Poultry Processor Discouraged Injured Workers From Seeing Doctors, Feds Find

WASHINGTON -- One of the nation's leading poultry processors exposed its line workers to painful musculoskeletal injuries and discouraged them from reporting those injuries to doctors, an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found on Wednesday.

Wayne Farms, which bills itself as the fifth-largest poultry producer in the U.S., was issued 11 safety citations for hazards allegedly found at its plant in Jack, Alabama, nine of which were deemed "serious." The proposed fines for the citations top $100,000, which may be low for other regulatory agencies, but is quite stiff for OSHA, which is the federal government's workplace safety regulator. The company, which is based in Georgia, will have the option to appeal.

Significantly, OSHA decided to use what's known as the general duty clause in order to cite the company for hazards. Workplace safety law states that employers have a "general duty" to protect workers from harmful situations, though regulators usually rely on more specific standards to levy fines.

It's been more than a decade since OSHA used the general duty clause to cite a poultry plant for ergonomic hazards. Poultry workers, many of whom are immigrants, are generally low-paid and vulnerable to repetitive-motion injuries, particularly carpal tunnel syndrome. The case against Wayne Farms may indicate a new aggressiveness on the part of OSHA when it comes to policing the industry.

"The citations issued by OSHA are landmark," Celeste Monforton, an occupational health and safety expert, said in an email to The Huffington Post. "It's a breath of fresh air to finally see the Labor Department taking a tough stand against ergonomic hazards. The fact that it did so tells me the situation for workers was egregious."

In a statement, OSHA officials said that the hazards at the plant led to "serious injuries" for workers that went unreported to doctors as well as occupational safety officials. Inspectors also found that workers at the plant were forced to see the company nurse repeatedly before they were referred to an independent doctor.

"Wayne Farms effectively concealed the extent to which these poultry plant workers were suffering work-related injuries and illnesses," Joseph Roesler, OSHA’s area director in Mobile, Alabama, said in a statement. "And as a result, it reported an artificially lower injury and illness rate."

In a statement through a spokesperson, Wayne Farms said it was contesting several of the citations "while also investigating the circumstances surrounding the allegations." The company said some of the citations were in "vague, general terms that are hard to address or investigate."

"[O]thers specifically called out problem areas the company has either already addressed or that were in fact not violations of any specific regulation or safety protocol," the statement read.

Wayne Farms does business under the brand names of Wayne Farms, Dutch Quality House and Platinum Harvest. According to its website, the company processes 2.5 billion pounds of poultry each year at its 11 plants.

With the help of lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center, Wayne Farms workers filed a complaint against the company with OSHA earlier this year.

The Center for Progressive Reform, an advocacy group that pushes for stronger workplace safety standards, said the fine proposed for Wayne Farms "shows OSHA's commitment to addressing the widespread hazards that poultry workers face."

This post has been updated with comment from Wayne Farms.

All Your Favorite Halloween Candy Is Made By Only 10 Corporations

Arguably the best part of trick-or-treating as a kid was when you got home, dumped your take on the floor and evaluated the night's haul. Maybe you sorted it by which type was your favorite -- Hershey's over here, Reese's over there, sad, unwanted lollipops and Now and Laters thrown in the discard pile. Maybe you did it by color if you were an artistic type, or by flavor profile if you were a blossoming foodie.

Most kids probably don't sort their Halloween candy according to which company owns the brand, because most kids don't know or care where their treats come from. But if they, or an adult who cares a lot about candy conglomerates, were to do so, here's what it would look like:

Who knew Smarties and Tootsie Rolls had their own companies?

Unsurprisingly, American chocolate giants Hershey and Mars distribute much of the chocolate sold in the U.S. (and chocolate is America's favorite Halloween treat, according to a 2013 survey by the National Confectioners Association):

Note: The Huffington Post defined "Halloween candy" by going to Manhattan locations of CVS, Duane Reade and Walgreens and seeing what was being sold in the Halloween aisle. This is most likely not a comprehensive list of everything everyone considers "Halloween candy."

22 Percent Of Americans Would Rather Die Than Retire Without Enough Money

Saving for retirement is scary. So little is knowable, and so much is uncontrollable and uncertain. A new survey from Wells Fargo reinforces just how anxious middle-class Americans are over how much financial security they will have once they retire, if they can ever afford to.

Wells Fargo found that “22 percent of the middle class say they would rather ‘die early’ than not have enough money to live comfortably in retirement.”

This is the depressing state of retirement in America: survey questions that pose an early death as a viable alternative to comfortable retirement.

Americans at least seem to have gotten the message that’s been drilled into them in the 30 years since the 401(k) was created: Personal savings will be your primary source of income when you retire. Only 30 percent of Americans think Social Security will be their primary source of retirement income, according to the Wells Fargo survey.

But the survey also reveals that Americans are deeply aware their personal retirement savings are inadequate, especially as they get older. Forty-eight percent of respondents in their 50s said they won’t have enough to live on if they stop working. Would-be retirees with inadequate savings are left with the choice of working longer or accepting the much lower standard of living that comes with relying only on the government safety net to survive.

The survey defines "middle class" as households with an annual income of $50,000 to $100,000 for 30-to-75-year-olds, and annual household income of $25,000 to $99,000 for 25-to-29-year-olds. The current U.S. median household income is $51,900.

The survey’s rather generous definition of middle class – which skews higher than one common measure of 50 percent above and below median income – makes data points like these even more troubling:

• 19 percent percent of middle-class Americans have zero retirement savings
• 34 percent are not currently saving for retirement
• A staggering 41 percent of Americans between 50 and 59 are not currently saving for retirement

Based on the numbers, most retirees will be unable to match their current standard of living. The standard assumption is that your retirement income should be 70 to 80 percent of your working income. The median savings across all age groups was a paltry $20,000.

Even a group that has saved a relatively large amount, people in their 40s with a 401(k), haven’t saved anywhere near enough. Their median savings are $50,000. That’s good for a little more than a single year of retirement, based on the current median income. Even bleaker: 40-to-49-year-olds without a 401(k) have median savings of just $10,000.

Why aren't people saving more? The survey's responses offer a hint. Wells Fargo asked what spending “sacrifices” people would make in order to save more. A little more than half said they’d cut back on discretionary and impulse purchases like spa visits, eating out, or jewelry. Yet most of Americans' spending isn’t on such variable, discretionary things. Housing, healthcare, food, and transportation make up about 65 percent of Americans' spending. On top of that, incomes have fallen over the past decade.

In other words, Americans' inability to save for retirement is all about high fixed costs and stagnant wages, not indulgence and a lack of willpower.

Wells Fargo, of course, would like people to think that they can will themselves to save more, and save it with Wells Fargo. From this self-interested perspective, surveys like this are sales pitches. (The first three words of the Wells Fargo report are a link to the company’s retirement services website.) They are meant to jolt and perhaps scare people into doing what they know they should already be doing: saving a lot more.

But this strategy is only effective if people have the means to save. A few Americans have enough individual savings to maintain their standard of living in retirement; most don’t now and likely won’t ever.

The problem, Wells Fargo's Kim Wimbish said, is that “non-retirees worry about their ability to earn more in their lifetime, and they are skeptical the stock market is the place for them to grow their savings.” Those worries are unfortunately well-founded.

U.S. Consumers Sue Takata Over Airbags; Class-Action Status Sought For Larger Payout

(Adds detail on lawsuit)

Oct 27 (Reuters) - Takata Corp, the Japanese company whose potentially defective airbags have led to the recall of millions of vehicles, was sued on Monday by consumers who claimed Takata and several car manufacturers defrauded them by concealing crucial information.

The lawsuit, filed with a U.S. District Court in Florida, is believed to be the first in the United States to seek class-action status on behalf of consumers nationwide.

If that status is granted, it could subject Takata to a larger payout in a trial or settlement than if vehicle owners were forced to sue individually.

The federal lawsuit is at least the third filed against Takata in the last week over alleged airbag defects. The other lawsuits were brought on behalf of individual owners.

A Takata representative in the U.S. could not immediately be reached.

The lawsuit also names car manufacturers as defendants, including Toyota and Honda. Representatives for those companies in the U.S. also could not immediately be reached.

U.S. safety regulators are investigating whether Takata airbag inflators made from 2000 to 2007 were improperly sealed or subject to other defects.

At least four deaths and dozens of injuries have been linked to faulty Takata airbags, and their potential to rupture and spray metal shrapnel at vehicle occupants.

Takata "had a duty to disclose these safety issues because they consistently marketed their vehicles as reliable and safe," the lawsuit said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has urged owners of an estimated 7.8 million Chrysler, Ford , General Motors, BMW, Honda, Mazda , Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Fuji Heavy's Subaru and Toyota vehicles to replace their airbags

The case in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida is Craig Dunn et al vs. Takata Corporation et al, 14-cv-24009. (Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Ken Wills and Kenneth Maxwell)

Lululemon Partners With Dalai Lama, Enrages Critics

Lululemon can't even donate to charity without miring itself in controversy.

The yoga-wear retailer is getting slammed after announcing a partnership this week with the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education. Lululemon will contribute $750,000 to the Tibetan spiritual leader's nonprofit organization over the next three years to expand education initiatives and for "researching the connection between mind-body-heart," according to the company's press release.

Some critics say the alliance is hogwash. They don't think the Dalai Lama's name should be associated with a money-making enterprise and complain he's been "hijacked" and turned into a mere corporate marketing tool.

A mob flocked to Lululemon's official blog, lighting up the comments section with accusations of hypocrisy.

"As he believes that luxuries are not necessities, you believe in $100 yoga pants," one commenter pointed out.

"It is offensive that you have sunk so low as to use the Dalai Lama and his image as part of your branding," another wrote.

"I am put-off by Lululemon’s bizarre effort to hijack the Dalai Lama for brand-building and commercial gain," a third added.

A few who spoke out against the partnership claimed not to like the Dalai Lama, with one calling him "cruel" and another calling him "greedy."

Lululemon appears to disagree. "Both organizations share a common vision for developing the next generation of compassionate leaders in the world and are committed to engaging and empowering healthy communities," the company said in its press release.

Lululemon and the Dalai Lama Center did not respond to requests for additional comment.

Lululemon has a lot on its plate. Last spring, quality control issues sparked a recall of too-sheer yoga pants. Then, last fall, co-founder Chip Wilson irked many customers when he said Lululemon's pants "don't work" for some women's bodies. Earlier this month, Lululemon managed to offend the entire city of Buffalo, New York, by making fun of its NFL team.

One commenter summarized: "Dear Lulu, your product is still in question, don’t get me wrong. Great marketing, done! Now get back to improving your product and winning clients back."

Brace Yourself: Ugg Season May Be Even Bigger Than Usual This Year

Each year as the temperature dips, women across the country turn to their closets and dig their Ugg boots out of hibernation. Others head to stores to score a pair of the squat sheepskin booties in preparation for a chilly winter.

This year the Ugg frenzy may be even bigger than usual. Sales at the Ugg brand rose nearly 24 percent last quarter to $417 million, compared to $337 million for the same period the year prior, parent company Deckers reported Thursday. The spike was due to higher wholesale sales, online sales and new retail store openings worldwide.

And now, Ugg is about to enter its prime season.

"With temperatures turning cold in recent weeks, sell-through of weather boots and classics have gained pace across the majority of our markets," Deckers chief executive Angel Martinez said on a conference call with analysts on Thursday.

Ugg's upcoming product lines are "as compelling as we have ever seen for the company," Sam Poser, an analyst at Sterne Agee, wrote in a note to clients on Friday. He added that Ugg's reaping the benefits of favorable fashion trends, as shoppers search the aisles for comfy clothes like stretchy leggings and oversized sweaters.

However Ugg's holidays turn out, "Ugg Season" will remain. The annual donning of the Uggs has even made its way into memes, like "Girls be like."

Meanwhile, Ugg's plan to diversify its offerings seems to be working. Ugg is now selling more items that aren't dependent on cold weather. It launched a home goods line in October, offering an assortment of sheepskin area rugs, knit pillows and floor poufs. There's also Ugg's loungewear line, a casual clothing label. On the call, Martinez said that Ugg's home and loungewear businesses are still "small but burgeoning" and early results have been "very strong." Ugg will be pushing both lines hard through the holidays.

In an attempt to tell customers Ugg sells more than just shearling boots, the brand launched an advertising campaign in August with the tagline "THIS IS UGG," featuring sketch artist Langley Fox Hemingway and New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

But until those lines get bigger, Ugg remains a slave to the elements. According to a report from Nomura Securities, Deckers is the best example of a company that's exposed to weather risk, something it could never hope to control. So far, the climate has treated Deckers, which also owns footwear brands Teva and Sanuk, quite well this year.

"Despite the mild weather conditions over the last two winters, this year was more seasonably cool and snowy in many parts of the U.S., which had a substantially large impact on companies with a great deal of cold weather product including Deckers," Nomura analyst Bob Drbul wrote in the report.

Vitaminwater Pressured To Pay People Who Thought It Was A Health Drink

Earlier this month, Red Bull agreed to pay up to $10 to anyone who's ever bought a Red Bull to settle claims that it misled customers into thinking the energy drink “gives you wings.”

Now a nonprofit wants Vitaminwater to offer a similar payout.

Truth In Advertising, a Connecticut-based group that fights against deceptive advertising, is trying to get compensation for people who bought Vitaminwater thinking it was more healthful than it actually is. To do this, the group is pressuring a judge to reject a class-action settlement over the brand's advertising.

Earlier this month, Coca-Cola, which owns Vitaminwater, agreed to pay $1.2 million to end a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of residents of Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and the U.S. Virgin Islands that said Vitaminwater was making exaggerated health claims on its bottles and listing calorie counts for an unrealistic serving size. The company also agreed to list the total calories per bottle and add “see nutrition facts for more detail” to Vitaminwater labels.

But the settlement's critics point out that Coca-Cola had already made these labeling changes, meaning the settlement won't make any difference to Coca-Cola. Truth In Advertising wants the company to do more. It wants a payout for customers in the class-action states who bought the drink, and it wants Coca-Cola to change Vitaminwater's name and sell it as a soda, instead of a hydration or sports drink.

“Ideally, what we want is for Coke to compensate consumers for being deceived, similar to the Red Bull settlement,” Bonnie Patten, the executive director of the group, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. The group also wants Vitaminwater to end what it calls “deceptive marketing” by changing its name, Patten said.

A judge has to approve the current settlement on Dec. 2, but Truth In Advertising wants residents of the four states and territory listed in the lawsuit to send letters to lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants and court clerks in several locations before the Nov. 3 filing deadline and express opposition. Then, the settlement could be reconfigured, with a payout for those affected.

Coca-Cola may be eager to get the settlement approved because the case is similar to another one from 2009 that's still languishing in New York courts. The Center for Science in the Public Interest took Coca-Cola to court in 2009, accusing it of deceptive marketing and of violating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s rules against fortifying junk food with vitamins.

That lawsuit targeted Vitaminwater’s claims that its drinks could reduce the risk of chronic diseases, improve joint function and boost mental and physical wellness, according to court documents. The company has since replaced such blurbs with conversationally written anecdotes hinting at how the drinks, which contain about 33 grams of sugar per 20-ounce bottle -- or almost a third of the sugar in a bottle of Coke -- can improve focus, remedy alcoholic hangovers or boost immune systems.

Danielle Dubois, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, said the company was “pleased to reach an amicable resolution” of the class-action suit, but declined to comment on the earlier New York case. She did not immediately respond to questions about what prompted the company to change the blurbs on its bottles.

Steve Gardner, who as litigation director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed the original lawsuit in 2009, told HuffPost on Wednesday that the class-action settlement isn't really punishing the brand because Vitaminwater had already changed its labels. He said his nonprofit group was considering filing an objection to accompany Truth in Advertising's efforts with the judge.

“All the things they said Coke has agreed to change, Coke has now put in writing, but in reality they had already done,” he said. “The settlement is worthless to anyone in the public interest, the class members and the consumers, but it’s very profitable for the lawyers who settled it.”

McDonald's Is Still Very Cheap, But People Don't Want To Eat There

As sales and profits have crumbled at McDonald's recently, some observers have blamed low-income Americans, saying they must not be able to afford Big Macs any more.

But that's wrong. If anything, Big Macs have gotten more affordable lately. The real problem is that the iconic chain needs to win back its true base: middle-class Americans looking for a cheap, quick meal.

For the past 11 months, sales at U.S. McDonald's restaurants open at least a year -- a key measure of an eatery's health -- have fallen or remained flat. The company announced earlier this week that U.S. same-store sales fell 4.1 percent in September, the worst monthly drop in more than a decade, and that profits plunged 30 percent in its latest quarter. The company's stock price has tumbled about 11 percent over the past six months.

One common explanation for McDonald's woes is that low-income Americans are suffering from a sluggish recovery and unable to afford eating out at McDonald's any more.

But the numbers don't back up that take. For one thing, McDonald's has actually become more of a bargain relative to other food options in recent years: McDonald’s prices haven’t risen as quickly as prices at fast-casual eateries like Panera Bread, according to data from Technomic, a food research firm. Nor have they risen as quickly as broader food inflation, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data:

McDonald's menu prices grew more slowly than prices at fast-casual chains and food inflation overall between 2009 and 2014.

And yet diners are still flocking to other chains despite their typically higher costs. When Chipotle raised menu prices earlier this year, customers didn’t bat an eye -- the chain reported a profit jump of 25 percent the following quarter. That suggests McDonald's problem isn't so much pricing, but a perception that its food isn't worth any price -- unlike, say, Chipotle, which has positioned itself as offering fast, fresh and quality food for which customers are willing to pay more.

Unlike Walmart, whose fortunes have largely mirrored that of the poor, McDonald’s doesn’t take food stamps. That makes it an unlikely regular destination for low-income Americans, according to Joel Berg, the author of “All You Can Eat? How Hungry Is America?”

In fact, a 2011 study from the University of California-Davis found that fast-food consumption actually rises with income, until incomes reach about $60,000.

“That conventional wisdom is wrong,” Berg said of the notion that poor people are more likely to eat at places like McDonald’s.

Given the strength of that conventional wisdom, it's likely going to take a full revamp of McDonald's image to convince the middle-class customers who have fled the chain that it offers more than just cheap burgers for people who can’t afford anything better. What has been the quintessential McDonald’s experience for decades -- inexpensive food that tastes the same everywhere -- just isn’t as appealing any more.

To fix this, the company is working to convince diners it sells “fresh, quality food” at a reasonable price, partly through "transparency initiatives" like a campaign last week asking people to submit questions about its food, according to Heidi Barker, a McDonald's spokeswoman.

"McDonald’s appeals to customers of many diverse backgrounds and lifestyles," Barker wrote in an e-mail statement. "There’s value at every level of the menu, from our Dollar Menu and More to our premium sandwiches and salads, and McCafe beverages."

It could be a hard sell, as McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson acknowledged on a conference call with analysts Tuesday.

“The question is whether or not our value and our food options are resonating as strongly," he said. "I believe that that is the fundamental basis of some of the challenges that we are having.”