After learning about Zappos and the human resource(HR) strategies they use, I was intrigued to learn more about HR and other people’s opinions. During my research, I found a blog titled What HR Leadership Knows, But You Don’t. It touches on how HR information is becoming more readily available and how to use it to better your business.
One thing companies don’t tend to believe is that investing in HR will have great outcomes for the business as a whole. A study found, organizations that have engaged employees are 4 percent more profitable[1]. The blog advises business owners to consider the benefits HR initiatives brings to the work place despite time and cost associated. Zappos clearly understands this. The CEO and HR work tightly together and are willing to make improvements to the workplace. Although it comes with a large cost, especially for Zappos who has invested in many initiatives, such as health benefits, free food, and work space equality, they continue to make a profit and create an overall more pleasant customer experience.
The second topic mentions that HR technology is eliminating some of the task that HR executives are faced with. This leaves some asking why to pay for something that they already do? However, the point isn’t to eliminate employees with machines, but to rather give more time to HR executives for more important tasks that the technology cannot do.
The final point made is the amount of data available due to the advances in technology. One of the main talking points here is that company leaders don’t fully understand these HR metrics. In fact, one of the issues, is that there is a lack of support from executives with the HR department. The takeaway here is to work very closely with your HR team. It is suggested to often ask questions of why certain decisions are being made. Not only will this improve general knowledge of HR and can help to make better decisions. Zappos operates very closely between all departments. From seeing their workplace, they have very successfully created a place of work that all employees enjoy being at.
Human resources is a key department in any business. After learning about Zappos and reading this blog, I’ve recognized this and can see that HR investments are beneficial to a company. If I were asked whether to invest in HR before this, I would’ve said no as I didn’t even really understand it. I can imagine a similar case, maybe more educated, from a business executive, which is why understanding HR is an essential task for business to improve not only profit but generate an overall better workplace and experience for employees and customers.

Word count:450

[1] https://www.allbusiness.com/hr-leadership-knows-dont-114130-1.html

Picture: http://www.workforce.com/2017/04/07/evolution-hr-executive-personnel-organizational-secret-weapon/

One market that some might consider “corrupt” is real estate. This market is riddled with bad practice and prices are rising at an exponential rate in Vancouver, making affordable housing difficult to find. Steven Bickford highlights some changes the BC government is taking to try and fix the market, in his blog post New BC Rules Fix Issues in Real Estate Market. The “new BC rules” involve eliminating the dual agency that currently operates the BC real estate market.

Dual agency is when the realtor represents both the buyer and the seller. This works well in smaller areas with limited realtor options. However, in a city like Vancouver, full of realtor options, this practice makes it “unfair” to the buyer and seller. How can the realtor sell the house at the highest price while offering the buyer the cheapest price it can find? Who are they really working for?

These questions can’t really be answered. The realtor will often work for self-benefit, opposed to offering the best prices to their customers. This leads to a “corrupt” market, where the pains of the customers aren’t even being fully solved by the service.

The solution: eliminate dual agency all together (exception for areas with limited access to realtors). The BC Government will implement this change in the Real Estate Services Act, which will be effective in January 2018.

I agree whole heartedly with both the government’s decision and Steven. This will positively affect the sellers and buyers within the market. The realtors will now have the option to work in self-interest and lose customers, or provide the service as they should be: assisting their clients find housing and buy and sell real estate at the best possible price.

After Conducting further research, I found this only fixes a portion of the market. The issue of high prices is still very relevant. Although, housing at a cheaper price may be easier to find with the use of a realtor, it doesn’t fix the problem. The average selling price is currently increasing at a rate of 10.9 percent, with a current average price of $1.5 million[1]. If this price continues to exponentially increase, then, the market could crash.

A large part of Vancouver’s housing price increases is related to foreign investment; especially China. The Chinese economy is closely tied to investment into Vancouver real estate. This can be seen through data provided by Bloomberg News. Eliminating the amount of foreign investment could help combat the increasing prices within the housing market.

All in all, the BC Government is taking steps to improve the state of the real estate market; however, there is still ways to go before it can be deemed “fixed.”

Word Count:450

[1] https://www.zolo.ca/vancouver-real-estate/trends

Steven’s blog:https://blogs.ubc.ca/stevenbickfordblog/

Article in Steven’s Blog:http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-realtors-to-be-banned-from-dual-agency-as-part-of-rule-changes

Additional sources: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-how-would-vancouvers-housing-bubble-burst-look-to-china

https://www.thebalance.com/agency-relationships-in-real-estate-1798890

Image 1: http://vancouversun.com/storyline/five-things-to-know-about-latest-b-c-home-sales-forecast

Image 2: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-how-would-vancouvers-housing-bubble-burst-look-to-china

Technology is a sector that is growing at an exponential rate with new ideas and products constantly being developed. One of main innovations currently in development is drones. These drones can be programmed for various tasks like delivering packages, distributing Wi-Fi, and creating electricity. Although intriguing, there are many complexities and concerns with the current products; keeping them off the market for at least five years. Most of the concerns involve malfunction leading to harm of others or impeding the task they provide. Most of the drones that are being developed aren’t even within the operating standard or regulations to be released. Mainly due to safety concerns and the fact that these drones would be almost completely autonomous.

In my opinion, the most potential is seen in the “delivery drone.” There have been multiple successful trial runs. However, as I mentioned, there are many complexities, such as, the mapping of the route and avoiding objects that might be in the way of the drone. The main goal of this specific drone is to order a package or item, then minutes later a drone would have it at your doorstep; providing an “instant delivery.” This alternate delivery is “faster, quieter and more environmentally friendly than large delivery trucks.” [1]

The main use for this drone is delivering packages to the average consumer; however, huge potential can be seen in providing medical and emergency equipment in remote areas. In the Lower Mainland, many people get lost in the mountains and forests, some of which may be injured or need medical equipment. Imagine if you could simply press a button and almost instantly receive the care you need in a package. This is now not just a product for convenience of consumers, but now something that could potentially save lives.

The real question is: if these drones are practical? And will they do so in a safe matter? These drones run into the same issue as the autonomous driving cars we discussed in lecture. They are not operated by humans and simply are controlled by themselves, there is the question of what happens when someone gets hurt or damage is caused? Who is to blame? This issue is being tended to the most. These companies are trying to develop better software and stronger system to control these drones and ensure there are no malfunctions and everything works smoothly. Meaning that no harm is done to anyone or any collisions with other objects. This is thought “to take a decade to solve.”[2] If these issues can be solved then I think these drones will serve a real purpose as both a consumer item and emergency “rescue.”

Word count: 442

[1] https://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21723002-carrying-cargo-lot-more-complicated-carrying-camera-why-wait

[2] https://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21723002-carrying-cargo-lot-more-complicated-carrying-camera-why-wait

Image: https://www.flexport.com/blog/deploying-drones-self-driving-trucks/

The Government of Ontario is making steps towards the legalization of cannabis. Legislation was introduced back in April by the federal government with the goal of regulating recreational marijuana by July 1, 2018. However, this task is being left up to the individual provinces to develop plans and systems to implement. Ontario is taking a government controlled approach. By 2020, they plan to own 150 pot shops that will be run by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). In this plan, Ontario plans to make all illicit and non-government controlled marijuana stores illegal and shut them down; creating a monopoly. These stores will be similar to liquor stores and will only sell to those 19 and above. The main question is: will this be able to eliminate black-market sales of cannabis?

One factor that will come into play is the price of the marijuana sold at these government controlled stores. If it is not lower or on par with the black-market price, then black-market sales will not drastically change. Having a competitive price will not only lower the sales within the black-market, but it will also result in more sales in the LCBO shops. However, the legalization of pot is not expected to be a huge income for the government. This is due to pricing and the black-market. It is expected that the black-market will lower prices to compete with these government operated dispensaries. Another point of consideration is the possibility of taxing the sales of cannabis. This is expected to bring an annual tax revenue of $130 to $180 million. This may seem like a large amount of tax revenue; however, it is only a tenth of a percent of the provincial budget[1].

From the perspective of a business, one must investigate into the profitability of creating the government controlled marijuana dispensaries. Colorado can be used as a comparison to determine the expected sales of pot in Ontario. According to a senior economist from CIBC World Markets, it is estimated that there is a $10 billion demand for legal cannabis. Ontario is projected to receive $2.1 to $2.3 billion in retail sales[2]. Controlling a monopoly will make it easier for the government to gain profit as there will be no more cannabis shops and the only competitor will be the black-market. Ontario will also be making wholesale deals with the suppliers allowing them to mark up the price, while remaining competitive. This in combination with a tax on legal marijuana will bring a profit. The legalization of pot in Canada, more specifically Ontario, is bound to eliminate parts of the black-market, while bringing another form of income to the government.

Word count: 445

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/marijuana-ontario-price-market-sales-1.4298311

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/marijuana-ontario-price-market-sales-1.4298311

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/08/ontario-recreational-marijuana-to-be-sold-in-dozens-of-new-stores-sources_a_23201511/?utm_hp_ref=ca-business

http://pot.tv/video/2017/06/06/canadian-parliament-debates-cannabis-legalization/ (Image)

The EpiPen is known for its medical innovation and lifesaving capabilities; however, as of late, it is being know for its large price tag and unwillingness to investigate malfunctions within their product. EpiPen controls a monopoly on this type of product, meaning they can charge any price and the public is forced to buy it as there are no close substitutes. This does not give EpiPen the right to charge $608 for a two-pack; a price that has increased 500 percent since 2007. This package is not only a burden on families who need the product to ensure that in the case of an allergic reaction their life will be saved, but that product may not even work.

The situation had escalated to the point where the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) had to get involved. They addressed some of the wrongdoings by EpiPen: “our own data show that you received hundreds of complaints that your EpiPen products failed to operate during life-threatening emergencies, including some situations in which patients subsequently died.” EpiPen responded by backing up the safety and efficacy of their product and said, “It’s not unusual to receive product complaints, especially when the product is frequently administered by non-medically trained individuals.” EpiPen is now blaming the malfunctions of their products on the consumers and users. Although EpiPen eventually made a recall on certain products due to this issue, this did not occur until after an F.D.A. inspection of one of the manufacturing facilities.

The choices made by EpiPen were clear attempts to maximize profit at all costs. Which meant burdening families and allowing malfunctioning products to remain on the market, despite the complaints the company received. If EpiPen were to make decisions based on their social responsibility then they would decrease the price of their product to be easily affordable to all consumers and ensure that all products work as expected. These choices were not made and the reason: because EpiPen holds a monopoly. Even though they are acting socially un-responsible consumers are still forced to buy their product. However, their actions did not go without punishment as EpiPen saw a decrease in stock price of almost 25% as of mid August 2017. This is directly related to the scandalous behavior of the company. The F.D.A. stepped in to punish and attempt to resolve some of these issues that EpiPen has created. Which include the recalling certain lots of products as well as reaching a $465 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for overcharging the federal government for the product. Even though EpiPen faced certain punishments, how much control does the government really have over this medical monopoly?

Word Count: 443

Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/health/epipen-fda-malfunction.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness

https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/06/epipen-prices-allergies/ (Picture)