Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As a franchise owner, imagine that 37% of your employees had a serious problem that reduced their productivity and led to absenteeism and high turnover. What if it cost you $83,000 each time this problem occurred? Now, imagine that by preventing this problem, you would see a 57% higher total return, 19% higher market premium and a turnover reduction of 20%. Isn't this a problem you'd like to address?
That problem is workplace bullying. Far from being a “soft” concept that franchise workplaces may tolerate, it is a pervasive and costly concern that is largely preventable. Workplace bullying can be defined as a repeated behavior that has a negative intent and negative effect on one or more targets in a work environment, where there is an imbalance of power between the bully and the target(s).
Recognizing Bullies
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?