Want A Beer At Applebee's Buy The Small Size. Here's Why

Somebody posted a video that shows how restaurants use different shaped glasses to make us think we're getting a lot more to drink in large sizes than small.

At Applebee's the people in the video ordered a small beer and a large beer. They drank the small beer. Then they poured the contents of the large beer into the smaller glass. When the small glass was full, there was barely anything at all in the large glass.

I'm guessing a lot of other restaurants do this, too. Watch and see for yourself:

Some Employers Still Nickel And Diming Employees In Wage Theft Moves

A Hormel plant in Wisconsin. A judge
there ruled, reasonably, if you
must put on protective gear to do your
job at Hormel, they must pay you
for the time it takes to put that stuff on.  

Hormel is the latest company caught trying to rip off its owner workers in a nickel and dime fashion.

In this case, many workers at Hormel's large plant in Wisconsin have to put on sanitary clothing, hairnets, and ear and eye protection before they can hit the factory floor.

Hormel contended it didn't have to pay workers for the time it took to do this, because it really wasn't part of their job. As if the workers were putting on this federally required gear just to get their jollies, I don't know.

True, it probably takes only five or six minutes or so to take the stuff on and off, but that amounts to about 24 hours a year for each worker, according to the Associated Press. When you're not making much money, every little bit helps.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, said no, Hormel has to pay its workers to get in gear to do their jobs.

According to the AP:

"Cleanliness and food safety are 'intrinsic elements' of preparing and canning food at the Hormel canning facility,' Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote for the majority. 'The clothing and equipment is intergral and indeispensable to the performance of the employees' job function....of preparing canned food.'"

More than 300 workers were awarded a total of $195,000 in back wages.

Hormel said in a statement, "While we are disappointed the decision was not in our favor, we value our employees and respect the court's decision."

No, if you respected your employees you would pay them for all the work they do for you, not just the majority of it.

As Gawker pointed out, it's a bit shocking that swaths of corporate America think it is controversial to pay its workers for all the hours they put on the job.

As Gawker editorialized:

"We are talking about multibillion dollar corporations adding to their profit margins by taking money directly out of workers' paychecks. In some cases, legally! 

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court (with Scalia, may he rest in peace) rules that Amazon did not have to pay its workers for the time they spent standing in line waiting to be checked by corporate security guards to make sure they didn't steal anything from Amazon. 

That half-hour of time, which was not optional, the company got for free."

The line between work and leisure is more blurred than ever. People do regularly check their work email from home often. I did so today, even though the company I work for discourages it. They're one company that does not want its employees to work unless they're on the clock and getting paid.

But most people, like me, don't mind taking a few minutes every now and again to check in with work. We do want to do a good job, after all.

However, the tricks by Hormel and Amazon were so blatant you wonder if these companies think that workers should work for free.  

The editor at the Huffington Post UK says paying writers
 for their work would make their words "inauthentic."

That's true in the gig economy, too. Huffington Post recently took a lot of deserved grief.

They generally don't pay their writers, and especially not their bloggers, under the theory that the "exposure" of people seeing their words in the Huffington Post would lead to some sort of benefit.

Last mont, Stephen Hull, editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post UK, was asked in an interview why he doesn't pay his writers.

Hull responded: "If I was paying someone to write something because I want to get advertising, that's not a real authentic way of presenting copy. When somebody writes something for us, we know it's real, we know they want to write it. It's not been forced or paid for. I think that's something to be proud of."

Oh, so no writer should try to make a living at it? Or by Hull's logic nobody should work for money, because doing so is "inauthentic."

I trust that Hull collects no salary and does his duties as Huffington Post UK's editor-in-chief because that would make the end product inauthentic. How could I possibly trust anything I read in the Huffington Post if somebody is paid to edit the copy?

Or, as New Statesman editorialized, Hull's life must be very difficult if he's forced to live by his rules of authenticity:

"Presumably, he can't go out to eat at restaurants, because the food the (paid) chefs cook him is inauthentic. And when he's ill, he must have to research his symptons online instead of visiting a GP, because their salaries mean the diagnoses they give aren't real. He must have to walk to work because of all those pesky salaried workers driving tube trains and buses, ruining the authenticity of daily commutes."

There have always been people who want something for nothing.  Do some cheap employers think that most everyone wants to toil 40, 50, 60 or more hours a week for no benefit, just the joy of making some rich guy or gal richer?

Almost everybody wants to do a great job at work. But a well completed task has value. If you want something of value, you have to buy it, pay for it.

So pay your damn workers!!!

As Expected, Creepy "Pharma Bro" Keeps Drug Price Way Up To Get Super Rich

Martin Shkreli, stil looking smug for making oodles
of money through drug price gouging, says his many critics. 

I know, I know, I've written on and off about Martin Shkreli, the odious money grubbing "Pharma Bro." You might be sick of him, and I kind of am, too. But he just keeps at it.

I just can't resist staring down a villain, is all.

As you might recall, Shkreli and his company Turing Pharmaceuticals, abruptly raised the price of a life saving drug more than fifty fold, raising it to $750 per pill.

The drug helps peope with HIV, organ transplant patients and others with weakened immune systems.  He didn't really care that he was making the life saving drug financially out of reach for many. So what if some people died? Shkreli needs to get richer.

After a major public outcry, Shkreli said he would reduce the price of the drug. But now, not surprisingly we learn that once the media spotlight was off him, he basically said, forget it. I need to get even more super rich off this drug.

At first glance, it looks Shkreli did do something about the price, but not really.

According to the Associated Press, his company will reduce what it charges to hospital for the drug, and most patients' copayments will be capped at around $10 a month.

Sounds terrific, right? No. As the Associated Press put it, "But insurers will be stuck with the bulk of the $750 tab. That drives up future treatment and insurance costs for everyone.

Another drug company, Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, came out with a similar version of the drug that costs just 99 cents a pill, so at least the people that need the medication can get someting at least similar to the original medication.

Still, Impremis has to work to get insurance companies to sign on to using the cheaper pill, but they're making progress. Impremis is also trying to get Congress to change rules to let Medicare, the Defense Department and other federal agencies to cover the less expensive compounded medicines fro outfits like Impremis, says the Associated Press.

Of course, I have no idea why it should be so hard for Congress to change those rules, but then again, we are talking about the U.S. Congress.

 If your insurance doesn't cover the cheaper drug, you're outta luck. You go bankrupt, maybe, on Turing's uber expensive drug Daraprim.

Meanwhile, Turing, under Shkreli's "leadership" is basically trying to say that the sky high price of their drug is a good thing because lower prices don't benefit patients, reports Tech Dirt.

 Yeah, I don't get that either, but here's what Turing's press release says: "Drug pricing is one of the ost complex parts of the health are industry. A drug's list price is not the primary factor in determining patient affordability and access. A reduction in Daraprim's list price would not translate into a benefit for patients."

Um, right. The press release doesn't exactly explain how lower prices would not benefit patients.

The scary thing about all this is that there's very likely other drug manufacturers who are price gouging drugs because they can.    

Yes, I get it that a somewhat higher price needs to be built into medication to fund innovation in future drugs, but it seems as if a lot of this income is going to make billionaires trillionaires or something, rather than advance the cause of science.

The lobbyists have ensured such a thing is legal, and who cares if it's unethical?

The billiionaires have gotta be billionaires, you know.

Are "Click Farms" The Latest (Dishonest, Abusive) Way To Get Ahead On The Internet?

Web sites, on line companies and such live and die by the number of "clicks" they get.

Workers in Dhaka toil at a "click farm" the latest
way to cheat via the Internet 

In other words, the more people who visit the sites, the more ad revenue is generated and the richer the proprietors of the web sites and businesses get.

So of course, people cheat to get more clicks.

There are computer programs that generate lots of fake clicks, but the folks at search engines like Google have ways of sniffing out these scammy operations, and punish the guilty accordingly by making sure they are not among the first thing people see when searching for the company.

So, it's come to this: Click farms. It's the latest of man scams that always seem to sweep the Internet.

It's something I'd never heard of until recently, but here's how it works:

People in foreign countries get barely paid to sit in drab rooms and click on sites, day in and day out. Imagine how boring that is: Click on a site, back out, click on another, just to increase the number of times a site has been visited

According to the Associated Press, the offshore click farms are where "workers tap, tap, tap the thumbs up botton, view videos or retweet comments to inflate social media numbers. 

Since Facebook launched almost 10 years ago, users have sought to expand their social networks for financial gain, winning friends, bragging rights and professional clout. And social media companies ite the levels of engagement to tout their value. 

But an Associated Press examination has found a growing global marketplace for fake clicks, which tech companies struggle to police. Online records, industry studies and interviews show companies are capitalizing on the opportunity to make millions of dollars by duping social media.

"The CEO of Dhaka-based social media promotions firm Unique IT World said he ahs paid workers to manually click on clients' social media pages, making it harder for Facebook, Google and others to catch them. 'These accounts are not fake, they were genuine,' Shaiful Islam said."

According to The Guardian, toiling at overseas click farms is drudgery, and not a way to get rich:

"For the workers, though, it is miserable work, sitting at screens in dingy rooms facing a blank wall, with windows covered by bars, and sometimes working through the night. For that, they could have to generate 1,000 likes or follow 1,000 people on Twitter to earn a single U.S. dollar." 

It's cheating, but it's hard to catch.  Still, people are working on it.

And just like everything else on the Internet, a good public shaming can result if somebody is using a click farm to pretend they are more popular than they are.

According to the Associated Press:

"David Burch, at TubeMogul, a video marketin firm based in Emeryville, Calif., said buying clicks to promote clients is a grave error. "It's bad business," he said. "and if an advertiser ever found out you did that, they'd never do business with you again."