Category Archives: Uncategorized

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Study Lists Most and Least Resilient Countries

Posted on by

Businesses are more dependent on their supply chains than ever, with supply chain disruption one of the leading causes of business instability. To thrive, companies need to be resilient, and part of that is their location and the location of suppliers. According to FM Global’s 2015 FM Global Resilience Index, Norway tops the list of resilient countries, with Switzerland in second place.

The study’s purpose is to help companies evaluate and manage their supply chain risk by ranking 130 countries and regions in terms of their business resilience to supply chain disruption. Data is based on: economic strength, risk quality (mostly related to natural hazard exposure and risk management) and supply chain factors (including corruption, infrastructure and local supplier quality).

According to the study:

1. Norway retains its top position in the index from last year, with strong results for economic productivity, control of corruption, political risk and resilience to an oil shock. The country’s management of fire risk offers opportunity to improve still further.

2. Despite its massive oil reserves, Venezuela ranks 130, placing it at the bottom of the index, and reflecting the many challenges South America faces, ranging from economic and political to geological, with its west coast on the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’.

3. Taiwan has jumped the most in the index – 52 places in the annual ranking to 37; more than any other country. Its rise is due mainly to a substantial improvement in the country’s commitment to risk management, as it relates both to natural hazard risk and fire risk. Given the country’s location at the western edge of the Philippine Sea plate, this is a welcome development.

4. Ukraine, ranked 107, and Kazakhstan, ranked 102, dropped more places this year than any other country; a fall of 31 places each. Unsurprisingly, for Ukraine, the worsening political risk, combined with poorer infrastructure, was to blame. The fall for Kazakhstan this year reflects a poorer commitment to natural hazard risk management in the region.

5. In the European Union (EU), Greece fell from position 54 to 65. The recent victory of the anti-austerity Syriza party almost certainly will usher in a period of greater friction and turbulence with its EU partners.

6. France, ranked 19, trails Germany at 6, the leading EU nation. France has slid down the index in recent years reflecting a rising risk of terrorism – evidenced tragically in Paris – and deteriorating perceptions of both infrastructure and local suppliers. Also exposed to terrorism risk is the United Kingdom, which nevertheless held steady at 20 for the third year running, aided by its relative resistance to oil shocks.

New to the top 10 this year are Qatar, ranked 7, and Finland, ranked 9. Qatar benefits from its macroeconomic stability, efficient goods and labor markets and high degree of security. The country owes its rise of 8 places to a considerable improvement in commitment to fire risk management in the region. Finland’s strengths derive from its innovative capabilities, a product of high public and private investment in research and development, strong links between academia and private sector companies, and an excellent record in education and training, according to the study.

In 10th place is U.S. Region 3, the central region of the United States. While this part of the country is subject to a variety of natural hazards, there is less exposure than states on the east or west coasts of the country. Belgium, ranked 11, and Australia, ranked 14, dropped out of the top 10–barely–and both countries retain high positions in the 2015 index.

 

 

Prepare Now for Spring Thaw Flooding

Posted on by

After a harsh, cold winter, the clear, sunny skies and rising temperatures of spring are much appreciated. Businesses, however, also need to be ready for the possibility of flooding that may result from heavy rains combined with melting ice and snow.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that flooding causes more damage in the United States than any other weather-related event. On average, flooding causes $8 billion in damages and 89 fatalities annually. Warming weather also often brings ice jams along rivers, streams and creeks, which can cause further flooding.

“In addition to the threat of floods that occur when severe weather hits, snow and ice have been piling up in many areas of the U.S. this winter,” Bill Boyd, senior vice president with CNA Risk Control, said in a statement. “When temperatures rapidly increase, so does the rate at which snow and ice melt…” which can create serious problems for those heavily affected this winter. “As spring temperatures begin to rise, it’s imperative for businesses to create emergency plans for flooding, which could cause costly property damage or disrupt operations,” he said.

According to NOAA:

Snowmelt and the breakup of river ice often occur at about the same time. Ice jams often form as a result of the sudden push exerted on the ice by a surge of runoff into the river associated with snowmelt. Ice jams can act as dams on the river that result in flooding behind the dam until the ice melts or the jam weakens to the point that the ice releases and moves downstream. A serious ice jam will threaten areas upstream and downstream of its location. Six inch thick ice can destroy large trees and knock houses off their foundations. Once an ice jam gives way, a location may experience a flash flood as all the water and debris that was trapped, rushes downstream.

CNA offers these tips for businesses to minimize loss during the thawing season:

• Create a flood preparation plan.

• Keep water out with barriers, sandbags and other devices.

• Relocate materials from lower levels. In some cases, this may simply mean placing stored items on      one or two pallets, or moving items from lower shelves or racks to upper levels.

• Review shutdown procedures for affected processes, especially hazardous processes.

• Check to make sure drainage, including roof drains, are open and flowing freely.

Thaw Edition tools, checklists and bulletins, can be found at www.cna.com/actnow.

Top 10 Benefits of Return to Work Programs

Posted on by

According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, 4.1 million U.S. employees experience work-related injuries or illnesses each year and 1.12 million of those employees lose work days as a result. With the average employee missing eight days per injury, even a minor injury can create a domino effect in your company.

When employees experience illness or injury, it often impacts their ability to perform their jobs, especially in occupations that are more labor intensive. As soon as your worker is able, it is in everyone’s best interest to return him or her to work in some capacity. Oftentimes, this is done through formalized return to work programs. Return to work programs are extremely effective because they provide benefits to not only the employee, but also your company.

Example Job Duties

Return to work programs involve “light duty” or alternative jobs for recovering employees. For example, you can assign less strenuous or stressful parts of the employee’s normal job or have them work at a slower rate. You can also combine the less strenuous or stressful parts of several different jobs to create one full-time job for the recovering employee; this could free up other workers to take on special projects or catch up with work that is falling behind.

A supervisor can also assign a special project without a tight deadline to a recovering employee. As another alternative, some companies work with local not-for-profit organizations to keep the employee engaged with light work duties while making a notable contribution to the community.

Establishing these types of assignments will create a more fruitful and engaging return to work program. Still not convinced? Here is a list of the top 10 benefits of return to work programs for both your employee and business.

Top Benefits for Your Employees

Implementing a return to work program for injured employees communicates care and concern. It also shows employees that you value their well-being and want them back on the job as soon as possible.

Employees benefit in the following ways:

1.            Retaining full earning capacity

2.            Maintaining a productive mindset

3.            Staying on a regular work schedule

4.            Avoiding dependence on a disability system

5.            Having a sense of security and stability

Top Benefits for Your Company

A return to work program can also benefit your company financially by:

1.            Anticipating and controlling hidden costs

2.            Reducing financial impact of workplace injuries

3.            Providing a proactive approach to cost containment

4.            Improving your ability to manage an injury claim and any restrictions

5.            Getting your experienced employees back to work, resulting in less time and money spent on recruiting and hiring

It should be no surprise that a simple workers compensation case may result in expensive litigation. A well-executed return to work program will also provide clear expectations and guidelines for employees injured on the job and have been shown to reduce litigation.

online pharmacy zoloft with best prices today in the USA

Additionally, many workers compensation insurers now require their clients to establish return to work programs.

If nothing else, having a well-documented return to work program will show a prospective insurance company that your organization takes risk management seriously. It’ll demonstrate a commitment that may mean the difference in getting into a better insurance deal and/or more favorable rates.

Getting Started

Establishing a return to work policy and or program is not difficult. Some companies already include many of the policies unofficially in the way they handle claims. It is important, however, to execute these programs correctly. Clear guidelines and specific, consistent policies must be established in writing. Your insurance broker or carrier’s loss control or claims personnel can help you get started.

According to data collected by the Job Accommodation Network, 74% of employers that implemented some form of return to work accommodations rated them as either very or extremely effective—with most accommodations costing the employers nothing. Of those that do have associated costs, the one-time expenditure on average is 0.

online pharmacy pepcid with best prices today in the USA

Seeing the minimal costs involved and the resulting high value begs the question: why not implement a return to work program?

Second Circuit Overturns Rule 23 Class Certification as Individual Inquiries ‘Overwhelm’ Class Issues

Posted on by

On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a District Court’s decision to certify a class action against Nextel Communications, Inc. (“Nextel”) in Johnson, et al v. Nextel Communications, Inc., et. al., which we previously blogged about here. In Johnson, the District Court certified a class action – pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) – relative to the claims of 587 employees of Nextel who allege that Nextel, and the former plaintiffs’ law firm representing the employees, engaged in various illegal acts against them by entering into a Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement (“DSRA”) to resolve their employment discrimination claims. The ruling provides yet another interesting spin on Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 131 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).

Background To The Case

Around 2000, a law firm representing 587 employees (current and former) entered into a DRSA with Nextel to resolve various discrimination claims. As a result of the DSRA, the law firm received $5.5 million in attorneys’ fees as well as an additional $2 million to act as consultants to Nextel on its employment practices. In total, the 587 employees received less than half of the amount that their law firm received as part of the DRSA. As a result, the employees filed two state court actions in Colorado, which resulted in a $1.2 million class-wide settlement against the law firm, with 39 employees opting out of the settlement.

Plaintiffs in Johnson – the 587 individuals whose claims against Nextel were resolved pursuant to the DRSA – sought to certify a proposed liability class against Nextel only as well as a sub-class made up of the 39 employees who-opted out of the Colorado settlements against their former law firm. The District Court granted this motion.

The Second Circuit’s Decision

The Second Circuit reversed the District Court and held that class certification was inappropriate because under Rule 23(b)(3), class-wide issues would not predominate, and individualized issues would “overwhelm” the case. The Second Circuit reasoned that Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement is more demanding than the Rule 23(a) commonality requirement, and that individual issues must be considered in deciding whether class issues outweigh issues involving individualized proof. The Second Circuit so ruled based on its reading on Comcast Corp.

Against this backdrop, the Second Circuit held that the District Court incorrectly held that New York law should apply in deciding whether the DRSA was enforceable. Rather, the Second Circuit held that the majority of the alleged wrongdoing took place outside of New York, where the individual employees resided, and “where he or she were promised representation.” As such, the Second Circuit held that “the state with the most significant relationship to plaintiffs’ claims is each individual state in which a class member resides and where he or she was promised representation.”

Once the Second Circuit established that the substantive law of each class member’s state applied, “the case for finding predominance of common issues and the superiority of trying this case as a class action diminishes to the vanishing point.” These individualized inquiries associated with looking at the substantive law of each class member’s state “…are not collateral issues that could be determined in individual hearings after common questions are resolved for the class – they go to the heart of defendants’ liability for each class members’ alleged injury” and therefore warranted the denial of class certification. The Second Circuited noted that “the specter of having to apply different substantive laws does not necessarily warrant refusing to certify a class…whereas here, the variations in state law present ‘insuperable obstacles’ to determining liability based on common proof, such variations defeat the predominance of common issues and the superiority of trying the case as a class action.”

Implications for Employers

Workplace class actions are being reshaped before our very eyes as courts across the country apply new Supreme Court precedent. The application of Comcast to class certification in a variety of contexts is still developing in the law. The decision in Johnson adds to the ever growing post-Comcast appellate court decisions on Rule 23 certification and is a must-read for employers caught in the crosshairs of high stakes, “bet the company” class action litigation, whether employment-related or otherwise.

This column previously appeared on the Seyfarth Shaw website, here.