Everything About Business Except The Bottom Line: FunnyBusiness

Green Mountain's coming battle with Starbucks and Kraft - Nov. 23, 2010

FORTUNE -- Traders have sent shares of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) soaring by 15 percent since opening Monday. The bid-up amounts to a huge sigh of relief: late Friday, the company announced that it would restate nearly three years' worth of earnings downward. But the total amount of the restatement comes to just $5.8 million, and the company blamed accounting errors -- not malfeasance -- for its 11 quarters' worth of erroneous financial statements.

But that doesn't mean Green Mountain's troubles are over - far from it. Some observers, including short sellers, thought the company's shares were overpriced well before Monday's runup, and even before the announcement in September that the Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation into Green Mountain's "revenue-recognition practices with one of its fulfillment vendors."

Just a few months ago, everything was looking great for Green Mountain. Revenues and profits were soaring, as was the stock price, and the company was enjoying a growing reputation as a responsible corporate citizen. But lurking beneath all the good news was the simple fact that Green Mountain was about to face a flurry of competition that could take big chunks out of its industry-leading 36 percent share of the growing single-cup coffee market.

via money.cnn.com

Found this extremely interesting because one of my clients - 1Quickcup.com is an online business that sells K-Cups. There are a ton of nuggets in there..particularly interesting was a section on the dispute between Starbucks and Kraft. According to the article, Starbucks, which currently provides coffee for Kraft's Tassimo machines,is going to start offering their own single serve machine.
While single serve coffee only makes up 7% of the coffee market, its share grew over 100% last year.

National Labor Relations Board Says Employees Shouldn't Be Fired For What They Say On Facebook

Image Credit: Perez Hilton

 

The company in question is American Medical Response of Connecticut, an ambulance service. According to a complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board,  the conpany illegally firedan employee who was trash talking about a supervisor on her Facebook page.

The employee, Dawnmarie Souza, allegedly posted a critical comment about her supervisor, who had reprimanded her for attempting to join a union. The post, according to the NLRB, "drew supportive responses from her co-workers, and led to further negative comments about the supervisor from the employee." American Medical Response's policy reportedly forbids employees from discussing the company on social networking sites.

The implications for American businesses are huge.It's one thing to have to deal with unhappy customers on social networks, it's an entirely different situation when employees can legally discuss the corporate culture and specific individuals. If the National LAbor Relations Board is successful with this lawsuit, it will dramatically shift the balance of power between employees and their supervisors.

The board’s complaint prompted Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, a law firm with a large labor and employment practice representing hundreds of companies, to send a “lawflash” advisory on Monday to its clients, saying, “All private sector employers should take note,” regardless “of whether their work force is represented by a union.”

The firm added, “Employers should review their Internet and social media policies to determine whether they are susceptible to an allegation that the policy would ‘reasonably tend to chill employees’ ” in the exercise of their rights to discuss wages, working conditions and unionization.

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers’ criticisms of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally a protected activity and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.The case is scheduled to go to court, January 24, 2011.