Most Recent Posts

If you're able and eager to write an annual check for roughly $100,000, you might expect to be hearing soon from the Republican and Democratic national committees.

In another small step on behalf of big money in politics, Capitol Hill lawmakers agreed Tuesday afternoon on a small provision to be added to the omnibus spending bill, allowing the two party committees to raise money for their presidential nominating conventions. The limit per donor would be $97,200 a year, on top of each party committee's existing limit of $32,400 per year.

The provision is intended to ease money anxieties at the national party committees. Since 1976, the conventions have gotten public financing — $18.2 million for each side in 2012. It was little more than a pittance in the grand spectacle of the party conventions, yet party leaders howled last March when Congress eliminated that public financing. (Lawmakers said the money should go into pediatric medical research.)

The Federal Election Commission provided some comfort to the parties, letting them solicit cash for newly created convention accounts. But that was a stingy move compared to what Congress intends to do.

The $97,200-per-year year limit comes to $388,800 for a four-year presidential election cycle. If the new provision had been available in 2012, just 94 donors could have matched the public financing for both conventions. Or put another way – as the pro-regulation groups would – regular contributions and the new convention account would enable a donor and spouse to funnel more than $500,000 to a party each two-year congressional election cycle.

The new provision also allows the party committees to create building funds. As recently as the 1990s, both party committees had building funds, and there was little accountability for the cash in them. On Tuesday afternoon there was no word on how the building funds would be regulated, or what their contribution limits would be.

The changes in campaign finance law surfaced without fanfare during negotiations when either Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could have vetoed them.

Six groups that advocate tighter regulation of campaign cash blasted a terse letter to lawmakers: "Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose any campaign finance riders on the Omnibus Appropriations bill that will increase the opportunities to corrupt members of Congress."

Democratic National Committee

campaign finance

Republican National Committee

Democratic National Convention

Republican National Convention

"The key is to make the most of the crop, which all supermarkets are doing," she tells The Salt in an email. "This could be using the best of the crop for bagged or loose produce, but [also] looking for alternative uses for those that don't make the grade — i.e. pre-prepared produce (a growing trend), ready meals and soups."

So what's driving the interest? The European Union relaxed strict rules governing the sale of imperfect fruit in 2009. But Tristram Stuart, a food waste activist with the group Feeding the 5000, says growing consumer awareness was also crucial.

"Supermarkets will cater to what public demand requires," he says. And, he notes, "there are not a lot of environmental measures out there that are going to save you money, but stopping wasting food is one of them."

And consumers will scoop up these tasty uglies when they know the story behind their unfortunate looks, says Waitrose spokesperson Jess Hughes.

"We always find these products are popular with customers — they always sell well," Hughes tells The Salt via email.

For now, there appear to be limits to just how much imperfection retailers will take.

"The experience of retailers in the U.K. is that customers naturally select, they always pick the cream of the crop," Ejaz says.

And even Intermarche has said its promotion of inglorious produce can only be occasional, as problems with suppliers occur.

Nonetheless, the fever is also making the leap across the pond: In Canada, Safeway is experimenting with "misfit produce" displays. And your local U.S. farmers market might just have "seconds" of peaches, tomatoes or apples for sale. Stay tuned: Plenty of activists stateside are hoping to bring ugly fruit to a supermarket or CSA near you soon.

food waste

Europe

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that companies do not have to pay workers for time spent in anti-theft security screening at the end of a shift.

The decision is a major victory for retail enterprises and manufacturing businesses that could have been on the hook for billions of dollars in back pay for time spent in security screenings.

The Court's ruling came Tuesday in a case involving Amazon warehouses and a temp agency, Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc., which screened workers for warehouses in Nevada. The workers were paid hourly wages to fill customer orders and package them to ship. But, after they clocked out at the shift change, they were required to wait in line for an average of 25 minutes, as some 1,000 workers were processed through just two machines.

They sued the temp agency in charge of the screening, seeking pay for the time in line. But the Supreme Court ruled that under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, a company is required to compensate workers only for duties that are "tied to the productive work" that employees are hired to perform. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that it matters not that an employer requires an activity; the activity must be "indispensable," and "tied to the productive work" that the employee is hired to do.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concurred in the decision, noting that while the screenings may have been related to the warehouse work, the employer could "skip them altogether" without the safety or effectiveness of the workers' principal duties being substantially impaired. Therefore, the screenings were not "integral" or indispensable" to work duties or worker job safety.

Cho Hyun-ah, whose family runs Korean Air, caused a stir over the weekend after she demanded that a Korea-bound jetliner return to a gate at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, where it had been preparing to take off.

The reason? Seated in first class, Cho was angered that a junior steward served her macadamia nuts — in a bag instead of on a plate, and without asking first. When a senior steward struggled to cite the proper regulations, Cho had him kicked off the flight, forcing the plane holding some 250 passengers to return to the gate before they could depart for Incheon, South Korea.

Cho is the daughter of Korean Air Chairman and CEO Cho Yang-ho. Fallout from the incident has forced Cho, who's also known by the first name Heather, to resign her post as a vice president at the airline, where her duties included cabin service and in-flight sales.

"I will step down to take responsibility over the incident," Cho said Tuesday, according to the Korea Herald. "I also beg the forgiveness of those who may have been hurt by my actions, and offer my apologies to our customers."

But it's unclear whether Cho's resignation is from a single post or from the entire airline. Reuters reports that she "will remain a vice president with the South Korean flag carrier, the airline said late on Tuesday."

The airline did not assuage its critics when it insisted, at first, that the JFK incident was merely a case of maintaining standards.

"News of Cho's outburst spread quickly on social media," Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reports, "causing the carrier major embarrassment and confirming every suspicion Koreans entertain about the spoiled brats from big conglomerate families."

Many South Koreans are uneasy with the country's "chaebol" giants, The Financial Times says, referring to international conglomerates that are often operated under a family's centralized authority. The newspaper says relatives "often wield undue influence over management of group companies in spite of their small direct shareholdings."

The case also raised concerns about a possible breach in the airline's safety regulations, which place each plane under the pilot's responsibility. The Chosun Ilbo says a government regulatory agency's early report found that the chief steward reported the problem to the pilot, and that the pilot then orchestrated the return to a gate at JFK.

As aviation buffs will recall, Korean Air served as one of writer Malcolm Gladwell's examples of the dangers of hierarchical traditions in his 2008 book Outliers: The Story of Success.

Airlines

South Korea