fiscal difficulties. He continued to say that the district will start to address the challenges by developing central office cuts. They should oversee a hiring freeze and also see that other administrative cuts will not be a significant concern in the classroom.

Aguilar had great hopes that partnering with the board would likely expand some of the minimal investments that they had started. All the investments that they had done in the previous months would have assisted and promoted equity, social justice and access to the students. He regretted when he said that it was so unfortunate that the investments he was anticipating would no longer increase.

 

The Overwhelming Copyright Bill has been approved.

A committee that was comprised of officials of the MEPs voted to welcome the significant changes to the European Copyright Bill. Experts said that it could permanently change how we use the internet. The controversial article 13 was voted for has had many critics say that it could terminate remixes, memes, and other privately created content. Article 11 that was approved required online platforms to impose a fee to publishers if they happen to link content to their information. One company opposed the whole process terming it the dawn of the dark days. The European committee responsible for the legal matters voted by 15 votes against 10 accepting Article 13. They also cast 13 votes to 12 votes to accept article 11.

The bill was then planned to be handed to the Wider European parliament on July so that they can also cast their votes on the issue. The past week, 70 most prolific technology leaders that comprised Tim Berners-lee and Vint Cerf signed a document that opposed Article 13. The leaders termed the Article as an imminent threat to the future face of the internet. They went on to say that the Article emphasized more on websites to pay fees and enforce copyright. This just meant that every single platform that permitted users to post images, texts, sounds or codes would need some form of information-recognition system that could review the content that the users uploaded.

Cory Doctorow, who is an activist, termed Article 13 as foolish and a very terrible idea. He wrote this on a news website known as the BoingBoing. The activist could not imagine of any filter that existed that could adequately describe the bill. He went on to say that most of the closest equivalents were owned and managed by American organizations. This meant that most giant tech firms in the US would spy on everything that the Europeans posted. After spying, they would then decide on what content to be censored and what would be passed for viewing.

Opponents of the Article 11 have termed the bill as a ‘link tax.’ They said that it was designed to limit the powers that technology giants like Google and Facebook had. The Article required all online platforms to pay a fee to publish their content if they happen to link any content on their news information. The whole theory behind this is that the Article would support all smaller news publishers and drive readers to their homepages instead of directly getting news from the primary news holders.

Vermont Passes Law To Protect Pregnant Women

A team of agencies in Vermont are working together to come up with additional protections for pregnant women. There was a law passed in January that required workplaces to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women.

Cary Brown is the executive director of the Vermont Commission on Women. He stated that they are working hard to ensure that pregnant women are not mistreated in the workplace. He also stated that pregnant women need to know that they have a right to not be discriminated against in the workplace.

Many pregnant women are forced to stop working because their workplace does not make the necessary accommodations. Making one small change can help pregnant women stay in the workplace. According to an article published by the “New York Times”, pregnancy discrimination is a widespread problem.

Cary stated that he has not done a lot of research on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. However, he stated Vermont is ahead of a lot of other places because of the law that was passed a few months ago. Cary said that he has heard a lot of stories of women who did not have any accommodations made for them while they were pregnant. He has also heard stories from women who were discriminated against because they were pregnant. In fact, some women have been fired just because they were pregnant.

There are several ways that you can employers can make accommodations for employees. For example, they can give a stool to a pregnant woman. They can also allow a pregnant woman to take extra breaks. Employers and employees can work together to come up with accommodations that are reasonable.

Washington D.C. and 22 other states have laws that require workplaces to make accommodations for pregnant women. Pregnancy discrimination is one of the most common forms of workplace discrimination in the United States.

Supreme Court Opens Path for States to Collect Sales Tax From Internet Retailers

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair on Thursday in favor of South Dakota. The ruling allows states to collect sales tax from Internet retailers when they ship products to customers in the state. In a 5-4 decision, Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the three most conservative judges on the court.

The decision overturns a previous precedent established in 1992 in the case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which established that the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution prevents states from collecting sales tax in states where they don’t have a physical brick-and-mortar presence. Justice Kennedy wrote that the previous ruling was “unsound and incorrect” and added that the Internet revolution makes it even more necessary to reverse the previous decision.

Kennedy also added that when Quill was handed down, only two percent of Americans had access to the Internet, compared to now when an astounding 89 percent of individuals have online access. The court also said that when the Quill decision was handed down, they didn’t anticipate that the world’s largest retailer, Amazon, would dominate the market so much. E-commerce sales stood at 453.5 billion last year, while in 1992 they only made up $180 billion.

The primary issue in the case was whether the South Dakota law requiring out-of-state retailers to pay sales tax on purchases if they have at least $100,000 or 200 total sales was constitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented with the majority opinion along with Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayer.

The opinion says that the decision in Quill was wrong, but opposed eliminating the physical presence requirement because the Internet economy relies on current rules and regulations to function. Altering the rules could create upheaval in the industry, which is critical to the current economy.

Roberts also emphasized the complexity of implementing taxes on e-commerce sales since there are over 10,000 jurisdictions that collect sales tax with each having different rules and rates, making implementation cumbersome.

He noted that this was the third time the Supreme Court has heard about the issue of whether businesses without a physical presence in a state can collect sales tax on residents. The notion that “third time’s a charm” is a poor notion to use for decisions the Supreme Court makes.

Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sales-taxes-internet-merchants.html