” If the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise”?

This issue with this question, is that it assumes the United Nations could cover every single front of every issue across the globe. The Arc Initiative provides small communities within countries such as Rwanda, South Africa, Ethiopia and Colombia with business skills. What the United Nations attempt to do is very different, they focus more on essential needs such as food, shelter or medication. Even fully funded this would require lots of work, and providing the communities of these countries with skills to take on the corporate world is what the Arc Initiative and social enterprise are there for. These are some of the skills that could help communities develop on their own without being “saved” by organizations such as the United Nations.

The United Nations looks at the countries as a whole, but the Arc and social enterprise are more precise and focus on the smaller communities, thinking that in the long run, by helping smaller sections, in the long run it will help the country as a whole.

Both the U.N. and the arc and social enterprise address some of the issues that arise from third world countries; however, they both come at these problems form different angles and can work hand in hand to better each community and hence the country.

Are insurance costs holding back small businesses?

I think this is an issue that should be looked further into, as lately, there have been more and more small start up companies, and a very large issue to these firms is their costs. One of the largest costs could potentially be insurance for the employees, notably (mainly in the U.S.A.) health insurance. A lot of these firms do not start off with the funds required to do so, and in the first few months or years, their business relies upon profit in order to expand, and if too much money is being spend towards insurances for the employees, it becomes harder to do so.

Even with the governments help, only a few small firms have been able to afford these luxuries for their employees. This results in what could be a moral issue: Does the expansion of the firm come first, or does the well-being of the employee. With regards to that question, it is likely that almost every small business would pay for health care, since they are smaller firms, they know their employees better, the only issue is, most of them lack the means to do so. I think that the decision made by the government (from the article) that “Businesses with fewer than 50 employees are not required to provide coverage” because this allows for the smaller firms to become larger, but once they do reach that stage where they have to start paying for insurance, does the firm stagnate? Does it continue to evolve? Or does is recede due to the drastic increase in costs? It would be very interesting to compare the revenue, costs and profits a firm with around 50 employees that does not pay coverage to one that has approximately the same amount of employees and who does.

Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/business/small-businesses-health-insurance-ACA.html?ref=smallbusiness

Image taken from: http://www.theaiatrust.com/small-firm-health-care-options/

This is a post with reference to Richard Branson, successful businessman and founder of Virgin Group’s entry on how language shapes the way we work.

How and why we communicate is essential to all businesses

I found this entry very fascinating, as I believe it is very relevant in today’s society and business culture. How people communicate with one another within a business can show others a lot about that firm and how their company is run. With today’s ever evolving language, it does not come as a surprise that many businessmen and businesswomen attempt to embellish their words and hence the good or service they are attempting to sell. Mr. Branson’s argument about this issue is very interesting to see, as it shows his own outtake on his company and how firms should be run: “If you can’t explain it on the back of an envelope, it’s probably rubbish”. He believes that the greatest ideas should be the simplest to explain.
I really found this post a great read, as Mr. Branson mentions, and I agree with him, that language shapes our culture, and as one evolves, so does the other. It is neigh on impossible for us to determine how we will communicate with each other in the future, but as long as it is in simplistic terms, the business world should continue to run smoothly.

Article link: http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/how-language-shapes-the-way-we-work

Image taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson

What happens when a fast food firm has to recall toys?

Is this at a great cost to the firm?

It is always difficult for a firm when a good needs to be recalled; however, it is usually unheard of for a fast food company to do so. McDonald’s, The fast food firm had to recall 1.6 million of these “Hello Kitty” whistles, which for them might not be such a large deal considering how large the company is; however, it leads to a lot of time wasted, some losses and maybe a few potential customers lost.

It would be interesting to see how much it cost to manufacture the toy, have it sent out to restaurants and other places where it was sold, and only then to have them all delivered back, manufacture a replacement toy, and have that sent out as well. I would like to know if all of that would be a great loss to McDonald’s, or if this is a cost such a large firm could completely ignore. It is interesting to see that even though McDonald’s sent out a toy that is a potential hazard, the firm still appears to look good on the other side of the tunnel, as they send out a positive message for their firm by sending all the, approximately, 1.6 million children a new toy that they had most likely had to produce on the spot. This is good business for the future, as it is possible that this gets into people’s heads, that this is a firm that cares, and really wants its customers to be happy.

Article and image link: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/McDonalds+recalls+Hello+Kittythemed+whistle+choking+risk/10369554/story.html

New deal, or continued expansion?

This is a response to Ray Duplin’s very interesting post “The NBA’s new TV deal”

I completely agree with Mr. Duplin on hits point that the money being thrown into the NBA, a rough $24 million, is an incredible amount. I do think, however that this number is to be somewhat expected. In the past few decades, fan dedication for sports has increased drastically, as it has been made easier and easier for people to follow their favorite teams and players. Because of this, sponsoring from very successful firms has increased at a very rapid pace, and that money is taunting innovation and new deals for players, coaches, team owners, and in this case, T.V. channels such as ABC and ESPN.

I find it very possible that this new deal will open doors to further deals which will continue to create a cycle. Sports is a large portion of North America’s culture, and the NBA is very highly funded and has ample opportunity to break out incredible deals and astonish its audience on a regular basis with its high numbers.

I would like to wonder along side Mr. Duplin however, as to how these decisions are made exactly, and if the value placed on the NBA will continue (assuming it already does) increase at a flat yearly rate.

Mr. Duplin’s post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/rayduplin/2014/10/06/ramifications-of-the-nbas-new-tv-deal/

Article link:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/10/6/6917877/nba-tv-deal-24-billion-player-salaries

Image taken from: http://www.dailyhoops.nl/2013/05/abcespn-zijn-niet-blij-met-de-spurs-grizzlies/espn-on-abc/

First Nations

It is interesting to see that there are many past issues that the government of the province and the first nations peoples are attempting to sort out. In the article it is quoted: “We’re talking about an agreement to exonerate them, that they meant war not murder”. I find it interesting that people have difficulty moving on from the past, and that the biggest mistakes we can make could have impacts for generations to come.

Many firms cannot move on and expand into new areas because the first nations peoples own the land and they are unwilling to negotiate. It is possible that a few companies agree to the demands set by the government and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, not because they truly agree with what is being said, but simply to move on and be able to expand their firms. I believe it is possible that some of them feel sad about what happened in the past, but wish to move on and are frustrated that what happened generations ago is hindering them from expanding their companies. I do think however, that most of the firms’ leaders feel truly terrible for what happened in the past, and the same goes for the government, but I still find it interesting to see the different attitude of each firm with regards to this issue.

article: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Premier+urges+cooperation+more+litigation+government+natives+reach+fork+road/10194776/story.html

Image link: http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Resources/Digital/