Algur

Algur t1_ja0vw9k wrote

Reply to comment by Fakarie in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

>n most situations, a leather shoe provides sufficient protection.

That’s not relevant. The only thing relevant to this conversation is what the reg requires. Based on what I’ve read in the regs, the following rating is required:

Impact resistance (I) for the toe area of footwear (50 foot-pounds)

3

Algur t1_j9zwhar wrote

Reply to comment by LClaypool2112 in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

>“ General requirements. The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects,

0

Algur t1_j9zwbqf wrote

Reply to comment by Fakarie in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

>What is actually says: The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects,

2

Algur t1_j9z6ily wrote

Reply to comment by MrR0m30 in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

Per the reg, Protective footwear must comply with any of the following consensus standards: 1910.136(b)(1)(i) ASTM F-2412-2005, "Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection," and ASTM F-2413-2005, "Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear," which are incorporated by reference in § 1910.6;

1910.136(b)(1)(ii) ANSI Z41-1999, "American National Standard for Personal Protection -- Protective Footwear," which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or

1910.136(b)(1)(iii) ANSI Z41-1991, "American National Standard for Personal Protection -- Protective Footwear," which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6.

1910.136(b)(2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section.

Do sneakers meet those standards?

2

Algur t1_j9ypjlf wrote

Reply to comment by the_skine in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

So your warehouse isn’t in compliance with the above regulation. That doesn’t mean that the reg doesn’t exist.

0

Algur t1_j9yno24 wrote

Reply to comment by Fakarie in Workers tasked with moving products in the U.S. food and beverage supply chain are at a high risk of severe injuries and fatalities — Grocery wholesalers and grocery retail stores saw the highest number of injuries, followed closely by the warehousing and storage groups by marketrent

OSHA 1910.136 requires steel toe shoes protective footwear in a warehouse environment. When you have proof that something exists and someone is staunchly arguing that it doesn’t, I don’t see a problem asking them to prove their stance.

2

Algur t1_j6p5q21 wrote

Reply to comment by ScienceIsSexy420 in ELI5: What is the point of Christian Colleges?? by C_Wisn

> So what that means is that any reason is valid except for the protected reasons.

Correct.

>This was contrary to what the person I responded to was saying, which is why I phrased it that way.

Incorrect. This is in agreement with the person you responded to. It’s contrary to your initial comment.

The issue here is that you made an incorrect statement, were then corrected, then proceeded to say that your initial statement was correct while at the same time agreeing with the correction.

1

Algur t1_j6nftv6 wrote

Reply to comment by bobjoylove in ELI5: What does it mean when a company buys back stocks and why is it frowned upon? by lilly_kilgore

>This is a discussion about why they choose buybacks over dividends or simply hoarding.

No. This is a discussion of "What does it mean when a company buys back stock and why is it frowned upon?" The answer as I detailed above is complex with various pros and cons.

>All of those scenarios occur after they have decided they can’t use the money for operations.

Incorrect. As I said above, buybacks are simply a financial tool that can be used properly or improperly. These discussions occur when management is considering how to best meet goals and objectives. Discussions regarding whether they have the necessary cash for a buyback to meet the objective will happen concurrently.

>There’s definitely the paradox that a failing company might have sufficient cash to do a buyback to protect its stock/EPS; as it likely would not be failing if it has billions in excess. The only time that might happen is a windfall such as from the sale of a significant asset.

Not really. It's incredibly unlikely that a company selling PP&E just to stay afloat is concerned about, or even has the means, to do a stock buyback.

1

Algur t1_j6n6wae wrote

Reply to comment by bobjoylove in ELI5: What does it mean when a company buys back stocks and why is it frowned upon? by lilly_kilgore

No. I actually did a breakdown of the pros and cons of buy backs for someone a couple days ago so I’ll copy paste it here. Some of it was geared toward that conversation so you may lack some of that context. Additionally, I’m on mobile so I apologize for any strange formatting.

Buy backs exist for many reasons, but the primary reason is to return shareholder value. It gets a bit more complicated that though.

Here are a few pros.

Flexibility - As opposed to dividends, which shareholders may expect, companies can buyback stock as needed based on their financial needs and goals. This also give shareholders more flexibility certain shareholders can "cash in", but others may want to hold on to their shares if they think the value will rise. Signaling - This is the idea that a buyback is simply a signal to shareholders that they company thinks their stock is undervalued. From an accounting standpoint, when a company buys back shares they are placed in a contra-equity account. The company will then likely re-issue these shares at a later date when they feel the stock price is at the right level. FYI, this is reason that was most discussed in my accounting courses. Capital Recirculation - Returning cash to shareholders via a buyback allows them to invest in other up and coming businesses. Tax Advantages - This will vary by jurisdiction. Long term capital gains are taxed at preferential rates, while dividends may or may not be taxed at those rates depending whether they are qualified dividends. And here are the cons:

Financial Ratio Manipulation - If executive management has certain EPS goals that are falling short they may perform a buyback artificially reach that objective. To break this down a little bit, if income is falling short of their objective then they may buy back stock to decrease the denominator in the EPS calculation. This is deceptive in my opinion and should be properly disclosed to financial statement users. Insider trading - Honestly, this one is true whether or not buybacks are illegal. As an example, insiders can buy stock in their company shortly before a new product is announced. All buybacks do is change the beneficiary of the insider trade from an individual to the business. Just so we're clear, I believe people who engage in insider trading should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Contribution to Income Inequality - You've already little tapped on this above. However, it's worth noting that evidence on this is mixed and should be evaluated in a case by case basis. Poor Timing - this is just the inverse of the Signaling pro above. Basically, management mistimes the market and buys at a peak rather than a trough. This can happen in all investing though and is why investments carry an inherent risk. Leverage - This is essentially the Weighted Average Cost of Capital, which is complex and I haven't worked with in awhile so I don't want to get into it at the moment lest I say something inaccurate. In summary, buybacks are neither magic bullets to increase a company’s earnings per share nor a nefarious means of enriching executives or shareholders. Buybacks are simply a financial tool.

1