The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 may represent “an unprecedented level of activism by the federal government” in executive compensation, according to Littler, a national law firm.One provision of the new law prohibits institutions that benefit from government aid from providing certain types of compensation to certain executives. Another provision uses the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit deductions by these institutions and to tax their employees in the event certain compensation practices are not followed. The Littler analysts say that the legislation is significant because the federal government has rarely strayed into the arena of directly regulating what types or levels of compensation may be paid, as opposed to regulating compensation by imposing tax sanctions or penalties.
According to Littler, since the penalties apply only to financial institutions that are assisted by the government under the bailout plan, the lead decision makers of a troubled financial institution may be tempted to consent to an acquisition or investment by private investors that is less favorable to shareholders than a transaction that includes federal assistance.
More than three-quarters of chief information officers reported that their company has either installed content-filtering or blocking software, instituted policies that detail acceptable web browsing, or done a combination of both, according to a recent national survey sponsored by Robert Half Technology. The most common reasons for having a policy limiting employee web browsing: to prevent employees from accessing inappropriate content at work; to prevent virus attacks, malware installation, etc.; and to keep employees from wasting time at work. See
Despite another year filled with lessons learned from tornadoes, floods and fires, 30 percent of businesses across the country are still not prepared for the worst-case scenario, according to AT&T's annual study on business continuity and disaster recovery preparedness for U.S. businesses in the private sector. Among the survey findings: fifteen percent believe that their systems currently in place are sufficient; 14 percent believe that the probability of a disaster causing business disruption is small, and 13 percent believe that the probability of a major disaster is small. The survey authors say this suggests that businesses may have a false sense of security. They also state that businesses are not heeding government warnings; of businesses hit by a disaster, only 41 percent take action when the federal or state government issues an alert. This is compared with an even lower figure of 33 percent for those companies that have not been affected before.