38 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2019
    1. Un 7-Eleven de la ciudad de Brisbane deberá pagar casi 200.000 dólares de multa por aprovecharse de sus trabajadores extranjeros y crear registros falsos para encubrir estas acciones ilegales. Este caso se suma a la serie de escándalos de explotación que afectan a esta franquicia, seis de ellas en la capital de Queensland. Updated Updated 05/06/2018 By R.O. Share Share on Facebook Share on Twitter  Un Tribunal del Circuito Federal multó a Avinash Pratap Singh, gerente y dueño parcial de una gasolinera 7-Eleven en East Brisbane, con 32.130 dólares y a la empresa que dirige S & A Enterprises con otros160.650 dólares tras una investigación realizada en 2015 por la Defensoría de Empleo Justo (Fair Work Ombudsman).Los inspectores de la Defensoría hallaron que los empleados, todos ellos jóvenes estudiantes provenientes de la India, recibieron 5,593 dólares menos en total por los períodos en que trabajaron en la gasolinera en 2014.Singh y su empresa admitieron que pagaron a sus empleados 14,14 por hora, que está por debajo del salario mínimo legal, y que además no les dieron a estos jóvenes el dinero que les correspondía por horas extras trabajadas ni por las jornadas durante los fines de semana y los días festivos.A otro empleado de la gasolinera se le pagó un 25 por ciento menos de lo que le correspondía (4,439 dólares) por los cinco meses que trabajó, mientras que a otro joven se le dio 1,154 dólares menos durante las siete semanas que estuvo empleado en ese lugar (41 por ciento menos(.Singh y S & A Enterprises también proporcionaron datos falsos a la oficina central de 7-Eleven sobre los salarios, según un comunicado de la Defensoría de Empleo Justo.El juez Angelo Vasta indicó que la entrada de datos falsos sobre las horas y los salarios dados a los empleados de esa gasolinera en el sistema de pagos “crearon registros en los que parece que los empleados recibieron las tasas de salarios fijados por los laudos actuales, incluyendo las tasas de recargo y las pagas por horas extraordinarias de trabajo, las cuales no tienen relación con las horas de trabajo o las tasas reales por hora (que se les pagó)”.El juez además obligó a los responsables a pagar a la Defensoría 2,247 por los costes legales.
    1. Mr Chang admitted his company had paid flat hourly rates as low as $13 an hour. 7-Eleven investigation 7-Eleven playing 'statistical tricks' in worker compensation scheme'He made me scared': 7-Eleven worker speaks of intimidationExploitation integral to 7-Eleven business model: insider7-Eleven staff work twice as long at half pay rate7-Eleven business model rips off workers, former ACCC boss saysConvenience store empire 'built on something not much different from slavery' This resulted in significant underpayment of the minimum hourly rate, casual loadings and penalty rates for shift and weekend work that employees were owed under the General Retail Award 2010.Judge Michael Jarrett found Mr Chang knew the relevant Award that applied but had "established a business model that relied upon a deliberate disregard of the employees' workplace entitlements and a course of conduct designed to conceal that deliberate disregard".Judge Jarrett found no evidence the company's contraventions were motivated by poor cash flow.He said "rather, it seems, the company's profit has been enhanced by the underpayments concerned".The FWO confirmed all underpayments had been rectified."Businesses should be in no doubt that lawful obligations to pay minimum wage rates, keep appropriate employment records and issue pay slips apply to all employers in Australia and they are not negotiable," Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James said."The deliberate nature of the underpayments and the lengths that Mr Chang went to in order to hide his conduct from us and from the 7-Eleven head office is of grave concern."Mr Chang was fully aware of his lawful obligations and chose to manipulate the system in order to undercut the entitlements of vulnerable workers. "We are pleased that the court has seen fit to penalise such blatant conduct and hope that this serves as a warning that such behaviour will be penalised."Mr Chang and his company sold the 7-Eleven franchise in late-2016 and the franchise is now operated by an entity unrelated to these contraventions.The FWO said it had taken legal action against nine 7-Eleven operators since 2009, and that cases against three operators were still before the courts.7-Eleven's Australian head office has since commented on the court decision."7-Eleven welcomes the Fair Work Ombudsman's actions pursuing these wage underpayment claims dating back to 2013-14," a company spokesperson said."The Franchisee concerned is no longer part of our store network."We have introduced comprehensive reforms to ensure our Franchised store network operates at the highest standards we expect, and will take action where those standards are not being met."
    1. The penalties are the result of a legal action by the Fair Work Ombudsman after its investigation found that 21 employees across the two stores had been underpaid a total of $31,507.27 over a 12-month period. Viplus Pty Ltd, which operated a store in Adelaide Street until July 2017, was penalised $88,140, while Vipper Pty Ltd, which operated a store in George Street until May 2017, was penalised $68,262. Penalties totalling $36,559 were also handed down against Jason Yuan, a director of both companies. The stores were two of 20 7-Eleven outlets targeted for surprise night-time visits by the Fair Work Ombudsman as part of a tri-State operation in September 2014. The Fair Work Ombudsman has taken legal action against 11 7-Eleven operators since 2009. In this matter, inspectors found that the workers at both stores were paid flat rates for all hours worked, save for public holidays where they received an additional $20 per hour in cash.  Given the 24 hour, seven-day nature of the businesses, this resulted in significant underpayments of Saturday and public holiday penalty rates, overtime rates and shift work rates stipulated by the General Retail Industry Award 2010. Two workers at the Adelaide Street store were also found to have been paid at the incorrect classification. Individual underpayments ranged from $98.36 to $5080.16. They have all now been rectified The respondents were also penalised for failing to meet record-keeping and payslip requirements, including by failing to include information in respect of cash payments made to some of the employees. In her judgment, Judge Mercuri noted that the underpayments were “substantial”, particularly given the low-skilled nature of the work and the vulnerability of the workers due to their age and, in some cases, their visa status. “Given that many of the employees of both Viplus and Vipper were in Australia on various visas, with many being young workers, the impact of the underpayments was significant for each of the affected employees,” Judge Mercuri said. In determining the penalties, Judge Mercuri also pointed out that Mr Yuan had been running the stores for over twelve years, had a background in finance, banking and project management and had access to significant training and support from the 7‑Eleven head office. In addition, her Honour noted the Fair Work Ombudsman had previously issued Vipper and Mr Yuan with a letter of caution in 2013 after an investigation found that workers at the Adelaide Street store were not being paid applicable weekend and public holiday penalty rates. At the time, the Fair Work Ombudsman advised Mr Yuan about his obligations to pay penalty rates as stipulated under the Award. Judge Mercuri found this “continued failure to ensure compliance with the Award following the issuing of a letter of caution to Vipper Pty Ltd” to be a relevant factor in determining the penalties for Vipper and Mr Yuan. Acting Fair Work Ombudsman Kristen Hannah says that the regulator takes a particularly dim view of employers who continue to breach workplace laws after being explicitly advised of their obligations. “Employers must recognise that significant consequences will follow when they knowingly flout the law,” Ms Hannah says. “There is no excuse for continued non-compliance by a business when it has been placed on notice and we will not hesitate to pursue serious enforcement action when this occurs. “We have no patience for business operators who fail to respect the law and ignore our advice, and the penalties handed down in this case reflect the seriousness with which such matters will be dealt.” Ms Hannah says that the Fair Work Ombudsman takes the exploitation of young workers and visa holders particularly seriously. “We know that these cohorts face specific vulnerabilities in the workplace due to a lack of awareness of workplace laws and a reluctance to speak up if something is wrong,” Ms Hannah says. “There is no place for the deliberate exploitation of vulnerable workers in Australian workplaces.” Ms Hannah says the commencement of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 has increased the maximum penalties for employers who knowingly exploit workers. “Businesses should be aware that serious breaches of workplace laws have increased ten-fold and can now attract penalties of up to $630,000 per contravention for companies and $126,000 for an individual,” Ms Hannah says. 7-Eleven entered into a Proactive Compliance Deed with the Fair Work Ombudsman in late 2016, committing to a range of measures designed to ensure all its workers receive their lawful entitlements through strong accountability for all operators across its franchise network and supervision by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Employers and employees seeking assistance can visit www.fairwork.gov.au or call the Fair Work Infoline on 13 13 94. An interpreter service is available on 13 14 50. Information on the website can be translated into 40 languages other than English. NOTE: Vipper Pty Ltd and Viplus Pty Ltd no longer own or operate the Adelaide Street or George Street 7-Eleven stores in Brisbane. The Fair Work Ombudsman makes no allegations against the current operators.
  2. Aug 2019
    1. http://librarycopyright.net/resources/fairuse/index.php

      This tool was helpful for further exploration of Fair Use concepts in Unit 2, but felt too subjective for my liking. I prefer this Fair Use Checklist created by Kenneth D. Crews, the author who wrote the book Copyright Law for Librarians and Educators. I reference this book often and like his straightforward “check the box” to visually show whether use is in favor or opposing fair use.

  3. Jun 2019
  4. May 2019
    1. “If Facebook is providing a consumer’s data to be used for the purposes of credit screening by the third party, Facebook would be a credit reporting agency,” Reidenberg explained. “The [FCRA] statute applies when the data ‘is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for … credit.'” If Facebook is providing data about you and your friends that eventually ends up in a corporate credit screening operation, “It’s no different from Equifax providing the data to Chase to determine whether or not to issue a credit card to the consumer,” according to Reidenberg.
    2. “It sure smells like the prescreening provisions of the FCRA,” Reidenberg told The Intercept. “From a functional point of view, what they’re doing is filtering Facebook users on creditworthiness criteria and potentially escaping the application of the FCRA.”
  5. Apr 2019
  6. Mar 2019
    1. The main purpose of the Discovery IN is to provide interfaces and other user-facing services for data discovery across disciplines. We explore new and innovative ways of enabling discovery, including visualizations, recommender systems, semantics, content mining, annotation, and responsible metrics. We apply user involvement and participatory design to increase usability and usefulness of the solutions. We go beyond academia, involving users from all stakeholders of research data. We create FAIR and open infrastructures, following the FAIR principles complemented by the principles of open source, open data, and open content, thus enabling reuse of interfaces and user-facing services and continued innovation. Our main objectives are:
    1. For this factor... It is more likely to be fair use if... It is less likely to be fair use if...

      Pay close attention to the criteria for Fair Use (check out the evaluation tool at the bottom)

    1. There is a serious crisis of discoverability. To overcome it, we have to tear down the walls of dark knowledge and invest in the open discovery infrastructure, esp. user interfaces.

  7. Feb 2019
  8. May 2018
    1. In asituation where an employment already has a notified minimum wage fixed and the workers feel that the employer has the resourcesto pay a better wage and succeed in their claim throughadjudication/ collective bargaining, the higher wage procured istermed a “fair wage”

      Difference between Fair Wage and Minimum

  9. Jan 2018
  10. doc-0s-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-0s-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com
    1. If US legislators and net neutrality advocates really want to protect the rights of internet users, they should call for the removal of barriers to entry for up-and-coming ISP

      Making the internet more fair for all ISP's and allowing for competition for bigger ISP's, plus protecting the rights of the users by allowing them a free/open internet.

  11. Aug 2017
    1. A strong version of moral rights even gives the author the right to retract a work from publication and to enjoin any further publication or duplication.

      But not in the scholarly commons, although I think we did recognize that this was a problem. But the persistence requirement of FAIR says they cannot remove all traces of the work.

  12. May 2017
    1. So a PID is necessary, but not sufficient.

      Note that in the Data Citation Principles, we recommend that the PID resolve to a landing page and not to the data set itself. Need to bring this up with Tim and Martin.

    1. UniProt was one of the case studies presented in the original FAIR publication. What makes UniProt FAIR?

      Good figure to use for FAIR. Now available in Wiki Commons

    1. The FAIR Data Principles were were published in late 2014 and early 2015.
    1. The diffusion and the public endorsement of data FAIRness has been rapid

      Good to see posts on this.

  13. Mar 2017
    1. individual's interpretation of that policy

      AUP connections to individual / institutional variance in Fair Use / Copyright interpretations relevant here as well.

  14. Feb 2017
    1. s, and characters from the fictional story world, in ways that powerfully resonate with fans of the series. Participants are mobilized as “Dumbledore’s Army of the real world” in campaigns such as Not In Harry’s Name which pressures Warner Brothers into using Fair Trade chocolate for its Harry Potter Chocolates.

      Fair trade chocolate is a topic that i recently learned about after a long discussion with my sister. It essentially is a Standerd that certifies that the chocolate is not made from plantations that make children and work under unfair conditions and wages.Its amazing how they were able to stand up to cooperates to a issue that most people are not even aware of, Great Work

  15. Sep 2016
  16. Jul 2016
  17. Oct 2015
  18. Jul 2015
  19. Feb 2014
    1. These rights are quali- fied, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights,” include, for example, the principle of “fair use” (§107), permission for limited library archival reproduction, (§108), and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109)
      • §107 - the principle of “fair use”
      • §108 - permission for limited library archival reproduction
      • §109 - the “first sale” doctrine