Questions
Uber has had phenomenal growth, going from four people in 2009 to the two kinds of...

Uber has had phenomenal growth, going from four people in 2009 to the two kinds of workers it deals with today: (1) 12,000 full-time nondriver employees, such as those working in its San Francisco headquarters, and (2) about 2 million active drivers globally, the independent contractors it calls “partners.”

Uber’s Employees

Former CEO Travis Kalanick viewed human resources (HR) as having one function—recruiting. Other HR functions were not a priority for Uber. For example, the company had fewer than 10 HR representatives in 2016 who were responsible for training managers and handling issues such as sexual harassment for the 6,000 employees it had at the time. “When HR becomes solely a talent race, boards and CEOs can miss the less obvious but equally vital value of managing both new hires and leaders who are facing increasing demands,” says John Boudreau in a Harvard Business Review article.

Kalanick’s lack of focus on HR created a toxic atmosphere at the organization. Much of this became evident with Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer. Fowler claimed in a February 2017 blog that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor and that HR ignored her claims. Other employees have since reported that a premium was placed on workers who delivered strong performance and aggressive growth, and that their inappropriate workplace behavior was overlooked, according to the New York Times.

Uber attempted to improve this situation by focusing on the accuracy of its performance evaluations. In the past, performance reviews were subjective with managers simply meeting behind closed doors and rating their employees. This obviously increased the potential for managerial bias. The process also was deficient in that employees did not have individual goals to be evaluated against, making it hard to hold employees and managers accountable for objective results.

Uber implemented two significant changes in 2017 to overcome problems with its appraisal system. First, the company established measurable goals for all employees, and they were transparent for all to see. Second, Uber implemented something similar to a 360-degree performance appraisal system as evaluations needed to take into account more than a manager’s direct observation of subordinates. The system consisted of committees reviewing employees’ self-evaluations, peer evaluations, and manager evaluations to make sure bonuses were given out fairly, according to Uber Chief People Officer Liane Hornsey.

While these changes may have improved the human resource process at Uber, employee issues still persist. For example, HR Chief Hornsey resigned in July 2018 amid continuing employee dissatisfaction. “Disgruntled employees still don’t trust Uber’s systems, and they are turning to the media to air their grievances. This suggests that Khosrowshahi’s attempt to build trust among employees, an assurance that the company can address challenges internally, has not taken hold,” says Wired Magazine.

Uber’s Drivers

Uber isn’t only failing its employees; it’s also failing its drivers. The company seems to offer very little in human resource development for its contractors. Drivers are given the option of watching a 13-minute training video covering such topics as how to provide good service and get five-star ratings from customers. “The only safety thing they tell us,” says one driver, “is to have a hands-free phone holder and to keep your eyes on the road.” Drivers who want additional training will have to pay for it on their own. Uber has contracted with 7x7 Experience to offer quality improvement courses at a rate of $49 per course. They can also take a course on “Tip Maximization” for another $29.

Uber drivers may not be happy about having to pay for quality improvement courses, especially because a recent study found they aren’t making that much. The Economic Policy Institute released a 2018 analysis showing that Uber drivers take home around $9.21 an hour. This means drivers are making less than the minimum wage of some of Uber’s biggest markets, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. The $9.21 figure actually “puts Uber drivers at the bottom 10 percent of wage earners” according to the Chicago Tribune.

Drivers, often undertrained, are also victims of an automated performance appraisal system in which passengers rate drivers on a scale of from 1 to 5 stars. Each driver then receives a weekly average rating for all passengers, and this average is used to make personnel decisions. In Atlanta, for example, a driver receiving less than 4.6 stars may be kicked out of the program. Uber did update its ratings system in July 2017 by introducing a “ratings protection” initiative. This system was designed to protect drivers from complaints that are unrelated to their actual performance. For example, when a rider selects a rating below 5 stars, a screen will pop up asking “what could be improved?” Options include “route by Uber” and “co-rider,” and only one option goes back to the driver.

Uber drivers may not have much power to fight back against the company’s HR policies. The company is resisting unionization because it wants its app-based drivers to be “business partners”—that is, contractors not subject to employee-protection laws. The issue of unionization is being fought in the courts. In 2015, Seattle passed an ordinance allowing Uber (and Lyft) drivers to unionize, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Uber have sought to overturn. In May 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s 2017 decision to uphold the law, continuing the legal saga by sending the case back to the lower court for further review.

Uber has worked to improve and safeguard its driver performance appraisal rating system, yet it still lacks some of the basic components of traditional employee performance management systems. Based on the case, which of the following is not part of Uber’s performance appraisal system for drivers?

A: Rewards

B: Feedback

C: Expectations

D: Monitoring

E: Punishment

In: Finance

First, read the attached article. What’s worse: monopoly power or government intervention? Politicians of all stripes...

First, read the attached article.

What’s worse: monopoly power or government
intervention?
Politicians of all stripes increasingly agree with Karl Marx on one point –
that monopolies are an inevitable consequence of free-market
capitalism, and must be broken up. Are they right? Stuart Watkins isn’t
so sure.
by: Stuart Watkins
1 OCT 2020
MoneyWeek
Free markets left to themselves in a capitalist context are great at producing wealth, but will
inevitably tend to concentrate that wealth in ever fewer hands, leading to increasing inequalities
of income, power and wealth, and undermining the benefits that might be supposed to flow to
consumers, such as cheaper prices. The logic inherent in market exchange must, in other words,
progressively undermine the very qualities that the champions of the market promise they will
deliver.
This, at least, was the view of Karl Marx. Perhaps surprisingly, it is also the mainstream view
today. It is not all that easy to find a mainstream commentator, economist, think-tanker or
policymaker who will raise a squeak of protest against the idea. All the main political parties –
particularly in the US, where the problem is deemed to be particularly acute – agree that
something must be done to curb the rise of the monopolies, namely that the state should step in
and break them up, or at least restrain them.
Indeed, “Market Power, Inequality and Financial Instability” – a new paper by Federal Reserve
Board economists Isabel Cairo and Jae Sim – argues that the concentration of market power in a
handful of companies, and the resulting decline in competition, explains the deepening of
inequality and financial instability in the US, as Craig Torres reports on Bloomberg. They blame
the rising market power of big companies for the decline in the share of wealth that goes to
workers, the rise in inequalities of wealth and income, and the growing debt burden. The authors
call for policies that will redistribute wealth to the poor, perhaps by gradually raising the tax on
dividend income from zero to 30%. They suggest that such policies might help to slow the rise of
inequality and the growth in debt, and make financial crises less likely.
The paper is just the latest voice in a rising chorus. Towards the end of last year, The Great
Reversal, a book by economist Thomas Philippon, presented a detailed empirical analysis of the
question and argued that America can no longer be considered a free-market economy in any real sense. As well as confirming that the trends already sketched are indeed in play, he concludes
that the main explanation is political – namely, that politicians have not enforced competition
policy as they should, thanks in part to lobbying and campaign contributions. The result, to quote
just one example, is that the price of broadband access in the US is roughly double that of
comparable countries, leading to predictably higher profits.
The year before Philippon’s book, a similar one by Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn (The
Myth of Capitalism) made the same point. “I realised that particularly in the US, which is
probably the most advanced in this trend, you’re seeing more and more industrial concentration,”
he said in an interview with MoneyWeek at the time of publication. That gives companies
pricing power over consumers, more power over workers as they don’t have to bid against rivals
for their labour, and power over suppliers. The result is that a small number of huge companies
are capturing very high profit margins. Tepper, too, blames lax enforcement of competition laws
for the problem.
The problem may be about to get worse. The response of governments to the coronavirus
pandemic has led to a huge economic crisis, and their response to what they have caused is to
throw money at it. The combined effect will be to push smaller firms out of business, quenching
the fires of creative destruction, and for the well-connected, better organised larger companies to
obtain all the government cash and bolster their already dominant position. Low interest rates
may also contribute, as bigger companies are in a better position to get hold of cheap credit and
invest it in expansion. If rising concentration and monopolies are a problem, it’s one that seems
set to get worse.
The case for the defense
Are Marx and his mainstream followers correct? The answer, as ever, is – it’s complicated. A
sounder tradition in economics would lead us to be cautious about the claims from first
principles. As Edmond Bradley, a writer for the Mises Institute, put it back when Microsoft was
the monopolistic bogeyman in the early 2000s, “the fear of industrial concentration is the last
refuge of socialist theory” and the idea that governments must step in to save us from it is
“wildly incorrect”. A company operating in a market economy might look like a monopoly
“under myopically static analysis”, but a broader and historical view will reveal that even very
large, dominant companies face intense competitive pressure – whether from the fear of potential
competition from new entrants eyeing their high profits; or from competitors offering products
and services of a different but nevertheless substitutable kind; or from losing customers
altogether, should they decide they’d rather do without what is being offered.
And if that’s what first principles tell us, there are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about what
the real-world data are showing, too. A roundtable discussion of the subject by experts, hosted by
the OECD group of wealthy nations in 2018, concluded that although market power did indeed
appear to be rising in many countries, the causes were unclear. It might reflect a reduction in
competitive intensity, but it might equally be the outcome of intense competition. If the causes
are unclear, then there’s no way to be confident about what the correct policy response should
be.
In any case, the rise in industrial concentration may not be all it appears to be. As a 2019 paper
by Alessandra Bonfiglioli, Rosario Crinò and Gino Gancia for the Centre for Economic Policy
Research notes, all the existing evidence for the increase in industrial concentration and the fear
that this will usher in a new era of monopolies has been based on national data. They find that when competition from foreign imports is included, the overall level of competition may in fact
have intensified rather than fallen – even if the number of firms from the home country entering
the market falls. So increased global competition and greater national concentration may be two
sides of the same coin – “growing global competition may force unproductive firms to exit and
top firms to consolidate on their best products”.
Is monopoly such a bad thing anyway?
Amazon is one of the companies charged with unfairly exploiting its dominant position to crush
competition and hence harm customers. Indeed, its boss, Jeff Bezos, was recently dragged before
the US Congress and had to defend his firm from hostile questioning. But if Amazon is a
monopoly, then the first question that arises is, is that such a bad thing? Amazon started out as an
idea in Bezos’s mind, which he put into action using money he raised himself from family and
investors, working from his basement and carrying parcels to the post office. It was, from the
beginning, a high-risk venture, deemed by most to be almost certain to fail. Yet by consistently
offering consumers what they didn’t know they wanted, and winning their approval and then
loyalty, Amazon rose above its competitors by sheer excellence. It’s not as if its customers have
been forced into anything.
Moreover, even in its current dominant position, Amazon faces plenty of intense competition. As
Bezos pointed out in his testimony to Congress, customer trust is hard to win and easy to lose.
Amazon’s globe-spanning dominance would end very quickly should that trust disappear. There
are plenty of competitors snapping at its heels. Amazon accounts for less than 1% of the $25trn
global retail market, according to Bezos, and less than 4% of retail in the US. There are more
than 80 retailers in the US alone that earn more than $1bn in annual revenue – that includes
Walmart, which is more than twice Amazon’s size and whose online sales grew 74% in the first
quarter. In the wake of the pandemic, plenty of other companies are competing with Amazon in
the race for online orders for goods, including Shopify and Instacart.
The briefest review of relatively recent history should be enough to show that large companies of
the kind that draw fire from those concerned about monopolies are in reality always in danger of
having their profits competed away at any moment – witness Kodak and Myspace, to take just
two commonly cited examples. As those economists who most consistently defend free markets
insist, monopolies are only ever really a threat, not as a result of companies operating in free
markets, but as a result of government interference – particularly, in our day, as a result of
money printing and ultra-low interest rates. What is needed, then, is not more government
interference to solve the problems they have created, but less. In this sense, the rising threat of
monopoly as a result of the coronavirus pandemic is a clue to the real source of the problem.

QUESTIONS: What do you think of the article? Do you think the author's examples of monopolies are actually that? Is there such a thing as "excess profits"? Are the firms mentioned truly monopolies, in that they are the ONLY providers for that good or service? Do we need more regulation, or less? Why?

In: Economics

1a. How many arrangements are there of all the letters in INDIVIDUAL? 1b. How many arrangements...

1a. How many arrangements are there of all the letters in INDIVIDUAL?

1b. How many arrangements of the letters in INDIVIDUAL have all three I’s adjacent?

1c. How many arrangements of the letters in INDIVIDUAL have no I’s adjacent?

In: Statistics and Probability

Question: Your company located in Australia requires the development of a customised digital tablet to use...

Question: Your company located in Australia requires the development of a customised digital tablet to use in hospital management of critically ill patients due to a pandemic. Three electronics manufacturers (one from South America, the second from Africa and a third from Middle East) have submitted bids to be suppliers.

You are given a team of ten people including yourself (you can specify their expertise) to investigate the entire procurement and supply in two months. Describe who and what you would assign your team members to do. (You may assume that they can travel easily if required.)

In: Accounting

A United Kingdom firm is planning to hedge an import payment of USD 10 million dollars...

A United Kingdom firm is planning to hedge an import payment of USD 10 million dollars due in 9 months (i.e. the firm will expect to pay the US $10 million in 9 months-time). The spot rate is 1 UK = 1.25 USD. Note: UK = UK pounds. USD = US Dollars. The 9-month forward rate is 1 UK = 1.2575 USD. The nine-month interest rate for borrowing (and lending) in the United Kingdom (UK) is 1.00% p.a. and in the United States (US) is 2.60% p.a. respectively. All interest rates are continuously compounded rates. Required: What is the best way for the company to hedge its future USD payment or cash outflow? Of the two possible alternative options to hedge the USD payment how much better off in UK pounds are you under the best option at time t = 9 months hence? Assume the firm can borrow or lend UK pounds and / or US dollars at the interest rates quoted above and also transact at the quoted spot and forward rates. If necessary state any other assumptions you make.

a. option one .. option two .. b. How much better off in UK pounds are you under the best option at time t = 9 months hence?

In: Finance

XYZ Medical Ltd a Melbourne based company enters into a non-cancellable purchase commitment of US$50,000 with...

XYZ Medical Ltd a Melbourne based company enters into a non-cancellable purchase commitment of US$50,000 with an American supplier on 1 April 2020 to buy the face masks in a bulk for medical staff. These face masks are to be shipped on the 1st of May 2020. The amount owing on the purchase is payable on 31 July 2020. XYZ Ltd observed that exchange rate is very volatile due to the current trade war between America and China. XYZ decided to enter into a forward rate contract. On 1 April 2020 a forward-exchange contract for US$50,000 as taken out with Westpac Bank Ltd at a cost of $76 923 (which is US$50,000 ÷ 0.65 with AU$1.00 = US$0.65 being the agreed forward rate). XYZ Ltd uses cash flow hedge accounting and its reporting date is 30 June. Date Spot rate Forward rate 1 st April 2020 0.67 0.65 1 st May 2020 0.61 0.59 30th June 2020 0.55 0.57 31st July 2020 0.64 0.64 Required: i. Calculate the gain or loss on the forward contract for each significant date. ii. Prepare the journal entries to account for the transactions including 31/7/2020.

In: Accounting

Consider the assumptions that framed the analysis. Removing a hotel from the secondary competition and add...

Consider the assumptions that framed the analysis. Removing a hotel from the secondary competition and add it to the primary competition. What effect does taking out a Hotel from secondary competition has on the overall analysis? On Demand Base , changes in overall penetrations, changes in the market segment penetrations for the individual hotels, market segment mix for the entire market, and demand.

In: Operations Management

Wells Technical Institute (WTI), a school owned by Tristana Wells, provides training to individuals who pay...

Wells Technical Institute (WTI), a school owned by Tristana Wells, provides training to individuals who pay tuition directly to the school. WTI also offers training to groups in off-site locations. Its unadjusted trial balance as of December 31, 2017, follows. WTI initially records prepaid expenses and unearned revenues in balance sheet accounts. Descriptions of items athrough h that require adjusting entries on December 31, 2017, follow.
  
Additional Information Items

An analysis of WTI's insurance policies shows that $3,335 of coverage has expired.

An inventory count shows that teaching supplies costing $2,891 are available at year-end 2017.

Annual depreciation on the equipment is $13,342.

Annual depreciation on the professional library is $6,671.

On November 1, WTI agreed to do a special six-month course (starting immediately) for a client. The contract calls for a monthly fee of $2,500, and the client paid the first five months' fees in advance. When the cash was received, the Unearned Training Fees account was credited. The fee for the sixth month will be recorded when it is collected in 2018.

On October 15, WTI agreed to teach a four-month class (beginning immediately) for an individual for $4,061 tuition per month payable at the end of the class. The class started on October 15, but no payment has yet been received. (WTI's accruals are applied to the nearest half-month; for example, October recognizes one-half month accrual.)

WTI's two employees are paid weekly. As of the end of the year, two days' salaries have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for each employee.

The balance in the Prepaid Rent account represents rent for December.

WELLS TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
Unadjusted Trial Balance
December 31, 2017
Debit Credit
Cash $ 27,396
Accounts receivable 0
Teaching supplies 10,536
Prepaid insurance 15,806
Prepaid rent 2,108
Professional library 31,610
Accumulated depreciation—Professional library $ 9,484
Equipment 73,751
Accumulated depreciation—Equipment 16,861
Accounts payable 37,022
Salaries payable 0
Unearned training fees 12,500
Common stock 12,000
Retained earnings 55,016
Dividends 42,149
Tuition fees earned 107,477
Training fees earned 40,040
Depreciation expense—Professional library 0
Depreciation expense—Equipment 0
Salaries expense 50,579
Insurance expense 0
Rent expense 23,188
Teaching supplies expense 0
Advertising expense 7,376
Utilities expense 5,901
Totals $ 290,400 $ 290,400

2-a. Post the balance from the unadjusted trial balance and the adjusting entries in to the T-accounts.

2-b. Prepare an adjusted trial balance.

Post the balance from the unadjusted trial balance and the adjusting entries in to the T-accounts.
Cash Equipment
Unadj. Bal. 27,396 Unadj. Bal. 73,751
Adj. Bal. 27,396 Adj. Bal. 73,751
Accounts Receivable Accumulated Depreciation—Equipment
Unadj. Bal. 0 Unadj. Bal. 16,861
f
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 16,861
Teaching Supplies Accounts Payable
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Prepaid Insurance Salaries Payable
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Prepaid Rent Unearned Training Fees
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Professional Library Common stock
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Accumulated Depreciation—Professional Library Retained earnings
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Tuition Fees Earned Dividends
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Training Fees Earned Rent Expense
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Depreciation Expense—Professional Library Teaching Supplies Expense
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Depreciation Expense—Equipment Advertising Expense
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Salaries Expense Utilities Expense
Unadj. Bal. Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0 Adj. Bal. 0
Insurance Expense
Unadj. Bal.
Adj. Bal. 0

Prepare Wells Technical Institute's income statement for the year 2017.
WELLS TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
Income Statement
For Year Ended December 31, 2017

In: Accounting

Diatoms are mostly asexual members of the phytoplankton. They obtain their nutrition from functional chloroplasts, and...

Diatoms are mostly asexual members of the phytoplankton. They obtain their nutrition from functional chloroplasts, and each diatom is encased within two porous, glasslike valves. Which question would be most important for one interested in the day-to-day survival of individual diatoms?

Diatoms are mostly asexual members of the phytoplankton. They obtain their nutrition from functional chloroplasts, and each diatom is encased within two porous, glasslike valves. Which question would be most important for one interested in the day-to-day survival of individual diatoms?

How do diatoms get transported from one location on the water's surface layers to another location on the surface?
How do diatoms with their glasslike valves avoid being shattered by the action of waves?
How do diatom sperm cells locate diatom egg cells?
How do diatoms with their glasslike valves keep from sinking into poorly lit waters?
How does carbon dioxide get into these protists with their glasslike valves?

Submit

In: Biology

In a certain risk group, individuals are tested for a certain disease S. A person who...

In a certain risk group, individuals are tested for a certain disease S. A person who has the disease gets the correct diagnosis with probability 0.99, whereas a person who does not suffer from S gets the correct diagnosis with probability 0.95. Furthermore, it is known that 6% of the individuals in the group get the diagnosis “suffer from S”. Determine a) the proportion of individuals in the group who suffer from S, and b) the probability that a person who gets the diagnosis “suffer from S” carries the disease.

In: Statistics and Probability