 |
|
|
|||||
According to a new NBC poll of 2,970 adults ages 18 to 29, Gen Z men and women are at oddsnot just about politics but also on how theyre viewed at work and what it means to be successful. For starters, men approve of Trump’s job performance at a far higher rate than women. A hefty 74% of women disapprove of the job Trump is doing, while only 53% of men in the same age bracket do. The genders were the most divided on Trump’s immigration policies, as 45% of men said they approve, while only 21% of women said the same. They also have different takes on gender and workplace culture. When asked if gender matters when it comes to getting ahead at work, more than two-thirds of men (69%) said gender doesn’t make a difference. Only about half of women (51%) felt similarly, and 44% of women said it helps to be a man. Only 27% of men answered the same way. One thing that Gen Zers were thought to be less divided on is their staggering rates of anxiety. Previous studies have shown that Gen Z struggles with anxietyabout work, finances, and the economy. However, according to the new poll, Gen Z women are far more anxious than men. While one-third (33%) of women said they feel anxious about the future almost all of the time, only 19% of men said they feel anxious “almost all of the time.” And when it comes to ideas about their plans for their future, as well as their views on what makes a successful life, Gen Z men and women are vastly different when examined through a political lens. Overall, they had the same top three answers on what defines success: “having a job or career you find fulfilling,” “having enough money to do the things you want to do,” and “having enough money to do the things you want to do.”However, when it came to women who voted for Harris versus men who voted for Trump, the answers were strikingly different. While the male Trump voters valued having children as the most important for personal success, the female Harris voters ranked it as the second-least important out of 13 choices, showing perhaps the starkest divide in the entire poll.
Category:
E-Commerce
A federal appeals court on Monday revived a Trader Joe’s lawsuit accusing a fledgling employee union of trademark infringement for selling t-shirts, buttons, mugs and reusable tote bags featuring the grocery chain’s distinctive red typeface and logo. In a 3-0 decision, The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California said a trial judge was too quick to dismiss the lawsuit against Trader Joe’s United, which said it was created in 2022 and has four local chapters. Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez said the strength of the Trader Joe’s name, the chain’s own sale of tote bags, and the “strikingly similar” marks featuring the same red color, similar fonts and concentric circles could confuse consumers. “This is not one of the rare trademark infringement cases in which there is no plausible likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused,” Sanchez wrote. Monday’s decision reversed a January 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Hernan Vera in Los Angeles, and returned the case to him. Vera called the union’s use of the Trader Joe’s mark fair use, and accused Trader Joe’s of trying to “weaponize the legal system” by suing to gain advantage in a labor dispute. Trader Joe’s disagreed, telling the appeals court that federal labor law protects many important union rights including advocacy, organizing and striking, but “selling branded goods in commerce is not one of them.” The union countered that no reasonable consumer would be confused by its tote bag, the only product sold by both parties. According to court papers, the Trader Joe’s bag featured wine, fruit, cheese and a cutting board. The union bag included a fist holding a box cutter, and the word “union.” Trader Joe’s is based in Monrovia, California, and has about 600 stores. Lawyers for the union did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trader Joe’s and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests. The case is Trader Joe’s Co v Trader Joe’s United, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-720. Jonathan Stempel, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump on Monday to keep a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission away from her post for now, temporarily pausing a judicial order that required the reinstatement of the commissioner who the Republican president has sought to oust. The court’s action, known as an administrative stay, gives the justices additional time to consider Trump’s formal request to let him fire Rebecca Slaughter from the consumer protection and antitrust agency prior to her term expiring. The stay was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency filings arising in Washington, D.C. Roberts asked Slaughter to file a response by next Monday. The Justice Department made the request on Thursday after Washington-based U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked Trump’s firing of Slaughter. AliKhan ruled in July that Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter did not comply with removal protections in federal law. Congress put such tenure protections in place to give certain regulatory agencies a degree of independence from presidential control. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 2 in a 2-1 decision upheld the judge’s ruling, prompting the administration’s request to the Supreme Court. Slaughter said she intends to “see this case through to the end.” “In the week I was back at the FTC it became even more clear to me that we desperately need the transparency and accountability Congress intended to have at bipartisan independent agencies,” Slaughter said. An FTC spokesperson declined to comment. The lower courts ruled that the statutory protections shielding FTC members from being removed without cause conform with the U.S. Constitution in light of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that case, the court ruled that a president lacks unfettered power to remove FTC commissioners, faulting then-President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner for policy differences. The administration in its Supreme Court filing argued that “the modern FTC exercises far more substantial powers than the 1935 FTC,” and thus its members can be fired at will by the president. The court in a similar ruling in May said the Constitution gives the president wide latitude to fire government officials who wield executive power on his behalf. The administration has repeatedly asked the justices this year to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January. Slaughter was one of two Democratic commissioners who Trump moved to fire in March. No more than three of the five commissioners can come from the same party, and the FTC has operated since April with three Republicans at the helm. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has pursued conservative political goals at the agency, including holding a workshop on what it called the dangers of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, saying the agency would investigate whether employers coordinated diversity, equity and inclusion goals, and telling Google that filtering Republican fundraising emails as spam could be unlawful. The FTC has also sought to investigate media watchdogs accused by Elon Musk of helping orchestrate advertiser boycotts of his social media platform X, and cleared Omnicom’s $13.5 billion acquisition of rival Interpublic after the companies agreed not to steer advertising spend based on political factors. Ferguson, who was appointed as a commissioner by Democratic former President Joe Biden last year, often dissented from actions taken by then-FTC Chair Lina Khan, who carried out a liberal political agenda aimed at checking corporate power. John Kruzel and Jody Godoy, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||