December 22, 2024

Louisiana Agency Sues Dozens of Energy Companies for Damage to Wetlands

“This protective buffer took 6,000 years to form,” the state board that oversees flood-protection efforts for much of the New Orleans area argued in court filings, adding that “it has been brought to the brink of destruction over the course of a single human lifetime.”

The suit, which was denounced by Louisiana’s governor, Bobby Jindal, was filed in civil district court in New Orleans by the board of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East. The board argues that the energy companies, including BP and Exxon Mobil, should be held responsible for fixing damage done by cutting thousands of miles of oil and gas access and pipeline canals through the wetlands. It alleges that the network functioned “as a mercilessly efficient, continuously expanding system of ecological destruction,” killing vegetation, eroding soil and allowing salt water into freshwater areas.

“What remains of these coastal lands is so seriously diseased that if nothing is done, it will slip into the Gulf of Mexico by the end of this century, if not sooner,” the filing stated.

Mr. Jindal, a Republican, harshly criticized the lawsuit, releasing a statement saying the levee board had “overstepped its authority” and would damage Louisiana’s ability to tackle coastal issues effectively.

“We’re not going to allow a single levee board that has been hijacked by a group of trial lawyers to determine flood protection, coastal restoration and economic repercussions for the entire state of Louisiana,” he said.

John M. Barry, an author and a member of the flood protection authority board, said the board had not been hijacked, but had investigated its ability to hire the outside law firm and conferred with the state’s attorney general before proceeding. He added, “Our board is independent and arrived at its position based on its collective scientific and policy judgment.”

Mr. Barry said there were other causes of coastal wetlands loss, including decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers over the decades to design navigation and flood-control systems for the Mississippi River that kept its waters from delivering the sediment that once nourished the wetlands. Still, he said, “we just want them to fix what they broke.”

Gladstone N. Jones III, a lawyer for the flood protection authority board, said the plaintiffs were seeking damages equal to “many billions of dollars. Many, many billions of dollars.”

Mr. Jones noted that whatever role the government might have had in wetlands loss, Washington had spent billions on repairing and strengthening hurricane defenses since the system built by the Corps of Engineers failed after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. By taking the companies to court, he said, “we want them to come and pay their fair share.”

A spokeswoman for BP said the company would have no comment. A spokesman for Exxon Mobil said the company had no comment at this time.

The role of the industry is well documented in scientific studies and official reports. In calling for remediation efforts, a 2012 report by the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority stated, “Dredging canals for oil and gas exploration and pipelines provided our nation with critical energy supplies, but these activities also took a toll on the landscape, weakening marshes and allowing salt water to spread higher into coastal basins.”

The suit argues that the environmental buffer serves as an essential protection against storms by softening the blow of any incoming hurricane before it gets to the line of levees, flood walls, and gates and pumps maintained and operated by the board. Losing the “natural first line of defense against flooding” means that the levee system is “left bare and ill-suited to safeguard south Louisiana,” the lawsuit says.

The “unnatural threat” caused by exploration, it states, “imperils the region’s ecology and its people’s way of life — in short, its very existence.”

The lawsuit relies on well-established legal theories of negligence and nuisance, as well as elements of law more particular to the Louisiana Civil Code, including “servitude of drain,” which relates to changing patterns of water flow and drainage across the Bayou State. Even though the industry has been producing oil and gas for 100 years, because the damage is continuing to occur, the board argues, the statute of limitations should not apply.

Walter Olson, a Cato Institute expert on litigation who often expresses skepticism about civil litigation, said that he could not comment extensively without seeing the filing, but that “it sounds like the sort of thing you couldn’t dismiss out of hand.” He said some environmental lawsuits, like one against power companies over the effects of climate change on sea-level rise and its effect on the Alaskan town of Kivalina, incorporate creative legal arguments that may not stand up in court. “It’s not Kivalina,” he said, if the plaintiffs can point to specific people or entities causing specific damage. He added that proving causation in court, however, “can be a big headache.”

No other state agencies have joined the lawsuit, and Mr. Barry said that during preparation of the suit, his board had not discussed the case with other levee boards. The politically powerful oil and gas industries might bring pressure to bear on others who might be inclined to join, Mr. Jones said, but now that the case has been filed, “it really raises the question that’s going to be asked at a whole lot of boards across southern Louisiana: Can we really afford not to do this?”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/us/louisiana-agency-to-sue-energy-companies-for-wetland-damage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Common Sense: Exxon Defies Calls to Add Gays to Anti-Bias Policy

One thing hasn’t: Exxon Mobil’s implacable opposition to adding sexual orientation to its official equal employment opportunity statement.

The issue will be on the agenda at Exxon Mobil’s annual shareholder meeting next week for the 14th consecutive year. Last year the company went so far as to ask the Securities and Exchange Commission for a ruling that it needn’t keep including the proposal on its ballot, but was rejected.

The proposal, backed this year, as it has been since 2010, by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on behalf of the New York State Employees Retirement System, has never gained majority support. That’s not unusual for so-called social, political and environmental shareholder initiatives, since most institutional money managers usually decline as a matter of policy to vote against management recommendations on such issues. Still, the measure has gained as much as 38 percent of the vote, considered resounding support by the feeble standards of shareholder democracy.

That hasn’t fazed Exxon Mobil. On the contrary, as social attitudes and other corporations’ policies on the subject of gay rights have changed drastically, Exxon Mobil has moved steadily further from the mainstream, even within the energy sector. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have all the major integrated oil companies that compete with Exxon Mobil.

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia and more than 160 cities and counties have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Exxon Mobil maintains it isn’t bound by these because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which pre-empts state law. A constitutional challenge to DOMA is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court, and two federal appeals courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

“Exxon Mobil is an outlier among Fortune 500 companies on this issue,” Mr. DiNapoli said when I asked him about it this week. He said it was not only a social or civil rights issue. “The company runs the risk of restricting its ability to attract and maintain top talent. Exxon Mobil is sending a message that applicants and employees can be discriminated against on the basis of non-job related criteria. It just doesn’t make sense from a bottom-line standpoint.”

In countries where it’s mandated by law, Exxon Mobil does have policies barring discrimination against gay and lesbian employees — and extends spousal benefits to same-sex married couples. But the company has gone to unusual lengths to avoid doing so in the United States. Mobil Oil had polices protecting gay and lesbian employees from discrimination, and extended benefits to same-sex couples. But Exxon rescinded them when it acquired Mobil in 1999. It eliminated the same protections and benefits when it acquired XTO Energy in 2009.

A former Exxon Mobil employee told me that he was involved with the company’s effort to transfer a highly valued executive from Belgium, where the executive lived with his husband, to Texas. He said the executive told the company, “I’m not coming alone,” and asked for the same medical benefits and recognition for his spouse that he received in Belgium. The company refused.

An Exxon Mobil spokesman said he couldn’t comment on a specific case, but noted that the United States immigration service doesn’t grant visas to same-sex spouses since those marriages aren’t recognized under federal law. He confirmed that it was company policy to provide such benefits only in countries where they are mandated by law, and not in the United States. According to Mr. DiNapoli, Exxon Mobil told him that the company refused to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages in New York or any other state where they are now legal. “Exxon Mobil must recognize that its stance against equal rights will hurt the company and its investors,” Mr. DiNapoli said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/business/a-corporate-giants-missing-support-for-gay-rights.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Week Finishes on a High Note for the Markets

The Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index ended at milestone highs on Friday, as shares posted a third consecutive week of gains when a rise in Google and other technology shares offset a slide in energy stocks.

Nasdaq led gains, bolstered by a 1 percent rise in Google’s stock.

Indexes were flat for much of the session, but managed a late-day surge. On Thursday, the S. P. 500 broke a five-day streak of new closing highs.

Stocks have risen on the Federal Reserve’s bond buying and some encouraging corporate earnings, but analysts said the momentum could wane without further positive signs.

“I think it’s going to be hard to maintain these levels in the short term,” said Natalie Trunow, chief investment officer of equities at Calvert Investment Management in Maryland, which has about $13 billion in assets.

“There are not a lot of positive catalysts to keep it going,” she said, noting that spending cuts by the federal government could pressure the economy in the near term.

Oil prices tumbled as the dollar hit a four-and-a-half-year high against the yen, and the dollar index was on track for its strongest week in 10 months against other major currencies. A strong dollar makes commodities priced in dollars, like gold and oil, more expensive for foreign investors, pressuring shares of energy and basic materials companies.

The Dow Jones industrial average was up 35.87 points, or 0.24 percent, at 15,118.49. The S. P. 500 was up 7.03 points, or 0.43 percent, at 1,633.70. The Nasdaq composite index was up 27.41 points, or 0.80 percent, at 3,436.58.

The S. P. 500 is up 14.6 percent for the year. For the week, the Dow rose 1 percent, the S. P. 1.2 percent and the Nasdaq 1.7 percent.

Among energy stocks, Exxon Mobil lost 1 percent to $90.14.

Shares of Hess slid 2.3 percent to $69.30. John B. Hess, its chief executive and son of the company’s founder, is being stripped of his duties as chairman as the oil and gas company scrambles to keep an activist investor at bay.

The S. P. energy index dropped 0.5 percent as Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices fell.

Shares of Priceline jumped 3.8 percent to $765.41, a day after the online travel company reported a first-quarter profit that topped estimates.

The benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell 25/32 to 98 21/32. Its yield rose to 1.90 percent, from 1.81 percent.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Exxon Profit Is Flat; ConocoPhillips Earnings Fall

Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported net income of $9.5 billion, a $50 million increase from the first quarter in 2012, which analysts attributed to a gradual shift from drilling for natural gas to drilling for more profitable oil. Overall gas and oil production volumes fell 3.5 percent, although that trend is expected to reverse by the end of the year because of the imminent start-up of the Kearl oil sands project in western Canada.

The company’s total production has barely budged since 2002, despite some major acquisitions, as a result of declines in older fields and the difficulty of exploring for new fields in a world where most oil is now controlled by national oil companies. Exxon Mobil has tried to pivot from oil to natural gas in recent years, but a supply glut and lower prices in the United States has cut into profits.

Exxon Mobil has been struggling to keep its dominant position by investing heavily in large oil sands and liquefied natural gas projects, which are expensive but not prone to the declining production of more traditional oil fields. Large oil and gas projects are scheduled to come on line over the next five years in Kazakhstan, Angola and Nigeria.

With an eye to the future, the company put a positive light on the earnings. “Exxon Mobil achieved strong results while investing significantly to develop new energy supplies,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

Most analysts drew a more nuanced picture. They pointed to continued strong performance by the company’s United States refineries, which benefit from booming domestic oil production and inexpensive natural gas, while noting declines in production of high-priced natural gas in Asia. The company’s United States chemical business also benefited from low-priced natural gas, an important feedstock.

The company reported chemical earnings of $1.14 billion, $436 million higher than for the same quarter in 2012. It said higher margins were responsible for most of the increase in its global specialty chemicals business, which includes the production of synthetic rubber and lubricants, as well as other products.

Allen Good, a Morningstar oil company analyst, characterized the results as “rather uneventful.” Mr. Good said that inadequate cash flow was forcing the company to borrow to maintain shareholder returns. “As a result,” he added, “it is reducing share repurchases to $4 billion per quarter from $5 billion and could reduce further in coming quarters” while its dividend yield lags competitors such as Chevron.

Exxon’s revenue dropped by 12 percent as earnings from exploration and production fell by nearly 10 percent and earnings from refining and marketing fell by 2.6 percent.

ConocoPhillips, the No. 3 American oil company, also reported mixed results with slightly lower oil and natural gas production. The company reported a first-quarter profit of $2.1 billion, down from $2.9 billion from the same quarter in 2012.

United States oil companies expect improved earnings in the second quarter because of higher oil and natural gas prices, though both have been easing in recent weeks. Domestic natural gas prices, in a long slump from the boom in production, were helped by the cold winter but they will need a hot summer to remain over $4 per thousand cubic feet, energy analysts say. Benchmark oil prices have been bouncing in a range of $90 to $105 a barrel in recent months, but slowing economic growth in China and the slumping economy in Europe are preventing price spikes.

Last year, Exxon Mobil tried to increase its reserves and production by purchasing 196,000 acres in North Dakota and Montana from Denbury Resources for $1.6 billion to add to the Bakken shale oil field. “You’re starting to see the dividends,” said David Lawrence, vice president for investor relations, while noting that operations in the Bakken field are beginning to ramp up.

Exxon Mobile shares were down just over 1 percent in midday trading to $88.48.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/business/energy-environment/exxon-profit-is-flat-conocophillips-earnings-fall.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Europe Faces Challenges in Effort to Embrace Shale Gas

Large reserves of the gas discovered two years ago were initially projected to meet Poland’s energy needs for 300 years, but estimates have since been slashed by more than 80 percent. International energy giants like Exxon Mobil and Talisman Energy of Canada have scaled back their investments after disappointing early attempts at extraction. And competition from other fossil fuels, like abundant coal supplies, has made it unprofitable to tap many of the country’s new energy fields.

“Poland is certainly not Texas,” said Kash Burchett, a European energy analyst at the consulting firm IHS in London. “Shale gas in Europe is unlikely to revolutionize the energy industry like it has done in the U.S.”

Across the Continent, both policy makers and the public remain wary of the potential environmental impact of technologies like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to extract shale gas. The fact that Europe is much more densely populated than the United States also makes it difficult to win government approval to tap the new energy deposits, which are often near major cities. Further complicating matters are shortages of technical expertise and drilling rigs, and regulations that differ widely among countries.

“The opportunity is there, but the early exploration efforts have been disappointing,” said Stephen O’Rourke, a senior gas supply analyst at the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie in Edinburgh, who estimates that European shale gas may meet a mere 5 percent of demand within the European Union by 2030. “There’s a lot of uncertainty.”

A slowdown in Europe’s efforts to exploit its shale gas reserves, roughly 10 percent of the world’s deposits, could not come at a worse time for Europe’s companies, which are already suffering from a continental debt crisis and anemic growth and are becoming increasingly uncompetitive compared with rivals in the United States.

In America, energy-intensive industries like manufacturing and chemical production have benefited from a drastic fall in fuel costs because of a domestic energy boom in shale oil and gas. Natural gas prices, for example, have fallen by almost 67 percent over the five years, and the United States is on track to become the world’s largest oil producer by 2017, according to the International Energy Agency.

Fuel costs for European companies, by contrast, remain roughly double those of their American competitors, while many countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, are dependent on natural gas imports from Russia. Also, the Continent’s fossil fuel production has fallen steadily over the last 10 years, even as global demand rises.

Although it has some of the largest deposits of unconventional gas in Europe, France banned fracking in 2011, and Bulgaria and the Netherlands have followed suit with similar measures. Political leaders remain concerned over the potential environmental harm from the technology, while campaigners also have questioned efforts to promote fossil fuels over green technologies like wind and solar power.

“Shale gas isn’t a long-term solution to Europe’s energy security issues,” said Antoine Simon, a campaigner at the environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels. “We should be looking to develop our renewables sector.”

Even in countries that support unconventional natural gas, exploration has not been easy.

After early-stage drilling in 2011 caused small earthquakes near the seaside resort of Blackpool in northern England, the British government stopped the practice of fracking. The ban was lifted late last year, though analysts doubt whether British shale gas will be able to compete against natural gas imports, including potentially those from the United States.

The cost of extracting European shale gas, for example, is roughly double that of American reserves, according to Wood Mackenzie estimates, and other alternatives, like liquefied natural gas, which can be imported on ships from Qatar and elsewhere, also are a cheaper option for many of Europe’s energy-hungry companies.

Competition will only become more cutthroat. As American companies turn their attention to exporting domestic natural gas, Europe, with its higher energy prices, is seen as an attractive market. Last month, Houston-based Cheniere Energy signed a long-term energy contract — the first of its kind — with the British energy company Centrica to ship shale gas from Louisiana starting in 2018. Similar deals are expected to follow.

“Future gas supplies from the U.S. will help diversify our energy mix,” Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, said in a statement.

Despite the uphill challenge, some companies are still looking to profit from Europe’s unconventional natural gas reserves. In Germany, Exxon Mobil, which became a major shale gas player in the United States after acquiring the domestic producer XTO Energy for $31 billion in 2009, continues to drill test wells despite a ban on fracking in parts of the country.

“It is too early to say how much shale gas may be produced,” said Tristan Aspray, European exploration operations manager at Exxon Mobil. “The rate of growth of production in the future will almost certainly be less than the U.S.”

And earlier this year, Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, signed a contract with the Ukrainian government worth a reported $10 billion. It plans to explore for shale gas reserves in Ukraine, which is eager to reduce its reliance on Russian imports.

The 50-year agreement, which is dependent on whether preliminary drilling can find shale gas deposits, is expected to be followed by a similar deal with the American energy giant Chevron. The new energy contract, though, has run into vocal opposition from Ukrainian environmentalists and local politicians.

“The primary obstacle to shale gas in Europe is politics,” said Mr. Burchett of IHS. “If you don’t have permission to drill, you can’t move forward.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/business/energy-environment/europe-faces-challenges-in-effort-to-embrace-shale-gas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Alaska Grants a Tax Break to Oil Companies

HOUSTON – Hoping to reverse two decades of declining oil production in Alaska, the State Legislature in Juneau has granted oil companies an estimated $750 million in annual tax relief to increase investment in the giant North Slope oil field.

The tax change, approved on Sunday, was a major victory for Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and BP, which had lobbied hard for years to repeal a tax system put in place by former Gov. Sarah Palin in 2007 that made state oil taxes among the highest in the nation. The companies have long claimed that high operating costs and taxes in Alaska encouraged them to move their investment dollars to other states with lower tax rates, like Texas and North Dakota, where oil and gas exploration and production have been booming in new shale fields.

The Alaskan economy runs on crude; about a third of employment is dedicated to the oil industry. The state receives so much royalty money that there is no need for a state sales tax or income tax, and residents receive checks from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a corporation largely financed by oil revenue, that roughly totals $5,000 a year for a family of four.

But that largess is at risk. Since Alaska’s oil production peaked in 1988 at 2.02 million barrels a day, the state’s output has steadily dropped. Over the last two years, production has declined to 526,000 barrels a day, from 600,000, even as national production has risen by more than a million barrels a day.

The old tax system imposed a 25 percent per barrel tax when oil prices were at $30 a barrel, and a 0.4 percent increase for every $1 per barrel above that price. Since oil prices have hovered at between $90 and $100 a barrel in recent years, the effective tax rate has been about 50 percent per barrel.

The new tax will impose a flat 35 percent rate on the oil companies’ net profits, but whether that will increase investment and production remains challenging as long as there remain regulatory hurdles for drilling offshore and engineering limits to reviving aging fields on the North Slope.

“We are signaling to the world that Alaska is back,” Gov. Sean Parnell said in a statement, “ready to compete and ready to supply more energy once again.”

The Alaskan Department of Revenue has projected that the legislation will lower oil taxes by at least $3.5 billion over the next five years, although changes in oil prices and production rates could push that figure up or down.

Most Democrats in the Legislature voted against the tax change, arguing that it would force the government to cut more than $860 million to balance the budget in 2014, when the tax change will take effect. The tax rate had produced a windfall for the state in recent years, because oil prices were high. While other states were struggling with tax shortfalls, Alaska was able to put away $17 billion in a rainy-day fund.

But oil companies argued that the system was not sustainable. In recent testimony before the Alaska Senate Finance Committee, Dan Seckers, Exxon Mobil’s Anchorage-based tax counsel, said that the current tax structure “creates a major disincentive to invest in the high-risk, high-cost opportunities available in Alaska.”

Mr. Seckers noted that even as the industry invested more than $1 billion a year in Alaska’s fields, production had declined annually by more than 6 percent in recent years. He warned that “absent that continued investment, the annual production decline would likely be in the range of 12 to 15 percent annually.”

The decline in oil production poses a serious problem for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, by reducing the velocity that oil flows through the pipeline and allowing water to gather in the system. Oil executives have warned that the water could lead to more corrosion, ruptures and oil spills on the tundra.

Future exploration in Alaska faced a serious setback last week when ConocoPhillips announced that it was suspending plans to drill in Alaskan Arctic waters in 2014 because of uncertainties over federal regulatory and permitting standards. That decision followed Shell Oil’s decision to put off drilling this summer in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas after it was forced to remove its two drilling rigs from the area. The rigs were sent to Asia for repairs after a series of ship groundings, weather delays and environmental and safety violations during last summer’s drilling operations.

Oil company geologists say they believe the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas may become the country’s next great oil field, with billions of barrels of reserves, but exploration and production will be costly. Shell has already spent over $4.5 billion on its efforts, without completing a well.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/business/energy-environment/alaska-grants-a-tax-break-to-oil-companies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Parental Leave: What Does Your Employer Offer?

It’s an astonishing fact, but the United States is the only country with an advanced economy that does not provide some sort of paid leave for new mothers.

This week’s Your Money column takes a closer look at the dismal state of affairs concerning parental leave over all, as well as the patchwork of policies that are on the books (or not).

The Family and Medical Leave Act, which went into effect 20 years ago this month, provides some basic but invaluable protections: it requires larger employers and public agencies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child (or to care for yourself, an opposite-sex spouse, parent or child who has fallen ill). But experts say that about 40 percent of employees are not eligible — and many of those who are simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave.

While consumer advocates and some lawmakers are drafting legislation that would create a paid federal family leave and medical leave insurance program, the current political tenor will make passage tricky. In the meantime, whether workers have access to paid leave largely depends on where and for whom they work.

So we’ve decided to begin a progress report that will highlight paid parental leave policies at American employers (similar to the way we keep track of companies that equalize the cost of health insurance for same-sex couples). We’re starting with responses we received from some of the largest companies, which you’ll find detailed below.

The chart is still a work in progress and will be updated over time. (Among the companies we’re waiting to hear back from are Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Chevron and Berkshire Hathaway.) So please tell us about your own employer’s policy in the comment section below. We would also love to hear your thoughts on the potential creation of a paid federal family and medical leave insurance program.

Employer
What is the organization’s general policy for maternity leave?
What about paternity leave?
Adoption?
Do these policies apply to part-time workers?
Does this apply to same-sex couples? 
How long has the policy been in place? Any plans to strengthen the policy?
ConocoPhillips
“Multiple U.S. policies to assist employees with time off to meet personal and family needs.” Asked company to clarify; waiting for more details.
Awaiting more details.
Awaiting more details.
Awaiting more details.
Yes.
Current policy dates back to 2002. Programs are reviewed annually.
Fannie Mae
Six weeks paid for a vaginal delivery or eight weeks for a C-section. In addition, after childbirth or adoption, 20 days of paid bonding leave for regular, full-time employees.
After childbirth or adoption, 20 days of paid bonding leave for regular, full-time employees.
20 days of paid bonding leave for regular, full-time employees.
Part-time employees who work at least 20 hours per week are eligible for maternity leave and bonding leave, on a pro-rated basis.
20 days of paid bonding leave for regular, full-time employees.
Longstanding policy.
Ford
Generally six to eight weeks (through company’s disability leave policies), depending on medical recommendation of the employee’s doctor.

 

Only unpaid leave through Family and Medical Leave Act and the company’s dependent care policies.
Up to $5,000 adoption assistance per child. Employee must use unpaid leave through Family and Medical Leave Act or the company’s dependent care policies.
All of the leaves mentioned are available to eligible regular and part-time employees.
Yes.
More than 20 years.
General Electric
Paid parental leave gives an employee up to two weeks of paid leave within one year of a birth or adoption. G.E. also provides income replacement to women deemed disabled because of pregnancy, childbirth or a related condition. Income replacement is provided through personal illness and salary continuance programs and/or short-term disability plans.
Paid parental leave gives an employee up to two weeks of paid leave within one year of the birth or adoption to bond with and care for a child.
Paid parental leave benefit for male and female salaried employees who have been with G.E. for at least a year and who work at least 20 hours a week.
Paid parental leave benefit for male and female salaried employees who have been with G.E. for at least a year and who work at least 20 hours a week.
Awaiting more details.
Parental leave policy was introduced on Jan. 1, 2012, and was retroactive to include births and adoptions occurring in 2011.
General Motors
Expectant mothers covered under disability leave policies, which are typically six to eight weeks.
Only unpaid leave through Family and Medical Leave Act and the company’s dependent care policies.
Offers $5,000 in adoption assistance per child. But only unpaid leave through Family and Medical Leave Act and the company’s dependent care policies.
Yes.
Yes.
The current policy has been in place for 20 years. G.M. regularly reviews policies and benchmarks against other major Fortune 50 companies.
Google
New mothers get 22 weeks of paid leave.
7 weeks.
7 weeks.
Awaiting more details.
Yes.
Maternity leave was increased in 2007 and introduced globally in 2012.
Hewlett-Packard
A combination of disability leave and new-parent leave: up to six weeks at full pay under short-term disability plan, with additional weeks at 70% of pay, and the option to make up the remaining 30% using vacation time. Employees are also eligible for 10 paid days of new-parent leave any time within six months after birth or adoption.
Employees are eligible for 10 days of paid new-parent leave any time within six months after the birth or adoption of a child.
Awaiting more details.
Yes, for workers who log at least 20 hours a week.
Yes, disability and new-parent leave benefits are available following the birth or adoption of a child.
Reviews all programs annually. Improved program this year, doubling new-parent leave to 10 days.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/parental-leave-what-does-your-employer-offer/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bits Blog: Apple Becomes the Most Valuable Public Company Ever, With an Asterisk

Noah Berger/Bloomberg News

8:53 p.m. | Updated

Apple, a company that nearly filed for bankruptcy just 16 years ago, passed a very different sort of milestone on Monday, when a bump in its share price made it the most highly valued public company ever.

Apple already boasted the largest market value of any public company, a title it has held since toppling Exxon Mobil from that spot. But Microsoft still held onto the record for the biggest market capitalization ever, $616.34 billion, which it set at the close of trading on Dec. 27, 1999, according to Howard Silverblatt, an analyst at S. P. Dow Jones Indexes.

Apple blew past that mark when its stock surged 2.6 percent on Monday to close at $665.15, giving it a market value of $623.52 billion.

The short-term explanation for the rise in its stock is the investor euphoria that often accompanies new product announcements from Apple — in this case, the expected introduction of a new iPhone in mid-September that could give a jolt to sales.

But the longer-term story behind the stock price is a corporate turnaround with few, if any, equals. The Apple that Steven P. Jobs arrived at when he rejoined the company in 1997 was, in his own words, in a precarious state, with a bloated inventory, a sprawling line of mediocre products and dwindling cash reserves.

Apple’s situation was so bad that Michael S. Dell, chief executive of the computer maker Dell, told an audience at a conference that, if he was running Apple, he would “shut it down and give the money back to shareholders.”

The Apple that Mr. Jobs left behind when he died of cancer last October had reinvented itself multiple times under his watch, first with the iPod, then the iPhone and then the iPad. At an industry conference in 2010, Mr. Jobs described seeing Apple pass the market value of Microsoft, its longtime rival and long the most highly valued of technology companies, as “surreal.”

If Mr. Jobs were still alive, he could add up the values of Microsoft, Intel and Google and still have more than $13 billion of daylight between that figure and Apple’s market capitalization, which is a company’s stock price times its outstanding share count.

“It has been an absolutely remarkable transformation,” said Charlie Wolf, an analyst at Needham Company.

Another analyst, Horace Dediu of Asymco, noted that Microsoft’s 1999 market value was still far higher than Apple’s when adjusted for inflation. The Microsoft of late 1999 would be worth $850 billion in today’s dollars. The Microsoft of August 2012 is worth $258 billion.

By Mr. Silverblatt’s calculations, Apple needs to close at $910 to beat Microsoft’s inflation-adjusted market value.

It is worth noting that Microsoft achieved its pinnacle back when high-flying technology and Internet stocks had yet to be humbled by the bursting of the Internet bubble. Microsoft never regained the favor of investors after that happened, even as it delivered strong growth in revenue and profits. Investors have become increasingly concerned about the growth prospects of companies dependent on sales in the traditional computer business.

Apple, however, has seen great leaps in its value during the last four years, a period of great economic uncertainty.

In 2006, after Apple passed the market value of Dell, Mr. Jobs couldn’t resist pointing out the flaws in Mr. Dell’s assessment of Apple. “Stocks go up and down, and things may be different tomorrow, but I thought it was worth a moment of reflection today,” Mr. Jobs wrote in a note to Apple employees.

On Monday, the market value of Dell was just under $22 billion.

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/apple-becomes-the-most-valuable-public-company-ever-with-an-asterisk/?partner=rss&emc=rss

The iEconomy: Apple, America and a Squeezed Middle Class

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

Apple has become one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth, in part through an unrelenting mastery of global operations. Last year, it earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.

However, what has vexed Mr. Obama as well as economists and policy makers is that Apple — and many of its high-technology peers — are not nearly as avid in creating American jobs as other famous companies were in their heydays.

Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost every electronics designer relies upon to build their wares.

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Similar stories could be told about almost any electronics company — and outsourcing has also become common in hundreds of industries, including accounting, legal services, banking, auto manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.

But while Apple is far from alone, it offers a window into why the success of some prominent companies has not translated into large numbers of domestic jobs. What’s more, the company’s decisions pose broader questions about what corporate America owes Americans as the global and national economies are increasingly intertwined.

“Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Labor Department until last September. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”

David Barboza, Peter Lattman and Catherine Rampell contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2b0c3b028c673de0a8f327a348c14fe5

Investors See Another Putin Presidency as Good for Business

The conclusions, expressed in articles and research notes published recently, appear to reinforce an axiom here that it rarely pays to bet against Mr. Putin on the Russian market.

Since Mr. Putin, the current prime minister, announced that he would pursue a third presidential term, analysts studying Russia through the lens of profits and risks have been writing that the only plausible alternative — that Mr. Putin remain prime minister, with a weaker aide or ally in the constitutionally stronger post of president — would produce political instability, which would be bad for business.

According to this analysis, the reunification of power in the Russian president in both title and practice — even one, like Mr. Putin, who has a track record of abrogating contracts — creates a more predictable long-term outlook for companies like Exxon Mobil, which has just agreed to a major oil exploration deal in the Russian Arctic.

This investment argument in favor of more stable, less pluralistic politics in Russia seems also to reflect the reality that rapid economic development has been achieved in a number of post-Communist countries that never transitioned to democracy, like China.

“Politically, Putin’s decision to return will reinstall a leader with the power to implement decisions and end an increasingly dysfunctional diarchy — if at the cost of hardening Russia’s ‘soft authoritarian’ image,” noted Cliff Kupchan, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Foundation.

“Many observers have emphasized that Putin’s rule may extend longer than Brezhnev’s, and almost as long as Stalin’s,” he wrote in a research report, referring to Leonid I. Brezhnev, who ran the former Soviet Union for 18 years until his death in 1982, and Joseph Stalin, who ruled for 25 years until 1953.

“Predictability will at least in the short-term reassure investors and improve market sentiment,” Mr. Kupchan wrote.

Russia’s main stock index, the Micex, rose 2.5 percent Tuesday, the second day of gains after Mr. Putin’s announcement.

“With less political uncertainty, the authorities may hope that capital flight eases and that some may return capital in coming months to take advantage of cheaper asset prices,” Charles Robertson, chief economist at Renaissance, wrote in a note for investors.

Kingsmill Bond, an investment strategist with Citigroup in Moscow, published a research note over the weekend, “Return of the Master,” that suggested investors would be “pleased that the political uncertainty is over,” though noting that “there is little sign that Putin will adopt the radical change that some had hoped for.” In the short term, Europe’s debt crisis and oil prices will guide the market here more than domestic politics, he said.

Not all economists share the view that less change is better. Laza Kekic, a former Soviet specialist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said Mr. Putin’s decision to run again for president was “a retrograde, and indeed farcical step, that is incompatible with economic and political progress in Russia” and that after this decision, the country was on the way to becoming a “third-world petrokleptocracy.”

Clouding the picture somewhat of an authoritarian government able to impose its economic will, Russia’s long-serving finance minister, Aleksei L. Kudrin, resigned Monday after Mr. Putin’s announcement. Mr. Kudrin had become the symbol of Russia’s fiscal responsibility.

Mikhail D. Prokhorov, a billionaire who was ousted this month as head of a right-wing political party, wrote in a blog that other economic liberals might follow Mr. Kudrin’s example and resign.

“I think we are on the verge of very important, perhaps tectonic, shifts in the consciousness of the elites, including the power elites,” Mr. Prokhorov wrote.

Other analysts note that companies and investors will now be able to price in political risks whose contours are not likely to change much, as Mr. Putin is poised to remain in power until 2024.

“Western businesses work wonderfully with dictators,” said Mikhail G. Delyagin, an economist and director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, a research concern. “For them, it is hardly a matter of principle.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=5753403f04915c2e6150921bab2dc040