Infographic Gets Panned on Twitter

InvestmentZen, which encourages financial independence, created an infographic with advice for living on minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour. Suggestions include selling your car, moving to a less expensive city, and recognizing that "a lot of the best things in life are free."

Reactions are generally not positive. Twitter users are taking offense at some of the advice, pointing out that, for example, not everyone has the flexibility to move across country. Part of the infographic identifies "excuses" for not moving, including "All of my friends and family live here." Sounds like a good reason to stay put to me, particularly for people living in poverty or close to it.

Others on the Twitter thread note the missing expenses of moving, doing laundry, and children should anyone choose to have them. An obvious logical flaw is in suggesting people sell their car, yet suggesting picking up some Uber shifts.

This reminds me (and others) of a 2013 McDonald's website with advice to employees, including getting a second job. To help employees manage expenses, the site showed a sample monthly budget with $25 for health insurance. McDonald's pulled the site and published this statement:

We have offered the McResource program to help our valued McDonald's employees with work and life guidance created by independent third party experts. A combination of factors has led us to re-evaluate, and we've directed the vendor to take down the website. Between links to irrelevant or outdated information, along with outside groups taking elements out of context, this created unwarranted scrutiny and inappropriate commentary. None of this helps our McDonald's team members. We'll continue to provide service to our folks through an internal telephone help line, which is how the majority of employees access the McResource services.

Discussion:

• Analyze the full infographic. What visual and organizational design principles from Chapter 9 in the text are used?
• What other logical flaws can you identify?
• Overall, do you find the advice useful, or does it enrage you as it does some Twitter users? Should InvestmentZen pull the infographic and issue a statement as McDonald's did in 2013?

Applicant Asks About Salary and Employer Cancels Interview

It was a tough lesson for Taylor Byrnes, looking for a menu developer position in Winnepeg. After a phone interview and before an in-person interview, she dared to ask her prospective employer, food delivery service SkipTheDishes, about wages and benefits. The company didn't appreciate the questions and cancelled the interview.

After the predictable outrage on Twitter, co-founder Joshua Simair said in a statement, "The email sent to Taylor was wrong and does not represent our team's approach or values," and "We are very disappointed in how it was handled. We do share a compensation package prior to hiring. As soon as we became aware of it on Monday, we reached out to Taylor to apologize for the email and reschedule her interview."

Discussion:

• Your thoughts? It typically is considered poor form to ask about salary on a first interview, but what about this situation? Did Byrnes behave badly? Did she make the situation worse with her posts on social media and therefore get what she deserved?
• How well did SkipTheDishes respond? Should they have done something else?
• Would you offer Byrnes the job if she's qualified? How easily can she and the HR staff get past this?

Germany Proposes to Fine Companies for Illegal Content

The German government wants to fine Google, Facebook, and other social media sites if they don't remove "hate speech, fake news and other undesirable content" within 24 hours if it's considered "blatantly illegal" and within seven days if it's otherwise considered to be breaking the law.

A Politico article describes the decision:

"Facebook and Twitter missed the chance to improve their takedown practices," said Heiko Maas, federal minister for justice and consumer protection. Maas claimed social media networks don't take complaints seriously. "For companies to take on their responsibility in question of deleting criminal content, we need legal regulations."

According to one study, Facebook removed 33% of illegal posts within 24 hours so far this year-not enough for some critics-and Twitter did worse, removing only 1% within 24 hours. The social media companies argue that policing negative activity is nearly impossible given the volume of posts on their sites.

In Twitter's defense (it needs one), the company has published extensive policies, including those related to "Hateful Conduct." But bullying, threats of violence, and other misconduct have been an issue for Twitter since the beginning and continue to plague the site's credibility.

In related hate-speech news, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, and other big companies are pulling ads on YouTube because they don't want them appearing next to inappropriate content. This is another, perhaps more effective, way to get the social media sites to take action.

Image source.

Discussion:

• What's your view of Germany's proposed law: reasonable, necessary, unrealistic, or something else?
• What effect do you think such a law would have on the social media sites? How about its users?

Tillerson Had an Alias Email at Exxon

New Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had an alias email address when he was CEO of Exxon and used it to discuss climate change issues. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman discovered the account-and 34 others-while investigating Tillerson on potentially misleading statements about climate change.

Company spokesman Alan Jeffers says Tillerson did nothing wrong and set up the account because his primary email was overloaded:

"The email address, Wayne.Tracker@exxonmobil.com, is part of the company's email system and was put in place for secure and expedited communications between select senior company officials and the former chairman for a broad range of business-related topics."

"This was not an alias used to discuss only climate change. It was an account used for everyday business by senior executives who needed to reach."

Wayne is Tillerson's middle name, and Tracker may be relevant to his past involvement with the Boy Scouts of America.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Do you believe Exxon's argument that nothing is wrong here? Why or why not?
• Should Exxon have disclosed the account during the lawsuit? They did reveal the email address but didn't connect it to Tillerson.
• If the company did create the account, and Tillerson used it for "confidential" conversations, why do you think Tillerson and Exxon thought they could get away with this: arrogance, niavety, desperation, or something else?

Monsanto Emails Reveal Company's Potential Influence over Cancer Studies

A key ingredient, glyphosate, in weedkiller Roundup may cause cancer, and emails from Monsanto employees put the company's role in cancer research into question. According to a Dow Jones news report, "Emails among company employees, released this week as part of a continuing lawsuit over the herbicide, reflect what the plaintiffs' attorneys say was the company's inappropriate role in shaping research and a cozy relationship with regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Monsanto argued the emails were taken out of context."

An EPA toxicologist, who had cancer, concluded that "it is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer." She wrote an impassioned letter to EPA Deputy Division Director Jess Rowland in 2013 highlighting the negative effects of the chemical.

Perhaps the most damning evidence is a Monsanto email summarizing a phone conversation with Rowland, which implies that the EPA is trying "kill" evidence of glyphosate causing cancer:

In addition, Monsanto's own lead toxicologist wrote in a 2009 email and confirmed in a recent deposition, "you cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer … we have not done carcinogenicity studies with ‘Roundup.'"

Discussion:

• Once again, let's help companies avoid legal trouble with email. What should Monsanto have done differently?
• Of course, email isn't to blame, but the company and EPA may be. What went wrong here?
   

Cancer Research Scientist Faces Credibility Questions

What The New York Times calls "years of ethics charges" have plagued a cancer researcher, but new problems may be his final undoing. Dr. Carlo Croce, at Ohio State University, has brought in $86 million in federal grants, but the Times reports, "he overstated his expansive claims for the therapeutic promise of his work, and that his laboratory is focused more on churning out papers than on carefully assessing its experimental data."

David A. Sanders, a virologist at Purdue University, has called out more than 20 of Croce's papers claiming falsified data: "It's a reckless disregard for the truth."

In a nifty, interactive visual, The New York Times shows how Croce's work was manipulated in one journal article. If you look closely, you see that a bright line is disjointed, warning that some copying and pasting took place. Indeed, samples 6, 7, and 8 are identical to 3, 4, and 5.

Also questionable is Croce's work as an advisor to the Council for Tobacco Research. Although Croce says he believes smoking causes lung cancer, the Council has used his work to prove otherwise.

One of the biggest questions is the role of Ohio State University: did the administration dismiss charges that should have been more seriously considered? The University responded to the article in a short opinion letter, concluding, "While the review is still underway, the independent experts have found that our policies meet with national research compliance standards. They have also found no evidence that Ohio State deviated from those policies in reviewing allegations of research misconduct."

Discussion:

• Read the NYT article. What do you believe are the most egregious claims against Croce?
• Look online for other examples of image manipulation in scientific journals. Should  peer-review journals be more vigilant in catching these falsifications? Or are they too difficult to judge?
• Analyze the University's opinion letter. Which parts do you find most and least convincing?

Supporting a Claim with Evidence

Business Communication students learn the importance of supporting claims with evidence in order to persuade an audience. President Trump's claim that former President Obama wiretapped his phone is being questioned by many reporters and the FBI.

FBI Director James Comey, in the news most recently for identifying more of Hillary Clinton's emails days before the election, seemingly without evidence, has asked the Justice Department to rebut the President's claims and to deny an investigation. This is an extraordinary request because, as The New York Times reports, this action "would be a major rebuke of a sitting president."

The Times also traces the claim, which started on a conservative radio show:

It began at 6 p.m. Thursday as a conspiratorial rant on conservative talk radio: President Barack Obama had used the "instrumentalities of the federal government" to wiretap the Republican seeking to succeed him. This "is the big scandal," Mark Levin, the host, told his listeners.

That was enough for President Trump to tweet his disgust.

I sometimes compare headlines in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Today, they are both running this story as front page news, and even the more conservative WSJ says President Trump made this claim without evidence. The subtitle reads, "The president has said, without providing evidence, that he was wiretapped by his predecessor."

Discussion:

• What's your view of the president's response? Is it hasty, or did he have enough to go on?
• What should the Justice Department do with the president's request and James Comey's recommendation?
• What's the danger of the president's accusation? What if he's wrong? On the other hand, what's the danger of ignoring the potential violation? What if he's right?

Analyzing Trump's Tone in Speeches

How would you describe Trump's tone in his speeches?  A New York Times article explains how sentiment analysis was used to compare his speeches over time and to other State of the Union addresses: 

"That's according to a sentiment analysis of past speeches, which categorizes words according to several dimensions. Mr. Trump's campaign speeches used a high proportion of words associated with "anger" - like fight, illegal or bad - and a relatively low proportion of words with positive associations - like build, freedom or peace."

 

Sentiment analysis aside, his tone changes are pretty obvious. The best way I can describe his State of the Union address is "measured." He also gestured less and read more from the teleprompter-perhaps acting more presidential than we have seen him in less formal settings.

The Washington Post compiled the address "in 3 minutes." Of course, the compilation and the "winners and losers" identified by the author/editor are based on his own thinking about Trump/s plans and communications. 

Discussion:

• How would you describe President Trump's tone in his State of the Union address? What, if anything, surprised you about the speech?
• The president certainly is adjusting to the audience and purpose of his speeches. Compare audiences for his campaign speeches and his official speeches as president. What are his objectives for each?
• With which of The Washington Post's conclusions do you agree and disagree? The author also refers to the speech as "strong." What do you think he means by this, and do you agree or disagree?

Communication Failures at the Oscars

The RIGHT envelope, please! The Academy Awards suffered embarrassment at this year's event when the wrong winner was announced as Best Picture. Several communication failures caused the problem:

• The first and most critical error was PwC's responsibility: the wrong envelope was given to announcers Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.
• Beatty opened the card and saw "Emma Stone, La La Land." He hesitated and passed the card to Dunaway.
• Dunaway confidently announced the winner: "La La Land!" She didn't question it either.
• The La La Land folks came on stage and gave three acceptance speeches. They were stopped, but it took too long and could have saved further embarrassment.
• La La Land Producer Marc Platt said, "This is not a joke. They read the wrong thing." But this puts the blame entirely on the announcers, when the original error is the wrong envelope. Of course, Platt didn't know what happened, and he was trying to be gracious about the fiasco.
• PwC wrote a short statement, promising an "investigation," which is probably overstated: "We sincerely apologize to 'Moonlight,' 'La La Land,' Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, and Oscar viewers for the error that was made during the award announcement for Best Picture. The presenters had mistakenly been given the wrong category envelope and when discovered, was immediately corrected," the company said. "We are currently investigating how this could have happened, and deeply regret that this occurred."

Discussion:

• What could have been done differently during each step of this mistake?
• Should PwC say something different? The company has had the Oscars account for 83 years. Should the organization fire them? Why or why not?

More Ethical Questions for Uber

Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, has blasted the company for what she describes as sexual harassment, a sexist environment, and HR's failure to respond. Fowler also reports that only 3% of engineers are women at Uber, which she claims has fallen over time.

When she reported sexual harassment, she was given a choice to move to another department or stay and likely receive a poor performance review. This is a basic "don't" in HR, from my experience: you don't move the victim and put him or her at a disadvantage. According to Fowler, no further action was taken in the case, although other women received similar treatment by the same manager.

At this point, Fowler's complaints are getting attention. CEO Travis Kalanick wrote that he would look into the situation:

"I have just read Susan Fowler's blog. What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in. It's the first time this has come to my attention so I have instructed Liane Hornsey our new Chief Human Resources Officer to conduct an urgent investigation into these allegations. We seek to make Uber a just workplace and there can be absolutely no place for this kind of behavior at Uber -- and anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired."

Ariana Huffington, an Uber board member, jumped into the conversation on Twitter:

Image source.

From interviews and messages from Uber employees, a New York Times article reports an "aggressive, unrestrained workplace culture." Kalanick further addressed the controversy in an email to employees that begins: "It's been a tough 24 hours. I know the company is hurting, and understand everyone has been waiting for more information on where things stand and what actions we are going to take."

Discussion:

• Read Fowler's blog post. What persuasive strategies does she use (logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility)? Which parts are most and least convincing? 
• How should the company respond? An investigation is a good start: what should this include, how should it be carried out, and what result would you expect?

Milo Yiannopoulos Loses Speaking Engagement and Book Deal

Milo Yiannopoulos has an active following for the very reason he lost a speaking engagement and book deal: he's out there. A New York Times article refers to him as "a polemical Breitbart editor and unapologetic defender of the alt-right," and he seems to say whatever he wants, which isn't a bad thing-until it is.

Earlier this month, a college tour at UC Berkeley was canceled when protests ended in violence, and today, he lost the chance to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The latest controversy comes from a video in which Yiannopoulos seems to condone pedophilia. Yiannopoulos denies the allegations and "blamed 'British sarcasm' and 'deceptive editing,'" according to the Times.

Simon & Schuster canceled plans for his book, "Dangerous." In a statement, Yiannopoulos said, "The people whose views, concerns and fears I am articulating do not sip white wine and munch canapés in gilded salons. And they will not be defeated by the cocktail set running New York publishing. Nor will I."

According to the Times article, Yiannopoulos's position at Breitbart is under consideration:

Mr. Yiannopoulos, who has railed against Muslims, immigrants, transgender people and women's rights, is a marquee contributor to Breitbart News, where he serves as senior editor. He has amassed a fan base for his stunts and often-outrageous statements. But by Monday afternoon, his future at the website was being intensely debated by top management.

One Breitbart journalist, who requested anonymity to describe private deliberations, described divisions in the newsroom over whether Mr. Yiannopoulos could stay on. There was some consensus among staff members that his remarks were more extreme than his usual speech, the journalist said, and executives were discussing by telephone whether his apology was enough to preserve his position at the site.

[Update: Yiannopoulos resigned from his Breitbart position.]

I saw Yiannopoulos for the first time on "Real Time with Bill Maher." What struck me most was this statement: "Mean words on the internet don't hurt anyone." Really? Who gets to decide?

Image source.

Discussion:

• Did the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference and Simon & Schuster make the right decision? Did UC Berkeley?
• What's your perspective on Yiannopoulos' comment, "Mean words on the internet don't hurt anyone"? Who does get to decide?

Former Starwood Exec Comments on the Acquisition

Former head of global development at Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Simon Turner talks openly at The Americas Lodging Investment Summit (ALIS) conference. In an interview, Turner acknowledges that in any acquisition, like the Marriott's purchase of Starwood, not everyone is going to still have a job.

Turner discusses the uncertainly, particularly with the last-minute bid from Anband Insurance, and the value of overcommunicating to avoid confusion.

Turner also describes the process and his feelings of attachment towards the people in his organization, which helped him avoid feeling "woe is me." He also had perspective considering some people spent their entire career at Starwood compared to his nine years.

In talking about the hotel business, Turner says, although executives compete with each other, there is a sense of camaraderie and respect, which Turner calls "one of the great things about our business."

Discussion:

• What does Turner mean at the beginning when he jokes, "I'm a cost synergy"?
• What lessons can we learn from Turner's views on communication?
• What's your view of Turner's perspective on the hotel business? Do you think this is true of some industries more than others? Why or why not?

Fallacies in Recent Politics

I'm teaching a module on fallacies on Monday and will present a few related to politics-wish me luck: 

• Ad hominen: President Trump's tweets are an obvious example, but I'll use Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" for this example. It's an attack without evidence.

  If it's not too charged (and a bit complicated), I may talk about Senator Elizabeth Warren's reading of Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter about Jeff Sessions, the attorney general nominee. An LA Times opinion piece explains the ad hominen issue well: 

"The original intent of the rule, if you will, was to preserve comity and focus the attention senators on substance rather than ad hominem arguments. But Warren was commenting on Sessions not as a colleague but as the nominee to a position in the executive branch; his character (as perceived by Mrs. King) was central to her argument."

• False analogy: This one will be a question to students. Nordstrom dropped Ivanka Trump's brand, and President Trump criticized the decision on Twitter (although The Wall Street Journal reports a 32% sales decline). This may have been an ethics violation itself, but the false analogy came in the reporting. Kellyanne Conway was charged with an ethics violation for, as a member of the White House staff, promoting Ivanka Trump's products on Fox & Friends:

  "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I was [saying] - I hate shopping and I'm going to go get some myself today."

  "This is just...it's a wonderful line. I own some of it... I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."

A Breitbart article agrees with the charges, but is this "wildly disproportionate"? The article discusses a SiriusXM interview and includes a few comparisons to democrats' promoting for-profit companies: 

"Obama administration directly involved government in vastly larger business dealings, most dramatically by using the Internal Revenue Service to force Americans to buy products from preferred insurance companies under Obamacare."

"President Obama's pushing green energy technology and electric cars, such as the Chevy Volt."

"...Clintons' case...pushing the Clinton Foundation and using their government power to get people to donate to the Clinton Foundation as a form of quasi-bribery."

Are Verizon and T-Mobile Going Too Far on Twitter?

T-Mobile's sex-themed commercial continued on Twitter with the company trading barbs with Verizon, the ad target. Actress Kristen Schaal stars in the ad and seemed to enjoy being "punished" by Verizon for going over her data plan.

Some thought the ad was cute, but the tweets seemed to get out of hand. A Mashable article sums it up well: "It was all pretty creepy coming from the marketing departments of two of America's biggest telecoms. And most Twitter users were not having it."  Tweets encouraged the companies to end it: 

• "K guys. This has OFFICIALLY gone too far."
• "50 Shades of Don't"

T-Mobile CEO John Legere is known for some outlandish behavior. A CNBC article this month calls his behavior "authentic," for example using the "f-bomb," and Legere explains why he is the way he is:

"The trick for me is, I really believe that I act, behave, and speak the same way my customers do. I say what they think on behalf of them. If you look, most of my colorful nature and antics is to drive change that benefits customers."

Discussion:

• Do you find the commercial itself funny?
• What's your view of the ongoing exchange between Verizon and T-Mobile? In this case, was it worth the risk of offending?

NFL Rejects GNC Ad

GNC, the vitamin store company, is trying to improve its image, but the company won't get a spot in this year's Super Bowl. Although Fox News accepted the ad, the NFL pulled the plug.

According to AdAge, "Jeff Hennion, exec VP-chief marketing and e-commerce officer at GNC, said the NFL objected to its commercial because fewer than 3% of its products include two of the 162 substances banned by the league. According to Mr. Hennion, the NFL has approval rights over commercials in the big game." NFL also wanted GNC to change its logo, which has the name on a pill bottle. The company was working on that, but the commercial was still rejected.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Why do you think the NFL rejected GNC's ad? Is it about the banned substances or something else? Related question: What's your view of the ad?
• I can't find a statement from the NFL. Should the company make a comment? What are the advantages and potential downsides?
• GNC makes an interesting argument with the 3% claim. Do you find it convincing? Consider principles from Chapter 9.

Users #DeleteUber

Uber users aren't happy with the company's surge pricing during a New York City taxi protest. NYC yellow cabbies delayed JFK airport pickups for an hour to protest President Trump's ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries.

Trouble started for Uber when its pricing tool showed higher prices because of the shortage. Uber says it was automatic-not intended to take advantage of the taxi drivers' decision. The company also suspended the surge but not before #DeleteUber started trending. 

Meanwhile, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick posted a call for support for drivers affected by the ban on his Facebook page.

A Yahoo story, "The Day Lyft Was Bigger than Uber," explains that some users have been favoring Lyft since Kalanick joined Trump's advisory board, while others became fans when Lyft donated $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been at the forefront fighting the president's new policies. The uptick for Lyft was significant: "... data from third-party app tracking firm App Annie indicates Lyft surpassed Uber in the US on Sunday for most app downloads on iOS in the US in a single day - more than twice the number of times people downloaded Lyft just two weeks prior. Downloads for the Android version of Lyft's app in the Google Play store also saw a significant boost that day."

Discussion:

• Some say boycotting Uber isn't the best way to protest, particularly because the CEO is against the president's actions. What do you think?
• Assess Kalanick's statement on his Facebook page. What are his key messages?
• How do you feel about Uber? Do you buy the argument that the surge pricing wasn't capitalizing on the taxi protest?

CEOs Respond to Trump's Executive Order

The New York Times reports "Frantic Phoning Among CEOs" about how they should address President Trump's ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries. Leaders want to oppose the ban but are concerned about "poking the bear," according to the article. The new president has taken tweet jabs at others, for example, the union leader involved in Carrier negotiations when he spoke out.

In a statement on the Starbucks website, Schultz opposed initiatives around DACA, building a wall, the Affordable Care Act, and immigration. He pledged to employ 10,000 refugees.

Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook also have come forward. Cook focused on Apple, of course: "In my conversations with officials here in Washington this week, I've made it clear that Apple believes deeply in the importance of immigration - both to our company and to our nation's future. Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do." Other tech company leaders have weighed in their opposition: Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft.

The Times called financial firms' response more "moderate." For example, Lloyd Blanfein of Goldman Sachs said, "For us to be successful, our men and women must reflect the diversity of the communities and cultures in which we operate. That means we must attract, retain and motivate people from many backgrounds and perspectives. Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be."

The article also noted energy and heavy industries' "mixed-bag" response, consumer and retail companies' resistance, and media and telecom's "no comment."

Discussion:

• What risks and rewards do CEOs face in addressing the travel ban?
• Why are industries responding differently? What does each have to lose or gain?
• Assess Howard Schultz's statement. While others are questioning how and whether to respond, he is on it. Why?

Dippin' Dots Responds to Spicer

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has periodically blasted Dippin' Dots via tweets over the years. Now the company has responded in an open letter.

In an NPR interview, the CEO of the ad agency said they were concerned about getting in the political mix, but people were expecting the company to respond, so they had little choice. The company executives decided how to respond: "Scott Fischer, the CEO of Dippin' Dots, and his executive team wanted to openly address the issue in a way which was transparent and stayed true to their brand values – fun, community, and camaraderie."

Dippin' Dots offered to serve the White House and press, but Spicer suggested treating the military and first responders. It's not clear how this might happen. 

Discussion:

• How well did Dippin' Dots handle the situation? What were the risks?
• It sounds as though Dippin' Dots responded because of the social outcry. Should the company have  jumped into the conversation with Spicer earlier? How could they have done this?

Uber Pays $20M for Misleading Drivers

Uber has been in the news several times for questionable business practices. Now, the company will pay $20 million to drivers because of a suit by the US Federal Trade Commission.

Ads on Craigslist and promotions on the Uber website boasted, "the potential income a driver on UberX can make in a year is more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco." Boston drivers, Uber said, could make $25 per hour. But that is rarely the case: less than 10% of drivers in Boston earned that much, and drivers in NY and SF made, on average, $61,000 and $53,000.

Critics say Uber shifts risk and other expenses, such as car purchases, gas, and repairs to drivers, who don't reap the advertised benefits. 

The company disputes how the FTC calculated income and responded to the settlement:

"We're pleased to have reached an agreement with the FTC

"We've made many improvements to the driver experience over the last year and will continue to focus on ensuring that Uber is the best option for anyone looking to earn money on their own schedule."

Image source.

Discussion: 

• What is your experience with Uber as a company? How does this news factor into your view of Uber?
• What could be the discrepancy between how Uber calculates income and how the FTC sees the situation? How credible do you find Uber's argument?

VW's Winterkorn Responds to Questions

Martin Winterkorn, Volkswagen's former CEO, responded to what the The New York Times calls "polite grilling" by the German government about the emissions scandal.

Winterkorn has a tough time defending himself when the company already admitted using software to cheat emissions tests. Several executives were indicted, including many who reported directly to him. As the Times reports, "Volkswagen's plea agreement with the Justice Department in Washington last week left no doubt that the fraud was the work of dozens, if not hundreds, of employees, rather than the result of a handful of rogue engineers as the company had first claimed."

But Winterkorn said he didn't know about the "defeat device" and "never did I have the impression that anyone was afraid to speak an open word with me." The Times article further questions the likelihood that Winterkorn knew nothing:

There is some reason to doubt Mr. Winterkorn's assertion. Mr. Gottweis, a Volkswagen executive who specialized in solving technical emergencies around the world, warned in a memo in May 2014 that American regulators were likely to investigate "whether Volkswagen implemented a test detection system in the engine control unit software (so-called defeat device)."

The memo was included in a stack of weekend reading given to Mr. Winterkorn at the time, but Volkswagen has said it was not clear if Mr. Winterkorn had read it. Mr. Gottweis reported directly to Mr. Winterkorn, however, and it is deemed unlikely that a warning from an executive known internally as "the fireman" would have been ignored.

Image source. 

Discussion:

• Do you believe Winterkorn's stance? Why or why not?
• How does Winterkorn benefit from continuing to deny knowledge of the defeat device? If he is lying, what are the potential consequences to him personally and professionally of admitting the truth?
• Some see this testimony as a missed opportunity for Volkswagen. Can you explain this point of view?