Yesterday the good lady and I took a well deserved day off together, to curl up on the sofa and watch a good movie. Being my turn, I chose Dunkirk. One of the great joys of being in a pan-European relationship is learning about each other's history, after all.
I'll leave the movie review to the to the professionals. I'm six months late anyway, but as Republic Standard has been running for only a month or so I beg your indulgence as I play a little catch-up. Movie reviews aren't my thing. I know my limits, and as much as I will wax lyrical about the meaning of art I am more than aware that I am not an artist- I will say that Dunkirk is a very good film indeed and you should see it if you are one of the few people on Earth slower at getting around to seeing films than I am. It does have a 94 on Metacritic though, just saying. It's pretty awesome. This movie's portrayal of the events is sublime, the cinematography is artful, real. The score perfect, Hans Zimmer at his un-nerving best.
What I am annoyed by is elitist city-dwelling fools who used this movie to throw cheap barbs about how Britain is doomed as it leaves the European Union.
Of course, a movie about one of the most incredible military escapes in human history must be quashed. It might make the proles think that they aren't completely worthless.
How I wish that Christopher Nolan's new film, "Dunkirk," had not been released at this moment in history. The reviewers have been near unanimous in their praise: searing, complex, uncompromising about the savagery of war and death. Yet the essential message of the film, with its narrative of heroic retreat in order to fight another day, cannot help but feed the national pride in Britain's capacity to triumph eventually, no matter what the odds.
Nothing could be less helpful to our collective psyche as the country blunders toward Brexit.
My fingers clench reflexively as I read, knowing that soon my eyeballs must surely swivel into the back of my head in the midst of a hopefully fatal grand-mal. Mrs. Russell is a Cambridge graduate and has worked inside the mainstream media establishment for her entire career. She is upper middle class through and through- and this is the face of pro-EU elitism, unfortunately. Wealthy, status-quo in all manners, vaguely socialist in politics so long as they don't feel the pinch themselves and dismissive of people below them on the ladder looking up. The majority of British people who could be bothered to vote decided to leave. The majority of British people define themselves as working class.
Dunkirk is a movie that strips these differences away. A Briton can easily spot the class differences between the characters- while stereotypes, these are not just memes. The Rear Admiral carries himself like a sea lord should, the 'tommies' are scared boys from the terraces and farms. The pilots, mostly from monied backgrounds, avoided the hell of land or sea combat for another kind of hell thousands of feet in the air. The entire meaning of this movie was about British identity. Collective British identity, that beyond the class differences between Britons there are indeed ties that bind. Between fathers and sons, about what duty means. Beyond class divide. It is the antithesis of what we see in the Remain camp.
Emile Simpson writing in Foreign Policy weighs in with a piece entitled "Brexit's Dunkirk Fantasyland".
Beyond trade, the memory of World War II evokes a sense of national unity, symbolized in the "Dunkirk spirit," which can be taken to represent a cultural unity purportedly absent in modern Britain.
I have said on these pages before that the cultural unity of many Western nations is not yet absent but is sorely wounded. Mr. Simpson -who served my nation in the armed forces and for which I thank him- does not live on a council estate. He does not live in Blackburn.
He does not come from such a lifestyle. He comes from Oxford University and Sandhurst. If he cannot see the lack of unified feeling in England today, the lack of cultural meaning then I really am at a loss. How can you miss it unless you walk around looking at the sky? The media elite creates Far-Right boogeymen out of people like Tommy Robinson, denounce the President of the United States as a racist, and arrest people for criticizing Islam while the largest political party in the nation is riddled with Hard-Left anti-Semites.
This is not what I would consider being expressive of even a hint of the cultural unity on the scale represented by Dunkirk.
Charles Mudede, in a piece for The Stranger entitled "Dunkirk: The First Brexit Movie in the History of Cinema."
It's not just about Brexit/Dunkirk being a one-to-one dub: the Brits fleeing a Europe dominated by the German military/the Brits fleeing a Europe dominated by German banks. It's sadder than that. It is the acceptance that the lie is better than the truth.
Zimbabwean Mudede's latest piece for this site is entitled "Father Recognized Son Shot By a Non-Muslim White American Because of His Nike Socks." I think it's safe to say that he has an agenda. Even so, let us play the ball and not the man. Yes, this movie is a sad film. It's hard to imagine yourself in the shoes of those soldiers paying the ultimate price, going to their deaths in the certainty that the nation -your nation- was surely doomed to fall under the yoke of Nazism. The Wehrmacht was a monstrous machine, technologically and militarily superior in almost every way, and only defeated thanks to the combined sacrifice of millions from dozens of nations and the madness of those in charge of this death-dealer.
Is drowning in a few feet of water off the coast of Dunkirk a parallel to wrestling with the Deutsche Bundesbank? I don't know. I haven't done either. I do imagine though that being shot in the back as I run to a ship or taking shrapnel to the heart from a Stuka, as my friends die around me- that I can imagine is worse than the financial interest of my nation being rivaled -without bloodshed- by another, larger nation. Perhaps Emile Simpson, as a veteran, would do us the service of telling us.
Rafael Behr, in the Guardian, wrote a lovely diatribe entitled "Dunkirk reveals the spirit that has driven Brexit: humiliation."
There is a swelling body of evidence that Brexit is shaking confidence in the country's international credibility, and cannot be completed in the allotted time without economic vandalism. There is also the referendum result, before which evidence is made to cower.
I fear we are about to rehearse the cycle of shame and resentment all over again. There are two routes ahead, neither free of humiliation. The enactment of Brexit will complete an economic, diplomatic and strategic devaluation that is prefigured already in sterling's post-referendum slide.
The Pound is still fluctuating, but no longer due to Brexit uncertainty, according to economist Liam Halligan. The value of the currency is now near the value it held before the Brexit vote, manufacturing output to rise to a 10-year-high. Employment also rose by 102,000 from September to November 2017 to a record of 32.2million.
Prior to the referendum, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted UK growth of two percent during 2016, which was calculated on the Remain vote.
After the leave vote growth rose by 1.9 percent.
Humiliation corrodes the soul of nations. This thought occurred to me during Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan's cinematic re-enactment of the 1940 evacuation of British soldiers from fallen France. It was a disorderly retreat following a defeat: "a colossal military disaster", said Churchill. Yet Dunkirk spirit became an emblem of national character – a metaphor for plucky survival against insuperable odds, and a benchmark for resilience.
Britain will be measurably smaller on the world stage. The reversal of Brexit, or its dilution into some pale simulation of the status quo, requires a plea in Brussels for more time and a fresh start. That will be hard to distinguish from a grovel.
Well, Where to begin. Mr. Behr will surely not slip beneath the waves along with the rest of us, after all- his family has land in Israel to escape to, should the worst come. His advice is to fall to our knees and repent, so I can only attribute total altruism to him- that he cares for the plight of Britons, that if only they could see the error of their ways, we would see that Neville Chamberlain was right after all.
Oh, excuse me- I forget that it is only the pro-EU glitterati who may invoke World War Two in support of their arguments.
We plebs from the council estate ought to listen to our betters when they tell us how stupid we are to want to think for ourselves. When I was on the left wing of politics I thought in a little way like these people did, though I fooled myself that class-consciousness just meant I knew better than anyone else what the working class truly needed. Instead I was a useful idiot, an early precursor to the swarms of useful idiots clogging up the place today with their socialist slogans and proclaimations of undying fealty to the European Union.
Leavers fall into 7 categories.
Dunkirk is remembered so fondly only because, in the end, Britain was on the winning side. That wasn't down to our plucky spirit. It was because America, with its overwhelming resources, entered the war. There is no such ally waiting to rescue us now, as we start down the dangerous path of methodically shredding our links with our neighbors and friends.
What a rousing speech. Join me on the barricades, Jenni Russell. I truly know we are of one heart. We are together, for our people. On the beaches, on the landing grounds, on the streets and the hills. We shall never surrender. None of what Russell says is true, of course - except perhaps we are mediocre in education, low in skill, and vain. I would apply that for sure to every writer in this piece today, myself included, and in spades to the political elites who earn so much and say so little in service of the nation. We don't need a recitation of The Lays of Ancient Rome right now. Nor do we need sermons from the Little Red Book.
Yes, that is Parliament. Yes, That is a book by Chairman Mao.
We needed a film about Dunkirk, a message of hope and unity and sacrifice and family conducted in a way that we can all understand, from the smallest child upwards. The strokes of this film are conducted not in dialogue nor in splashes of gaudy CGI, but in marks of chalk. In the certain look in a man's eye. Not a film about defeat, but a message that says England is not lost, and will never be lost. We are glad to be reassured that our culture means something, that we stand for something. That the sacrifices of our fathers were not in vain, that the policies imposed on us that none asked for may be repealed.
It doesn't matter that the Empire is no more, or that Britain is not the powerhouse it once was. It matters that it is Britain. Our culture and way of life that for all its many and manifest failings deserves to exist without apology to anyone, least of all jumped up writers on the internet. Doesn't being British count for anything?
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation... we shall never surrender." - Sir Winston Churchill. 4th June 1940.
Now that is top drawer word-crafting. We should all take note.


text:
Ethics |
Everyday Ethics: Tougher than you think
By Steve Goldberg, CPA, and Bruce Bettinghaus
Management accountants' ethics training is often reduced to a list of rules to follow when making decisions. But recent research in the quickly developing area of behavioral ethics reveals an unsettling fact: The list approach isn't enough. That's because it overlooks innate biases that affect our business decisions in surprising ways. What can behavioral ethics research teach us about making less-biased decisions?
WHAT DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO?
Traditional ethics focus on what people should do. But the burgeoning field of behavioral ethics explores what people actually do.
That's a big difference, and it came about because the old approach didn't work well. Ann Tenbrunsel, professor of business ethics at the University of Notre Dame, asserts that "…efforts designed to improve ethical behavior in the workplace continue to over promise and under deliver." (See http://bit.ly/1cXD5R7.)
Those efforts fail partly because we all have unconscious ethical blind spots. In "Stumbling Into Bad Behavior" in the April 21, 2011, issue of The New York Times, Max H. Bazerman and Tenbrunsel wrote that "…we have found that much unethical conduct that goes on, whether in social life or work life, happens because people are unconsciously fooling themselves." (See http://nyti.ms/1EGRRlV.)
Management accountants are becoming more aware of the bias problem. In 2012, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) published a report by KPMG LLP, Steven M. Glover, and Douglas F. Prawitt, "Enhancing Board Oversight: Avoiding Judgment Traps and Biases" (see http://bit.ly/1bS5zdy). And a 2011 KPMG monograph, Elevating Professional Judgment in Auditing and Accounting: The KPMG Professional Judgment Framework, also dealt with accounting judgment issues (see http://bit.ly/1e3eJpd).
Both documents show that the accounting profession realizes that flawed decisions result from not following a sound judgment process. Management accountants also need to know that group decisions that aren't structured and conducted properly can make judgment traps and biases worse.
WHY DO BIASES THRIVE IN ACCOUNTING?
Accountants can have the best ethical intentions and believe they are meeting their responsibilities with competence and integrity. But there are known cognitive biases that can make them fall short. Unfortunately, corporate accounting and auditing are particularly prone to self-serving biases.
In their December 9, 2002, online article for Harvard Business School, "Most Accountants Aren't Crooks—Why Good Audits Go Bad," Bazerman, George Loewenstein, and Don A. Moore identified three structural aspects of accounting that create opportunity for self-serving biases (see http://hbs.me/1JKzNdW). First, biases thrive when there is ambiguity. Although some accounting decisions aren't ambiguous, many require considerable judgment—such as classifying an item as expense vs. capital, deciding when to recognize revenue, or estimating allowance for doubtful accounts.
Second, accountants have self-serving reasons to go along with their bosses' or clients' preferences. Psychologists refer to this as attachment. It's well documented that self-interest unconsciously biases decisions.
Third, as Bazerman and his colleagues note, research affirms that judgments become even more biased when people endorse others' similarly biased judgments. Psychologists call this condition approval. It especially can apply to external auditors, internal auditors, and financial analysts gathering evidence and expressing agreement or disagreement about proposed financial statements, budgets, or forecasts.
Our Bias-Boosting Nature. Bazerman, Loewenstein, and Moore also describe three tendencies of human nature that amplify unconscious decision bias. The first one, familiarity, means we are more willing to harm strangers than those with whom we have an ongoing relationship. The second, discounting, means that we weight immediate decision consequences more heavily than future consequences. The third tendency, escalation, means that we are more apt to ignore wrongdoing if it starts small and gradually escalates. This last tendency can provoke unconscious bias to evolve into conscious corruption or fraud—often despite our best intentions.
Regulators sometimes acknowledge this fact. In their article, Bazerman and his colleagues quoted then Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Chief Accountant Charles Niemeier, who said: "People who never intend to do something wrong end up finding themselves in situations where they are almost forced to continue to commit fraud once they have started doing this. Otherwise, it will be revealed that they had used improper accounting in the earlier periods."
Our Two Reasoning Systems. Unfortunately, judgment traps and biases have a greater effect on the decisions of competent, well-intentioned people than we realize. That's because researchers have found that we actually have two different reasoning systems in the brain, and sometimes we use the wrong one. Pioneering psychologists Keith E. Stanovich and Richard F. West named these reasoning processes "System 1" and "System 2" in their October 2000 article, "Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate," in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
System 1 is automatic, mostly unconscious, fast, intuitive, and context sensitive. It's social in nature and is an evolutionary adaptation like our fight-or-flight instinct. System 2 is analytical, rational, based on rules, slow, not social in nature, works to achieve our goals, and is consistent with our beliefs.
System 1 reasoning comes into play when we make quick routine decisions like watching for traffic when crossing the street or moving away from signs of danger. Going through the day, it would be extremely time-consuming to apply analytical thinking to the hundreds of routine decisions we must make—such as what route to take to work, when to apply the brakes, when to use a turn signal, or when we should drink water.
We use System 2 thinking best for making thoughtful business decisions—such as choosing a raw materials supplier or what to accrue for obsolete inventory. But the more experience a decision maker has, the more he or she tends to rely on System 1 thinking. The judgment trap is that managers may rely on System 1 thinking in situations where System 2 would be more appropriate.
FIVE KEY JUDGMENT STEPS
Talent and experience are key components of effective judgment. But consistently following a proper judgment process enhances judgment skills for both new and experienced accountants.
According to the COSO report and KPMG monograph mentioned earlier, key elements of a good judgment process include having the right mind-set; employing consultation, knowledge, and professional standards; being aware of influences and biases; and making use of reflection and coaching.
What does a good, professional judgment process look like? The five key steps are listed in "COSO's Professional Judgment Process."
Notice that the first step is to define the problem and identify fundamental objectives. Don't assume everyone knows what they are and that you can skip the first step! Not properly defining the problem leads to a judgment trap called solving the wrong problem and wasting time. If you don't define the problem accurately, you could be influenced by a judgment trigger rather than a clearly defined decision objective. That's what happens when we underinvest in defining the fundamental issue.
Although the judgment process seems simple and intuitive, in the real world we encounter pressures, time constraints, limited resources, judgment traps, and self-interest biases.
AVOIDING JUDGMENT TRAPS AND BIASES
It takes hard work to avoid judgment traps and biases. For a list of the most prominent ones and how to handle them, see Table 1. Unintentional biases arise from using mental shortcuts, which are the results of System 1 thinking. Although these shortcuts are efficient and effective in some situations, they often result in predictable bias. When you cross the street in the United States, you automatically look to the left for oncoming traffic. This is an efficient and effective automatic response. But if you cross the street in the United Kingdom, where they drive on the opposite side of the road, this automatic response could lead to damaging consequences. Once you understand the implications of a shortcut, you can take measures to mitigate its impact. But you should be aware that mitigation is difficult and often has only a limited effect. City planners in London paint directions on the streets and take other measures to remind tourists to look to the right as well as the left when crossing the street.
To make quality ethical decisions, it's important for you to have an appropriate mind-set: an inquiring mind that analyzes objectives, information, and alternatives to reach a conclusion. But you must do all that objectively, critically, creatively, and somewhat skeptically.
Now let's follow a hypothetical CFO throughout her workday to show how hidden judgment triggers and biases affect her ethical decisions and what she can do about it.
A CFO'S PITFALLS
Julie Smith is the CFO of a midsize manufacturing company. It's Friday, and many things are happening at once. Today is the end of the company's second quarter, she is finishing the last round of her staff evaluations, and she has to give Human Resources (HR) her final decision on the new hire for the controller's office. Instead of looking forward to a relaxing weekend, she's worried about tomorrow's emergency board meeting to approve the acquisition of the company's main raw materials supplier. In addition, her children's spring school break starts next week. Her whole family plans to get up early on Sunday and fly to Florida for a vacation.
Julie is a CMA® (Certified Management Accountant) and a member of IMA® (Institute of Management Accountants). She diligently tries to follow the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice (see http://bit.ly/IMAStatement). But even if Julie were aware of all of her decision biases, behavioral research shows that it's difficult or impossible to eliminate them! Like most executives, Julie has little formal training in psychology, in how to make good judgments, or in how to spot human tendencies that threaten good judgment. Her bachelor's and master's degrees in accounting focused on technical knowledge needed to pass the CMA and CPA (Certified Public Accountant) exams. And her MBA focused only on managing change and strategic planning.
Julie has several important decisions to make before leaving on her vacation. This artificial deadline could lead to the judgment trap called rush to solve (see Table 1). Because she is rushed, Julie might not adequately consider all the job candidates and their qualifications before making a hiring decision. If she knows the previous salary of a job applicant, Julie's salary offer may be affected by a bias trap called anchoring—a preference to stay close to an initially named numerical value. Knowing the candidate's salary before the candidate earns an MBA may cause Julie's offer to fall short of what the candidate is really worth now.
The emergency board meeting presents other problems. Julie, the CEO, and the board chair are all urging the acquisition of their raw materials supplier for a price of $600 million. But business decisions made in a group setting like the board meeting can be biased because participants often suppress divergent views. In this case, no one wants to disagree with Julie and the CEO. The board doesn't encourage people to voice different opinions, which results in shallow thinking.
Also, the board may mistakenly believe that an early consensus is a sign of strength. It may not spend enough time defining the problem, clarifying issues and objectives, or considering alternative actions.
To see how Julie should have handled the acquisition issue using the COSO Professional Judgment Process to reduce decision-making bias, see Figure 1.
DON'T LIMIT PERSPECTIVES
At the emergency board meeting, Julie presented the potential acquisition as a "slam dunk" move with low risk. But she didn't present any alternative viewpoints. That's a red flag!
Julie needs to understand the concept of frames—mental structures or perspectives used to determine the importance of information. Imagine you're in a house where each window gives you a different view. By considering all the windows—the frames—you get a better understanding of where the house is situated. Julie considered only one frame—that the acquisition was a "slam dunk." Better decision makers are aware when they are dangerously limiting the number of frames.
The board made this problem worse by not defining its objectives carefully. Is the objective securing a long-term source of raw materials? If so, did the board consider other actions—such as a long-term supply contract, purchasing alternative suppliers, or purchasing less than 100% of the current supplier? The board's narrow framing of the issue creates a judgment trigger. Executives pounce on one action but not necessarily the best one. As the KPMG monograph notes, studies show that we become more confident as we become more experienced and successful. But our confidence actually increases more rapidly than our competence. If board members realized this, they might be more skeptical of the "slam dunk" recommendation.
I'VE MADE UP MY MIND
We all know people who say, "Don't bother me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." This attitude illustrates our unconscious confirmation tendency. We tend to look for evidence confirming our viewpoint instead of being evenhanded. If board members are pressured into accepting Julie's viewpoint, their research may turn up supporting data only.
And the fact that Julie has already suggested it will cost $600 million to acquire the supplier makes the board vulnerable to the anchoring judgment trap—our tendency to not move far from an initially named numerical value. So even if buying the supplier is a good idea, Julie has biased the board to spend about $600 million on it.
But what if Julie didn't name a figure and assigns someone to investigate the supplier? The researcher finds that the supplier has been profitable for the past 10 years but that some older, difficult-to-find information hints at major unsolved problems. In that case, a judgment trap called availability might trip up both the researcher and the board because there's a tendency for decision makers to consider information that's easier to retrieve as being more relevant to a decision than less accessible information. Auditors can fall prey to this trap also. An auditor may follow an approach used in previous years or on a recent engagement even if other approaches may be more effective. Our "desires" heavily influence the way we interpret information.
In addition to considering alternatives, the way the board examines them can bias a decision. The board should consider multiple options at the same time rather than one option at a time. If options are considered consecutively, there's a tendency to approve a suboptimal option and then not give equal consideration to other options, according to Kathrine L. Milkman, Dolly Chugh, and Max H. Bazerman in "How Can Decision Making Be Improved?" in Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Julie and the board also should consider all stakeholders' points of view. As Julie documents her conclusion, she should assess whether it makes sense and whether the underlying information supports it.
Thus Julie and the management team are facing judgment traps and unconscious biases in a variety of areas. But the biggest problem is that they aren't even aware of them.
REDUCING BIAS
The good news is that everyone can start reducing bias with four simple steps:
Follow a sound judgment process,
Be aware of judgment traps and biases,
Reduce conflicts of interest, and
Try to recognize situations causing vulnerability to bias.
Then you have to follow up and continue to work at it. Behavioral research consistently demonstrates that being aware of judgment biases is only a first step in reducing their effects. Even with awareness, it's very difficult to overcome biases. And other things can bias our decisions, such as anger, tiredness, stress, and how many issues we handle at the same time.
But working on this will pay big dividends. By following a sound judgment process, you can replace knee-jerk reactions with formal analysis. That's the way to make your everyday ethics excel and protect yourself, your company, and all its stakeholders.
Steve Goldberg, CPA, Ph.D., is a full professor of accounting at the School of Accounting, Seidman College of Business at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Mich. He teaches and does research in international accounting and ethics and has taught auditing, financial accounting, and managerial accounting. You can reach him at (616) 331-7410 or goldbers@gvsu.edu.
Bruce Bettinghaus, Ph.D., is an associate professor of accounting at the School of Accounting, Seidman College of Business at Grand Valley State University. He teaches and does research in accounting ethics, financial reporting theory, and managerial accounting. You can reach him at (616) 331-7154 or betting@gvsu.edu.
0 No Comments
AI for Decision Analysis
Sort and Screen for Sustainable Sourcing
IMA Goes Virtual
The Case for Full Disclosure

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Twelve years ago, Paranormal Activity was the low-budget, do-it-yourself horror film success story of 2007: Made for a paltry $15,000 or so, it found a receptive audience and grossed $193 million worldwide. Based on the return of investment (Paramount/DreamWorks acquired the film rights for $350,000), it is allegedly the most profitable film in the history of film. The movie spawned 5 sequels (technically six, if you count the 100% authorized Japanese release Paranormal Activity 2: Tokyo Night), with the most recent, 2015's Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension said to be the final chapter in the series.
But it all began with the original. Paranormal Activity being a horror movie, the plot is fairly straightforward and standard: a twenty-something couple, Micah and Katie, live in relative quiet and happiness until Micah brings home a video camera to document the strange occurrences that happen during the night. Katie reveals that she has been haunted since childhood, and hires a psychic to investigate. The psychic, like every other psychic who's ever existed or ever will exist, provides no help at all except to advise the couple to call a demonologist and not try to confront the monster themselves.
You can guess what happens next: they ignore the psychic's advice, Micah invites the demon to do its worst, and over the course of the next couple weeks, it does. Maybe that's a spoiler, but we're talking about a horror movie here. They're not going to agree to a truce and all go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes.
While being praised by some, the climax of the film angered a lot of viewers. Really, there's only so long viewers can be expected to watch a person taunt a mysterious, possibly supernatural entity that's clearly mean-spirited if not outright hostile. On the other hand, we don't go to movies to watch smart people doing smart things—if I wanted that, I'd hire a documentary crew to follow me around all day, hi-yo! What brings us to horror movies is the scares, and Paranormal Activity serves up some genuinely creepy stuff alongside old horror standbys like Ouija boards and quick jumps.
If it wasn't clear from the above plot description, Micah spends pretty much the entire movie being a jackass. Not that this in and of itself is strange, like there aren't jackasses in the world, of course, but he maintains his obnoxiousness so long that by the end, I was cheering for the monster. I'm guessing that's not what the filmmakers wanted. Story-wise, his skepticism is really only there to keep the pair in the house so more scary stuff can happen—the filmmakers didn't do anything to earn his wild and inconsistent swings between skepticism and credulity. Katie is a complete blank slate—even though she's more affected by the, uh, paranormal activity and spends more time on screen than Micah, we don't really learn a lot about her or get much reason to care what happens to her. There are your protagonists, folks: Annoying and Boring.
For a story based on things that don't actually exist, however, most of the movie actually does a good job of making things seem real. The incidental, unexplained bumps in the night are relatable and draw the audience in, setting us up for the supernatural stuff later. Unfortunately, like so many horror movies, the, uh, paranormal activity loses its effect once we know exactly what's going on. And even though it looks like the movie violates the old storytelling rule of "show, don't tell," it turns out to be a good decision -I'd much rather be told the explanation than see a cheesy, low-budget rubber suit.
The filmmakers clearly subscribed to the idea that the unknown is scarier than anything that's known, so we the audience never actually see what's terrorizing our plucky-if-slightly-really-stupid couple. The "found footage" approach works to great effect in the early scenes – we see what happens before the characters do, leading to some truly great "LOOK OUT!" moments as Micah finds out what his girlfriend is doing while he's sleeping. The effect stays around until the endgame, once the audience has been beaten about the head with the obvious explanation for everything. Still, as the credits rolled, my wife and I had to make a pact to never interfere with each other's sleep. That's relatable horror, folks!
All in all, Paranormal Activity didn't exactly break the mold when it came out – but it certainly was a relatively fresh take in a horror genre that's been bloated with the same old stuff for quite some time. It's no wonder that the movie captivated audiences and created a half-dozen films in its series.


text:
Exploring British Airways' Dreamliner 787-9 – Club World
Credit: British Airways
British Airways' Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner planes are featured to make passengers feel fresher at the end of the flight. Now, isn't that a wonderful feature! BA's Boeing 787-9 aircraft has been in service since late 2015, and the fleet serves destinations ranging from Beijing, Atlanta to Toronto. The planes are innovative and include an advanced pressurisation system making the internal cabin altitude lesser than other aircraft. Let's explore the Club World (Business-class) flight.
On arrival at the airport, and completion of the security and clearance formalities, get ready to be ushered in and enjoy the pre-departure drinks like water, juice, champagne, and newspapers.
The Seating
Aboard BA's Dreamliner 787-9 Club World cabin is like two cabins that are divided by a galley. The rows 6 and 7 can accommodate around 14 fliers. And, a smaller section adjoins an eight-person first-class cabin and extends from rows 10 to 13, and the larger section can seat around 28 fliers. In both cabins, the seats are configured to 2x3x2 and every second seat faces backward.
The yin-yang configuration of seats implies that neighbouring travellers can look at each other. However, after take-off, a divider can easily be raised via a button which works as a barrier if a passenger chooses privacy over facing a stranger. The seats are quite comfortable and can easily be converted into a full-flat bed. Apart from which, there is a drawer at the base of the seat, which can store a laptop, reading materials, or wash bag. Passengers would be provided with a pillow, a soft-woven blanket, a bespoke duvet, and more.
The friendly crew are exuberant and experienced and are known to make the flying experience warm and informal.
The in-flight entertainment options are wide-ranging. Fliers can enjoy the 10.4-inch screen with on-demand films ranging from classics to international releases. If they wish to plug into work can enjoy the access to one power point and two USB sockets.
Food and Drink Service
The food and drink service created by expert chefs, which starts shortly after take-off is par excellence and suits all tastes and diets. The fliers get a choice of a hearty meal with scrumptious dessert options. So, from mouth-watering starters, fresh seasonal salad, to wholesome mains, followed by tea, coffee, and chocolate, the fliers can have a wonderful spread of food and drink options. Apart from which the full bar service is open through the flight.
Enjoy exploring on-time flights and a friendly crew, aboard a great aircraft.
JamieP
Air Charter Companies, Aircraft Models
Inside Honda's 5.2 Million Dollar Private Jet
Turbulence 101: Don't Let the Plane Rattle You
SyberJet SJ30i and SJ30x New Entrants in Light Jet Market


GLENDALE, Ariz. — On the first day of spring training, the messages from general manager Rick Hahn and manager Rick Renteria were clear: The White Sox are holding themselves to a higher standard in 2019.
It may not be a playoff-caliber standard. Sorry, that will have to wait till next year, even though players are already claiming the Sox, who made decent but not significant offseason changes, will somehow go from being 100-loss bad to postseason material.
But it's a standard that calls for marked improvement. It's time to hit or get out of the box, Renteria said after watching pitchers and catchers take part in their first drills of camp at Camelback Ranch.
Possible translations: Lucas Giolito, cut down on the walks. Reynaldo Lopez, do not lose focus for one single pitch. Tim Anderson, find a way to get on base a little more. Yoan Moncada, put more balls in play.
In the third year of a rebuild, after losing 95 and 100 games the first two seasons, the Sox are not yet built for the postseason. Perhaps next season, if the aforementioned players — as just a few examples — get better and as minor-league talents become major-league contributors.
Jon Jay, veteran newcomer, looks around the clubhouse and sees "a ton of talent in this room" — developing every-day players such middle infielders Anderson and Moncada and left-hander Carlos Rodon; prized outfield prospect Eloy Jimenez; and proven veterans such as Jose Abreu, Welington Castillo, Yonder Alonso, Alex Colome and Kelvin Herrera. To Jay, this is no 95- or 100-loss unit.
"Sky's the limit," he said. "You never know what's going to happen. That's the beauty of baseball.
Keep in mind, players on teams that will be out of contention in July are saying similar things at camps all around baseball this week. Sox players said a lot of the same last spring, and look what happened.
But this year is on a different plane, Hahn said.
"We're very cognizant of fact of where we are in this rebuild," Hahn said. "We know we're entering Year 3. But you are starting to see the fruit of the hardship and labors on the scouting and trade side.


We strongly recommend watching the below videos to get started. They'll take a total of ten minutes. At the very least definitely watch "Getting started".
Most of our help docs are for troubleshooting. If you want to dive deep on Statwing, though, reading through them could be useful.
Statwing will work with poorly formatted data, but your analysis experience will be much more efficient and delightful if you follow these guidelines for formatting your data for Statwing.
If you don't have a dataset handy, download a sample dataset to play with.


text:
Novak Djokovic overcomes injury, qualifies for Melbourne
Melbourne Australia — Novak Djokovic He propped up his left boot on a fieldside signal so he might stretch his hamstring which he then admitted mattered to him. He made a grimace whereas flexing the muscle after one level, and jumped on his proper leg to maintain the load off left one after one other. He took a medical time-out whereas a coach re-taped him through the second set – which Djokovic would go on to drop.
As if he wanted one other distraction, Djokovic was flustered sufficient by the boycott that he requested chairman Fergus Murphy to take away the spectator from Rod Laver StadiumHe advised the official, "The person is drunk out of his thoughts… He is been scary. He simply needs to get in my head."
As Djokovic summed up afterwards: "Lots occurred tonight."
2 associated
Here is what did not occur Thursday evening on the Australian Open: Djokovic did not utterly lose his method and most significantly did not lose within the second spherical, which each of them did. No. 1 seed Rafael Nadal And No. 2 seeds Casper Highway.
Searching for a tenth title at Melbourne Park, so as to add to his personal file, and his twenty second Grand Slam title total, to equal Nadal, Djokovic put every part apart and beat the 191st-ranked Frenchman in qualifying. Enzo Quacode 6-1, 6-7(5), 6-2, 6-0. It was Djokovic's twenty third consecutive Australian Open win, a streak that was paused a yr in the past when he was unable to play within the event as a result of he had not been vaccinated in opposition to COVID-19.
"I am nervous. I imply, I am unable to say I am not. I've cause to be nervous," Djokovic mentioned of his hamstring, noting that he must keep away from coaching days earlier than matches.
"There's not a lot to speak about," mentioned Djokovic. "There are two choices: go away it or transfer on. So I will go on."
A gaggle of individuals sporting purple and white striped T-shirts straight from "The place's Waldo?" He left the sector after Djokovic pleaded his case with Murphy about somebody giving him a very arduous time.
"What I wrestle with is when somebody crosses the road a number of occasions…and says issues that weren't respectful in any respect," Djokovic defined in his press convention, including that it went on for over 1/2 hours. "I've had sufficient, you realize?"
This did not sound like a really thrilling contest, on condition that fourth seed Djokovic did every part he did, whereas Kwakod entered with a career-high 2-5 mark. No matter possibilities Quacode had beforehand appeared to wane in simply 4 video games, when he turned his proper ankle and required a go to from a coach.
However Couacaud overcame that and performed freely, eliciting some spectacular shot-making.
"You simply must take care of it," Djokovic mentioned. "A kind of circumstances and conditions the place possibly issues do not work out completely." "However this can be a sport."
He was speaking about his opponent's play, however feelings took over the evening nicely.
There was little of Djokovic's standard interplay with the group as he organized his sport. After breaking away to guide 2-0 within the last set, he ran round his aspect of the courtroom, as if to indicate his opponent, and others, how good he was feeling and the way nicely he was taking part in.
In one other second, he basks in gasps of approval by pointing his index finger at his proper ear, asking for extra.
Kwakod manages to have some enjoyable too, when he briefly makes issues somewhat enjoyable, celebrating his declare to the second set by pointing to the courtroom as if he had been referring to "That is my home!"
Which in fact it isn't. The place belongs to Djokovic, who will play No. 27 Grigor Dimitrov After that, he learns that two extremely ranked contenders are now not potential obstacles.
Categories Tennis
Sky Overseas: Rundown No. 1 update 8
Mizuno JPX923 Forged Touring Irons S23 Wedges
5 of the new species were discovered in 2023
Behavioral Digital Health Transformation | Shepherd Moline Richter & Hampton LLP


My garden speaks to me and says, "Carol, your destiny is to weed".
No revelation there, everyone's garden tells them the same thing. "You must weed".
It matters not what we do in the garden. How much we mulch. How careful we are with not disturbing the soil, lest we expose weed seeds that have been lying dormant under ground, seeds that only need a tiny beam of light and a drop of water to awaken them and cause them to germinate.
Weeds are tricky when they germinate. Weeds seem to grow deep, expansive roots first, before they reveal their leaves and announce their arrival in the garden. Then when you go to pull that tiny little weed, it feels like you are trying to pull a nail out of hardened cement with your bare heads.
Weeds protect themselves, too. They often have thorns and sharp little hairs along the stems so you can't just casually reach down with your bare hands when you first see them. No, you must stop what you are doing, arm yourself for battle and then pull those weeds.
Weeds know how to hide. They grow close to desirable plants where they won't be noticed until the desriable plant is hollering, "Help me, I've got a weed taking up my space in the garden." Then you almost have to perform surgery to remove the weed and leave the desirable plant intact.
I have no hope of a weed free garden, at least not for now. I know what I'm up against. I even know where the weeds are most likely to grow. I know their names. I know their techniques. I know which ones will laugh and grow back after my feeble attempt to remove them. I know the annual weeds. I know the perennial weeds.
I know that my destiny is to weed.
And now that I know this, the garden can stop growing weeds to drive this point home.
Oh yes, and how about those plants that aren't, technically, weeds, but sure grow like weeds?
And then, I've also learned that some people's wildflowers are other people's weeds.
I work at home and weeds make it dangerous for me to walk out and have a quick look at the flowers. I always end up seeing a weed and pulling it and then when I'm down there I see another one. And another and before I know it I have been crawling around the garden for an hour pulling weeds and my productivity goes out the door.
Gosh, I hope that works, Carol. Acknowledging the weeds means they don't have to work so hard to get our attention? Hey weeds! I know you're out there!
This is one method to get rid of weeds that I haven't heard about. I will go out and tell my weeds that I know they are there and that it is my destiny to weed. Maybe that will persuade them to stay in the side lot.
If only the garden would listen to your last words. Alas, weeding is my destiny as well but I find it cathartic and gratifying with a little bit of 'so there' mixed in.
My weeds whisper insistently, until they get big enough to shout - which never takes very long.


Our journey through the Pacific Northwest began in Seattle where two of our good friends (Jason and Maura) took us in for a few days. As soon as we got there, the couple rolled out the red carpet for us and we were off to the races. Before we knew it, we had been to the Public Market, caught a fish, seen the original Starbucks and met some of their friends for a rooftop BBQ overlooking CenturyLink Stadium.
The next day we were treated to a boat ride on Lake Washington and an amazing dinner downtown. We were even able to link up with one of our good friends from Hopkins, Erin, who lives and works there now. The weekend was so amazing that Jason and Maura convinced us to stay an extra night to relax, catch up on Game of Thrones and of course have yet another amazing dinner downtown at their favorite Italian spot.
Neither of us had ever been to Seattle and we really enjoyed this city. They clearly love their coffee there, so it wasn't hard for us to relate on that.
After leaving Seattle we decided to spend a night exploring Olympic National Park. Due to our extended stay in Seattle we lost a night, but we were still glad to get into the park and experience it. We decided to camp in the Hoh Rainforest, which is one of the largest temperate rainforests in the US and it was amazing! Tall trees for miles covered in deep green moss, it was like a scene from Avatar. We also were able to see Ruby Beach and arrived just as a fog was rolling in, so it made the whole experience surreal (and quite photo friendly).
The trip to Olympic also marked the first time we were able to get a glimpse of the Pacific Ocean since we left. We officially made it coast to coast!
There was absolutely no way we were going to drive down the coast and NOT stop to explore the wine regions of Oregon. Not only have the Willamette wines become some of our favorites over the years, but when we were in Burgundy it was all the French wanted to talk about! It seems everyone is very curious about what is going in Oregon, so we had to check it out.
We ended up staying right outside the town of Newberg on a farm and the second we arrived we knew we were in for a treat. Our new hosts, Sarah and Bubba were some of the nicest people we have met during our travels. Before we knew it, they had introduced us to half the town and made us feel like locals. They were so amazing they even allowed us to stay for an extra night free of charge. Faith in humanity restored!
Over our three days there, we explored various wineries including Beaux Freres (one of our favs), Soter and Domaine Drouhin. Bubba even brought us some wine from his place Nicolas Jay, which was awesome. We also took a day to explore Portland.
It is funny how some of our most memorable experiences have everything to do with the people we have met. Yes, Willamette is a gorgeous part of the world and yes, wine was plentiful; however, the folks in Newberg took us in and we feel like we made some amazing friends. This made all the difference and we will certainly be back to visit!
Despite hearing about raging wildfires around the Crater Lake area, we decided to take our chances and visit. We had just heard so many amazing things about this area that we had to give it a try.
Crater Lake was formed over 7,500 years ago when a volcano named Mount Mazama collapsed. It created a giant crater and over the years has become the deepest lake in the United States. The cool thing is that the lake is entirely fed by rain and snowmelt!
When we arrived to see this volcanic lake our fears came true. We could see the lake, but we watched as huge plumes of smoke descended upon it. Before we knew it, the lake had disappeared and the smoke from the fires had won. Could not see a thing. It was also crazy how quickly the smoke was able to engulf the lake as the winds changed. We camped for the night hoping we would get another shot in the morning for sunrise.
We got up early the next day and drove in the dark to the lake hoping we would get a chance to see it before we left. Luckily, the smoke had cleared and we experienced one of the most gorgeous sunrises we had ever seen. The colors from the sun reflecting off the deep blue hues of the lake were just incredible. Worth the risk and the visit for sure!
Well, not surprisingly we are very behind. We are currently in Austin, TX and it has been quite a journey from Crater Lake to get here. We drove down the entire coast of California, through Arizona, Utah and Colorado and are now here. We have a lot to catch you up on!
We apologize for the delay but now that we are (mostly) working our way through cities we should be able to get everything up to date. We can't wait to share our experiences and some incredible photos from places like Yosemite, Grand Canyon and the parks in Utah.
Thanks again for following along and all of the support. Speak soon!


In Cottrill v Utopia Day Spa and Salons ( 2017 BCSC 704) Judge Harris was faced with the issue of the validity of an employment contract which was signed on the first day of employment.
Most Courts have ruled that an employment contract containing a restrictive termination clause ( restricting the employee to only the minimum requirements upon termination contained in the Employment Standards Act ) is not enforceable if it is first introduced to the employee on or after the first day of work.
The theory behind this principle is that the deal was already made before the start of work, in that the parties agreed before the actual first day of work on the essential terms of employment, including position, start date and compensation. As this oral agreement did not have a termination clause, the law imposes a term into the agreement that the employee can only be terminated without just cause upon receiving reasonable notice of termination.
For the Employer to introduce a new term, that is a an express termination clause, requires the Employer to now provide fresh consideration, failing which the termination clause is of no effect.
12 In April of 2004, the plaintiff was interviewed for a position by Ms. Fell. She was subsequently called back for a "practical interview" in a group setting, in which she and other applicants were asked to perform skincare services on staff. She later received a telephone call from Ms. Fell in which Ms. Fell told her that she had been successful and that her first day would be on May 3, 2004.
13 On the first day, she went through an orientation program, which included meeting with various representatives of the company and signing a written contract of employment.
13 That said, I will consider the plaintiff's submission that the 2004 and 2014 written employment contracts do not apply to the plaintiff for lack of consideration. The plaintiff suggests that she was employed on an oral agreement, which provided for common law notice and that it was not effectively modified by the subsequent employment contracts.
20 The essence of any legally enforceable contract is consensus ad idem; there is no contract without the required meeting of the minds. Both parties to an alleged contract must have manifestly expressed an intention to be legally bound by the agreement and the parties must be shown to have reached consensus on the essential terms of the alleged contract. The parties must have expressed those essential terms such that "their meaning can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty" by the courts: Frolick v. Frolick, 2007 BCSC 84 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 30.
115 The parties must therefore have reached an agreement on the essential terms for the employment contract to be enforceable.
116 Here, the plaintiff asserts that an oral employment contract was formed in the telephone call in which the plaintiff was told she was "hired", while the company contends that Ms. Fell told the plaintiff that "she was successful in her interview and to come in for an orientation". I am not persuaded that, given the effluxion of time, either the plaintiff or Ms. Fell recall precisely what was said in the 2004 phone call. However, I am satisfied from their evidence, that the telephone discussion was brief and that there was no discussion of the terms of the plaintiff's employment. Although in some circumstances, the court may imply reasonable terms to give effect to the unexpressed intentions of the parties, it must be satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. In this case, I am not satisfied there was any discussion of the essential terms of the employment relationship in the telephone call. I find the written contract of employment was executed before the plaintiff commenced her position as a skincare therapist.
117 I accept Ms. Fell's testimony that on May 3, 2004, she followed her usual practice with the plaintiff, which was to go through all the required paper work, the company policies, and the terms of the employment contract. The plaintiff does not dispute that she was asked by Ms. Fell if she was comfortable signing the contract and whether she wanted to obtain legal advice. The plaintiff also did not dispute that Ms. Fell reviewed the contract with her, line by line.
118 Further, in cross-examination, when the plaintiff was asked about her 2004 telephone call with Ms. Fell, she testified that she was told by Ms. Fell she "was going to be hired and to show upon on May 3 at the Langley location". Despite the plaintiff's suggestion that, as she had trained on the first day, she had worked prior to signing the contract, her evidence was that she did not start her work duties with the company until after she signed the contract.
119 In my view, the instant case can be distinguished from the decision in Francis in which the employee had signed a full offer letter prior to signing a more restricted formal agreement and from the decision in Holland in which the employee had been working for nine months prior to being presented with a written agreement.
120 The decision in Rejdak can also be distinguished. In that case, the evidence supported that the employer and employee had agreed to the salary, position title, and start date on the phone prior to the employee starting work and that the employee had done a full days' worth of worth before being presented with the written contract. I am not able to find that the plaintiff and the company discussed such essential terms as salary and benefits during the phone call.
121 I find that this case is more analogous to the situation in Bern v. Amec E & C Services Ltd., 2007 BCSC 856 (B.C. S.C.). In that case, Mr. Justice Bauman (as he then was) held that the contractual relationship between the parties did not crystallize until the plaintiff had reviewed all the terms of the written contract. He emphasized that the plaintiff did "not begin performing his duties of employment" until after the written contract had been signed. Here, I find that the plaintiff's first day was an orientation day, in which she toured the spa facilities, was advised on general procedures and policies, and reviewed the contract of employment. There is no evidence that she provided any skincare services prior to signing the agreement. I am not satisfied that she could be said to have commenced her duties as an employee prior to signing the contract.
122 I, therefore, find that the 2004 agreement was valid and in effect during the plaintiff's employment.
1) The legal analysis should start with the premise that reasonable notice is a term of the employment unless the party claiming otherwise can prove the contrary. Thus the onus of proof in this case always rests upon the Employer to prove that the essential terms of the agreement were not discussed in the earlier two interviews or the phone call prior to the first day of employment. Here the Judge reverses the onus , finds that neither party can really remember what was discussed 11 years ago ( DUH!!) and finds therefore that the Plaintiff loses.
2) There is no dispute that when she showed up on May 3rd, she had not even seen the termination clause. There is no evidence to believe that she was not paid for her attendance on May 3. What possible policy reason could there be to distinguish between an " orientation day " and a " skin care day "? What if the orientation and training period had lasted 2 days or 2 months before the employee actually did any productive work ?
This area of law is confusing enough, and now employees have to have an exact memory of the day they were hired, what time of day they first saw the contract and what activities they did and did not do immediately before and after the signing of the employment contract. This is completely unrealistic.
How onerous could it possibly be to simply tell an Employer that if they wish to restrict the common law duty to provide reasonable notice of termination, that they must provide the employee with that information before the first day of work so that the Employee can have a realistic opportunity to assess whether or not they wish to be employed under those terms?
In Hart v Parrish & Heimbecker ( 2017 MBQB 68) Justice Edmond upheld the dismissal of 42 year old Merchandising Manager with 15 years service for a series of four separate incidents that the plaintiff had with peers and subordinates.
In essence he was found to have yelled at employees , displayed excessive anger, and similar activity.
These matters were discussed with the Plaintiff on a number of occasions.
34 For the period from October 16, 2013 up to and including the date of his dismissal, the plaintiff surreptitiously recorded meetings with senior management of the defendant. He recorded the meetings by placing his cell phone on the table in the record mode and did not advise the parties that they were being recorded. The plaintiff sought to enter the recordings as an exhibit at the trial. The defendant agreed that the recordings could be entered in evidence and that submissions would be made regarding the weight and relevance of the information contained in the recordings. The recordings commenced shortly after the complaint by Mr. Letkeman.
The Employer claimed that the fact that the Plaintiff made secret recordings of his meetings with management was itself grounds for dismissal. This is what the Judge said about that issue.
97 The plaintiff's inappropriate use of his cell phone in secretly recording meetings with his superiors does amount to a breach of his confidentiality and privacy obligations to the defendant. The plaintiff admitted on examination for discovery that he knew a breach of the confidentiality obligations could result in termination (examination for discovery transcript of the plaintiff held December 11, 2014, qq. 34 – 45, Exhibit 10).
98 The misuse of his cell phone was also a breach of his personal code of conduct that he prepared as a result of his meetings with Stone Ridge Consulting. In conducting the contextual analysis and assessing the severity of the misconduct, the plaintiff did not disclose the recordings to third parties outside of the defendant other than to his legal counsel and for the purpose of these proceedings.
99 This evidence was considered by me as a factor in determining whether the defendant had just cause for dismissal. However, it is unnecessary for me to decide whether the plaintiff's use of his cell phone amounts to just cause for dismissal in this case. The plaintiff's misconduct, as noted above, was relied upon by the defendant at the time of dismissal, and in my view, that provides just cause for dismissal in the circumstances of this case.
I have always had concerns about the issue of secretly recording meetings or telephone discussions with coworkers or bosses. This is the first case that I am aware of in which the Courts have dealt with this issue.
This case should serve as a warning to those parties and their lawyers who think that secretly recording an employer or a co-worker is a good idea.
Ironically in this case it does not seem that the actual recordings in any way helped the Plaintiff's case.
In Glimhagen v GWR Resources ( 2017 BCSC 761) Justice Rogers was faced with a plaintiff who during the course of his 23 years association with the defendant had been an independent contractor, then a dependant contractor and finally an employee.
However in order to determine the amount of reasonable notice, the judge had to determine the period of time in which the Plaintiff was either an employee or a dependant contractor, as his time as an independent contractor did not count towards reasonable notice.
Most of the reported cases deal with the difference between an employee and an independent contractor whereas this case deals with more exacting differences between two different types of contractors.
We identify the issue of employees who are misclassified – intentionally or unintentionally – as independent contractors not covered by the ESA as a significant one and recommend that the Ministry make misclassification a priority enforcement issue. We further recommend that the term "dependent contractor" be added to the definition of "employee" in the ESA Finally, we recommend that where there is a dispute about whether a worker is an employee, the person receiving the worker's services has the burden of proving the worker is not an employee and an obligation to provide all relevant evidence.
The Judge in this case went over all the relevant factors and determined whether each factor favoured either the dependant or the independent contractor status .
I will quote extensively from the judgement as it best shows the judges' reasoning .
49 The defendant never required the plaintiff to provide services exclusively to it. In fact, even after he went on the defendant's payroll the plaintiff continued to be free to provide accounting and consulting services to other parties.
50 The factor militates against a dependent relationship at any time prior to August 2012.
51 The evidence demonstrates that at the outset, the plaintiff provided computer consulting services to the defendant. The defendant had no expertise in computer based accounting systems. The plaintiff controlled the advice he gave to the defendant about what kind of accounting system to install and how to operate it. Further, the plaintiff testified that he designed and set up the digital accounts and control systems for the defendant. The plaintiff also designed and implemented an on-line system for tracking the defendant's accounts receivable and accounts payable. The evidence was quite clear that the defendant did not direct the plaintiff in those tasks.
52 The physical bookkeeping that the plaintiff performed for the defendant was done at the defendant's direction.
53 The accounting processes that the plaintiff carried out were the kinds of processes required of any in-house accountant. He was directed to prepare quarterly financial statements and to put together the information necessary for the defendant's auditors. The defendant made it clear to the plaintiff that these were among the things he was expected to do. The defendant did not, however, provide the plaintiff with a set of instructions on how to do those tasks — the defendant left it to the plaintiff to apply his own expertise.
54 The defendant also required the plaintiff to ensure that its corporate filings and account keeping complied with the policies and regulations of the TSX. Again, the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with an instruction manual to carry out his responsibilities. The defendant relied on the plaintiff to educate himself as to the relevant elements of TSX operations and to comply with those strictures.
55 This factor militates somewhat against the plaintiff being a dependent contractor.
56 The plaintiff always used equipment and software supplied by the defendant. He carried out his tasks at the defendant's places of business. Only occasionally did the plaintiff do the defendant's work from his home office.
57 The factors argue in favor of the plaintiff being a dependent contractor.
58 The plaintiff was not required to show up at the defendant's office at any particular time of day, nor was he required to put in a given number of hours of work in a day. The defendant did not control the plaintiff's hours of work; the defendant only required that the plaintiff properly perform the tasks assigned to him. To the extent, then, that the plaintiff performed his work efficiently more hours of the day were available for him to devote to promoting his other business interests. On the other hand, the plaintiff might have to forego other remuneration if his work for the defendant increased in a given month due to, say, the need to prepare accounts for a quarterly or annual report.
59 Further, the plaintiff regularly accepted shares issued by the defendant in lieu of cash for his work. In so doing, the plaintiff took a risk that he would not be fully paid, as would be the case if the value of the stocks fell, or make a profit over his monthly stipend, as would happen if the shares increased in value.
60 The factor argues against the plaintiff being a dependent contractor.
61 The plaintiff's work for the defendant was an integral part of the defendant's operation. It would not have been possible for the defendant to have carried on its business without a set of properly functioning books of account. The same is true of the document management that the plaintiff performed for some years ahead of his appointment as corporate secretary. It cannot be said that the plaintiff's duties were peripheral to the defendant's business.
62 Further, the plaintiff carried out some degree of financial control over the defendant's operations. He usually assessed whether an account ought to be paid and determined when to pay it. While the plaintiff was not wholly in charge of the firm's finances, he did act as a watchdog over inappropriate use of the defendant's money. To that extent, then, the plaintiff was looking out for the defendant's business, not his own.
63 The evidence relevant to this factor argues in favor of the plaintiff being a dependent contractor.
64 The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant started in 1989 and persisted through to 2012 — a span of 23 years. It may be important to note that the plaintiff's tenure with the defendant was not punctuated by his coming and going. The plaintiff provided services to the defendant steadily and without interruption throughout that period.
65 Significantly, the plaintiff's 'job description' changed considerably when his sister Margret passed away. With her passing he began to take over the things that Margret had been doing for the defendant. Those things included some office management and financial control.
66 The evidence establishes that not only was this a long-standing relationship, it was an evolving one as well. Over time there was an increase in the plaintiff's tasks and responsibilities for the defendant.
67 This factor militates for a dependent contractor relationship.
68 There can be no doubt that prior to his becoming an employee in August 2010, the defendant relied heavily on the plaintiff. Although there was no direct evidence on the point, I find that it is more likely than not that by the late 1990's the plaintiff was the only person in the defendant's organization who thoroughly understood the systems managing the defendant's finances. And again, while there was no direct evidence on the point, I find that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff relied on the defendant's monthly stipend to tide him over droughts in his other business enterprises. Both parties relied on each other.
69 Additionally, they coordinated their interaction, especially when it came to the preparation of quarterly and annual financial reports. For those reports to make sense and be delivered on time, the plaintiff and other members of the defendant's management had to work together to gather, collate and process the relevant data. Mr. Shives testified to an example of that coordination when he described how and why the plaintiff would regularly visit his field office in Lac La Hache, B.C.
70 This factor argues in favor of a dependent contract relationship.
71 Taking all of the evidence into account, I have concluded that prior to the late 1990's the parties were not so tightly bound together and their efforts were not so integrated with one another as to have made the plaintiff a dependent contractor.
72 I find that when the plaintiff took on his late sister's role with defendant, that status began to evolve. By the year 2000, the plaintiff was an integral part of the defendant's operation — it would have been very difficult for the defendant to have carried on efficiently in the plaintiff's absence. By the same token, although the plaintiff was free to pursue other business interests and he did in fact pursue those interests, his relationship with the defendant was, by the year 2000, well ingrained and established.
73 For these reasons, I find that as of the year 2000 the plaintiff was a dependent contractor for the defendant. It is from that year that the plaintiff's entitlement to notice credits starts to accumulate.
As the Plaintiff was found to be either an employee or a dependant contractor for 12 of the 23 years and the judge found that the proper notice was 12 months.
In an adjudication under the Unjust Dismissal section of the Canada Labour Code, Arbitrator Allan Kaufman decided in Navaneethakrishnan v Bell Mobility ( YM2707-10699) ( 2017 CarswellNat 1825) as whether a single act of insolence constituted just cause.
The Employee was called into a meeting to be told that she was being promoted, but not to the job that she had hoped for. The employee was not a happy camper.
• "I'm way too smart for this, I studied Finance, I did my CFA, I'm way too smart." At which point she unilaterally walked out and ended the meeting with her boss, Luca.
Luca was her boss and Marco was the boss of Luca.
18 I regard this conduct on the part of the employee, if true, as being very serious, since was accusing her immediate boss, and his boss, of not knowing how to lead, and of basically being incompetent. After all, there are not too many worse comments that an employee can hurl at her boss' face than what this particular employee was alleged to have said. Fortunately for the employee, there was nobody else in the meeting room who heard her comments, except Luca. Yet he was her immediate boss and she is alleged to have said these things directly to his face.
However the Adjudicator found that the employee was entitled to a warning before a termination for just cause could be upheld. I have no problem with that finding.
However, the Adjudicator went on to find that two of the Employer's actions also contributed to his finding that the employment relationship was not totally severed.
1. Before termination, Bell wrote the employee a letter.
5. However, the main problem for the employer is that the employer's own letter of termination dated May 17, 2016 suggests that the employment relationship had not been totally severed between the parties. This is evidenced by the fact that the employer took the highly unusual but very generous step of writing in its letter of termination to her dated May 17, 2016 that if she could come forward and advise the employer of any adverse medical condition or other personal issues in her life that might have explained her outburst during the May 11th meeting, the employer would consider re-hiring her. I believe this to have been a most generous gesture on the part of the employer. However, it served at the same time to undermine the employer's legal argument that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer could not subsist. If the relationship was completely irreparable, as the employer contended before me at the Hearing, how could the employer have offered in its letter of termination to even consider the possibility of taking her back to work? Yet the employer did so.
The answer to the adjudicator's question is obvious. If in fact her outburst had a medical basis then this would trigger a duty by Bell to accommodate her under human rights legislation. Surely the Employer's legitimate and arguably legally required inquiry should not be held as evidence against the employer.
2. The Employer paid the employee three weeks termination pay .
6. The employer's own letter of termination dated May 17, 2016 also contained the unusual step of paying the employee the statutory two week notice of termination pay under the Canada Labour Code, plus two weeks of continuing coverage under the employer's medical plan. In addition, not only did the employer pay to her that two weeks' pay, but it also paid her a third week of pay following her termination – up to June 5, 2016. I view all of this as "unusual", since if the employer was taking the position in its letter of termination that it was terminating the employee for cause, I would not have expected the employer to have paid her three weeks' pay thereafter – or any other amount for severance pay. It was almost as if the employer – while asserting at the Hearing before me that it had cause to terminate the employee – did not fully believe it, as reflected by its conduct at the time of the dismissal.
The effect of this thinking is to reward employers who treat dismissed employees cheaply ( paying then nothing by way of termination pay ) and to punish those employers who chose to pay a dismissed employee some minimal termination pay, even when they have alleged just cause.
Moreover the issue of whether the employer believes they have or do not have cause should be irrelevant.
Just cause is a matter of law. It is not based the opinion of the parties.
In almost every mediation I have regarding the issue of just cause, one party feels strongly that there is just cause and the other that there is not.
I only care about predicting the opinion of one person. The judge.
In Benjamin v Cascades Canada ULC ( 21017 ONSC 2583) Justice Glustein was faced with assessing the correct notice period for a unskilled general labourer with 28 years service who upon termination was only given his ESA minimum payment of 34 weeks.
The major issue was whether or not the Plaintiff had reasonably mitigated his damages.
He was terminated on May 12, 201 as part of a plant closure that involved 41 other employees.
He decided to retrain as a skilled welder and thus attended full time school for 6 months from August 2016 to February 2017. Because of this he did not apply for any job prior to the motion for summary judgement which was held on April 10, 2017. He also did not attend the outplacement counselling or coaching offered by the Defendant.
His reason for choosing retraining was so that he could improve his skills and so that he could restore himself to his former job security and income.
Cascades brought to his attention three comparable positions at other plants run by the Defendant. He ignored all of these opportunities. This was part of a program run by the Defendant to bring to the attention of all terminated employees job opportunities both inside and outside Cascades. The Defendant led evidence to the effect that had he applied for any of these positions, he likely would have been accepted .
On the onus issue, the Judge had to decide whether the test required the Employer to prove that the employee could have obtained alternative employment or would likely have obtained alternative employment.
 I agree that there are differences between establishing a "could have" onus as compared to a "would likely have" onus. For the reasons that follow, however, I find that the Michaels test sets out a "could have" onus and it is the proper approach to follow.
While the onus is on the defendant to prove the plaintiff has not mitigated, it would be impossible for any employer to prove that the employee would have been able to secure a particular job.
 Counsel for Benjamin agreed that an onus requiring employers to establish that the employee "would have" obtained a comparable position would be logically "impossible" and is not appropriate. I agree for the reasons of Truscott J. in Cimpan.
 However, to increase the onus on an employer to show that the employee "would likely" have obtained an available comparable position, as submitted by Benjamin, raises similar concerns as in Cimpan. Under such a proposed test, employers would somehow have to establish the "likelihood" of a dismissed employee obtaining a comparable job, potentially requiring the employer to lead evidence as to the number of candidates applying for a job with another employer, and knowledge of the particular aspects of a candidate's resumé that might be attractive to other employers.
 While the "would likely" test is not logically impossible in the same sense as the "would have" test discussed in Cimpan, it is nevertheless inconsistent with Michaels and is unreasonable.
Because Venture did not lead any evidence about the availability of suitable employment, the trial judge concluded that Venture had not met the second prong of the test set out above.
 In none of the above cases do the courts suggest that they are seeking to alter the onus as set out in Michaels. If there is any uncertainty as to whether the employer is required to establish that the employee "could have" obtained comparable employment or "would likely" have obtained comparable employment, I would adopt a "could have" test based on the decision in Michaels and my reasons discussed above.
 A decision by a terminated employee to seek retraining is not, on its own, a basis for an employer to submit that the employee failed to reasonably mitigate damages.
 However, if the employer meets the Michaels test and establishes that (i) the employee did not take reasonable steps to seek comparable employment "by the exercise of proper industry in the search", and (ii) if the employee had done so, the employee "could have procured" such comparable employment, then the employee cannot choose to engage on a new career path as a "charge" to the employer.
 Such an approach maintains the onus on the employer to establish (as required in Michaels), that there were comparable positions available for the employee but the employee did not take reasonable steps to pursue those opportunities.
 Further, this approach maintains the Michaels principle that an employee must attempt to reasonably mitigate damages arising from wrongful dismissal.
 If the employer can establish that the dismissed employee (i) chose to retrain instead of seeking comparable positions, and (ii) could have procured that comparable employment, a dismissed employee ought not to have a "free pass" to change careers to enhance job security or obtain better hours, and then collect damages for notice simply because of dismissal. In those circumstances, an employer should not be required to fund retraining (through payment of reasonable notice) when the employee could have obtained comparable employment.relied upon by Cascades. Retraining on its own is not evidence of a failure to reasonably mitigate damages; rather, if an employer can establish that comparable work is available and the employee made a choice to retrain and not to seek comparable employment, retraining would not constitute reasonable mitigation.
 In the cases relied upon by Benjamin, there was evidence as to efforts to find employment, the unavailability of employment, or other reasons why it was reasonable to make a career change, which allowed the courts in those cases to find that retraining was reasonable mitigation.
 In the present case, by contrast, the evidence is that comparable employment was available, which Benjamin could have procured had he taken reasonable steps to seek employment. In these circumstances, the decision to retrain does not constitute reasonable mitigation.
The next issue was one of timing. Does turning down a job to retrain for 8 months simply mean you deduct 8 months from the notice period or does the notice cutoff occur when the employee turns down the job?
 If a terminated employee chooses not to seek comparable employment that he or she could have procured after termination, the employee chooses to deprive the employer of the opportunity to avoid damages arising from the dismissal. If the plaintiff employee had made reasonable efforts and obtained such comparable alternate employment, the defendant employer would not have been exposed to any damages after that time. If the plaintiff had obtained the comparable position before the amount of months paid by the employer on termination, the plaintiff would not be entitled to damages.
 Consequently, I do not agree with Benjamin's submission. I find that the applicable law is that the plaintiff is not entitled to recoverable losses as of the date the employer establishes under the Michaels test that the plaintiff fails to reasonably mitigate damages.
The plaintiff got zilch as he turned down the job opportunity, or technically did not pursue it, before the end of the ESA period that he was already paid for.
Does this mean that a dismissed cannot go to school during his notice period? Is he or she stuck in the rut of having to look for another dead end job, just like the one he or she was terminated from?
Remember, the easiest thing to do in the whole world is to not get a job offer following a less than great interview for which you unfortunately were 15 minutes late for because your alarm was not working, or the TTC was slow or your dog was sick.
In Roberts v Zoomermedia Limited ( 2017 ONCA 327) the Plaintiff was found to be entitled to be paid two years lump severance pay upon the expiry of the contract as set out in the contract.
Among the arguments made by the Employer, it argued that because the contract disentitled the employee to STD and LTD during the 8 week termination pay period under the ESA, that the entire termination clause should be held to be null and void. The effect of this would be that the Plaintiff would simply get his common law reasonable notice, which would never be as good as his two year lump sum severance entitlement under the contract.
The Court of Appeal first found that the issue was not necessary to decide as the clause in question was really the actual dispute , but in any event , they had this to say about the Employer's some what novel argument.
Effectively, the appellant argues that because it did not agree to provide the respondent with all of his statutory entitlements – entitlements that were conditional on an early termination, an event which never occurred – the respondent must therefore forfeit his contractual entitlements: contractual entitlements that are far greater than what either the ESA or the common law would have provided. This would be a perverse application of a statute that is intended to protect the interests of employees, and I would reject it.


TIKI Brand Molded Glass Tabletop Torches are sold separately and come with the 6 in. Next time you dine al fresco, gather everyone around your table to experience the warm glow of natural flame lighting.
The TIKI brand Geo Globe Table Torch comes complete with a long-lasting wick and a metal snuffer to safely extinguish the flame once the night ends. TIKI brand BiteFighter Torch Fuel sold separately.
A handle detail provides the option of hanging. Designed with classic appeal, this THREE HANDS lantern is handcrafted in ceramic. Perfect for indoor or outdoor use, this piece will adds a casual appeal to your decorating style.
It is a versatile decor piece perfect for everyday use, parties, holidays or any occasion. These lanterns are safe to use indoors or outdoors. These tabletop metal lanterns bring a beautiful source of ambient light to your home or special event.
It's never been easier to bring a vintage feel to your outdoor party. The Vintage Lantern from Northpoint comes with a classic look and no strings attached. This vintage-style lamp illuminates any area with 12 high intensity LED bulbs.
A metal base provide anchor for a hurricane glass to protect a candle from the elements. Designed with classic appeal, this THREE HANDS lantern is constructed out of metal. A beautiful weave design is anchored by studs.
The soft glow of a halogen bulb releases fragrance from your candle. This rustic brown modernized hurricane style lantern uses Candle Warmers Etc's patented top-down warming technology with your favorite scented candle.
The TIKI Brand Petite Lantern Metal Table Torches comes complete with long-lasting wicks and metal snuffers to safely extinguish the flame once the night ends. TIKI brand BiteFighter torch fuel sold separately.
Designed as a stark, eye-catching orb, this modern piece of decor is perfect to add some sleek design to your outdoor space. The gray rounded oil lamp is minimal and sleek. Features a sleek, rounded design.
A metal handle provides versatility for hanging. This THREE HANDS wood and glass lantern features a natural finish in a sphere shape. Great for indoor or outdoor use, it will hold a small pillar, tea light or votive candle.
✓ 8.25 in. x 8.25 in. x 14 in.
It features a pear-shaped frame formed by horizontal rings held by bent vertical rods, a flat round base, a circular open top, and an arched rod handle. This candle lantern's solid iron construction makes it ideal for both indoor and outdoor use.
This kit comes complete with everything you need to create 12 lanterns, including 12 Lumabases to anchor the bags, 12 white designer bags with silver snowflake motif and 12 battery operated LED tea lights.
Intended for both indoor and outdoor use, these charming lanterns are each powered by 3 AA batteries (not included) and is sure to cast a beautiful glow in your home or yard for years to come.
It is made of sturdy iron materials with a distressed blue finish that will bring elegance to rustic spaces. This candle lantern features a classic Moroccan-inspired design with its punched filigree patterns and domed top.
Bring a glow to any setting; indoors or out. Our Large Rustic Wood Lantern offers a mix of beautifully stained wood accented by aged bronze metal. Use alone or mix and match with other pieces in your home or office.


text:
12 Ways to Conserve Water
June 07, 2016 by Eva Pollard in Circular Lifestyle
I live in California, and as you might have heard, we are in the midst of a pretty severe drought. Fresh water isn't just scarce in California; it's very important, regardless of where we live, to conserve this vital resource which makes all life on this planet possible.
According to the EPA, the average American family of 4 uses approximately 400 gallons of water per day. The average person living in the U.K. only uses 150 liters of water per day (39.62 gallons). Wow--we are extremely wasteful in the United States!!! We need to collectively reduce water consumption, and the ways to do so are extremely straightforward--everyone can participate.
1. Reduce meat & dairy consumption. Animal agriculture uses an insane amount of water. For example, it takes 660 gallons of water just to produce 1 hamburger patty. Yikes! I recently went vegetarian purely for environmental reasons, as animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change.
2. Eat fewer water intensive foods that are grown in California. "The average American consumes more than 300 gallons of California water each week by eating food that was produced there." Almonds, walnuts, lettuce, broccoli, asparagus, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, peaches, oranges, and corn are just some of the water intensive crops grown in California to supply most of the United States.
a. Lettuce Vs. Chard. More than half of the lettuce consumed in the United States is grown in California. Swiss chard has really deep roots unlike lettuce and is more resilient in hot weather. It takes 3.5 gallons of water to grow one head of lettuce. Chard wins!
b. Almonds & Walnuts Vs. Hazelnuts. It takes 4.9 gallons of water to grow one walnut, and 1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond. Opt for hazelnuts which are drought resistant due to extensive root systems. They are also grown in Oregon where rainfall is abundant. Hazelnuts win!
c. Corn Vs. Potatoes. It takes 146 gallons of water to grow 1 lb. of corn compared to 1 lb. of potatoes which only requires 34 gallons. Potatoes win!
d. Asparagus Vs. Cauliflower & Broccoli. It takes 258 gallons of water to grow 1 lb. of asparagus. Meanwhile, it only takes 34 gallons of water to grow 1 lb. of cauliflower and/or 1 lb. of broccoli. These brassicas are still water intensive, and given that shit tons of broccoli is grown in California--Cauliflower wins!
e. Grapes Vs. Hops It takes .03 gallons of water to grow one grape and 872 gallons of water to produce just one gallon of wine. To produce one gallon of beer it takes 296 gallons of water. I slightly panicked when finding this out because I drink more wine than beer; however, when it comes to a serving size, it actually takes about 28 gallons of water to produce a 12oz. beer, and 35 gallons for a 5 oz. glass of wine. Beer wins!
f. Oranges: It takes 13.8 gallons of water to grow a single orange. Opt for organic oranges that are grown in Florida instead of California.
g. Strawberries: .04 gallons of water per berry to grow in California.
h. Stone Fruit: My favorite fruit has an insanely high water footprint. 1 lb. of nectarines takes 142 gallons of water to grow. Skip the nectarine, and opt for peaches that are grown in Georgia or Missouri to help combat the California drought.
3. Pick a low water dishwashing technique. Dishwashing vs. hand washing--let's dish. First off, it's a good idea to scrape our plates of any excess food into the compost, leaving less possibility for food to congeal or dry up like a piece of hard plaster that is just the effin WORST to scrub off later. Second, after some reading about dishwashers and how some are super efficient at saving water, I have come to this conclusion: Don't wash each dish individually as this wastes an extraordinary amount of water, and if you have an energy efficient dishwasher, use it only when it's full. I don't have a dishwasher, so I get my sponge wet, add a dollop of eco-soap, and scrub all the dishes without running the water. Then I fill the sink up half way and rinse all the dishes. Because I use an earth safe dish soap, it's possible to dump the grey water outside to give the ground and plants a little lift.
4. If it's yellow, let it mellow. I know many people are not down with this practice, but it saves so much water. Newer efficient toilets use about 1.6 gallons per flush, while older toilets can waste anywhere from 3.5 - 7 gallons per flush. A low flow toilet and bidet will also save resources (less water, less toilet paper). Letting it mellow simply requires a little extra scrubbing when you do eventually flush just to keep the toilet bowl sparkly--seriously no big deal. Some might recommend putting a brick in the toilet tank to save water. I do not, as the brick will slowly break down and the sediment can damage the tank.
5. Shut off the water in the shower. Turn off the water while washing body, hair, and when shaving. I keep my showers around 5 minutes long. An 8.2 minute shower uses 17.2 gallons of water. We don't own a bathtub (which I miss), and it's a good thing because they are super water suckers ranging, from 40 gallons per small bathtub fill to 100 gallons per large bathtub fill. Low flow water shower heads are also a good idea and pretty affordable. Showering less-- like every other day as opposed to every day --will significantly cut water use. My hair is very long, and in order to save water and keep it healthy, I only wash it a couple times a week. I use my DIY dry shampoo when it gets oily in between shower days.
6. Reduce outdoor water use. Let that lawn turn brown, and if you just have to plant something, then pick native and drought resistant plants that require less water and are more resilient against diseases. I personally love succulents, and they are abundant in Nor Cal. If you have a garden, it's best to water in the early morning or evening when the outside temperature is cool. This allows the plants to absorb all the moisture before the sun's light evaporates it. Mulching around your plants can prevent further evaporation. Instead of using the hose to wash down driveways and walkways, it's possible to use a broom to sweep debris instead.
7. Turn off the water when washing hands & brushing teeth. The average bathroom water faucet uses approximately 2 gallons per minute, making it super important to shut the water off while brushing our teeth and while soaping up our hands before rinsing them.
8. Use Less electricity. Power plants use thousands of gallons of water for cooling. By conserving electricity, we also conserve water.
9. Check for leaks. It's a good idea to look at your water bill to check for spikes in cost that can indicate a water leak. It's equally important to check faucets and hoses for leaks. A slow drip can waste anywhere from 7-10 gallons per day. That's a lot of water, and a lot of money down the drain.
10. Laundry. It's important to wear clothes more than once before washing them. I think we can get away with this especially with jeans (we wash ours every two weeks provided that we weren't having mud fights or something). Wash your clothes with cold water. Most of the energy in washing clothes comes from heating the water. In the summer months it's easy to hang dry clothes instead of using the dryer.
11. Don't wash your car at home. If you just have to wash your car, even in the midst of a drought, take it to a carwash. Running the hose at home to wash a car can waste upwards of 150 gallons of water. Plus, if you are using chemical soaps, they will run into the storm drain and pollute, as opposed to a car wash whose waste water goes to the water treatment plant. Car washes also use recycled water! If you don't want to take your car to the car wash per the gross chemical soaps they use, but absolutely have to wash your car, use an eco-friendly soap that will not pollute the environment. Save water in buckets from your showers to wash and rinse your car.
12. Reuse water whenever possible. Just boiled water and cooked pasta for dinner? Perfect. Instead of pouring the water down the drain, strain your pasta over another pot, let it cool 100%, and water your plants with it. If you don't use chemical soaps for washing dishes, you can save your grey water to also water your plants. Or, keep a bucket in the shower to catch water, which can also be used for mopping the floor, flushing the toilet, etc...
Less Plastic Challenge Day 15: Food Storage
Less Plastic Challenge Day 12: Reusable Utensils
Hazelnuts: A Sustainable Nut
June 07, 2016 /Eva Pollard
waterconservation, lesswaste