President Donald Trump told a group of chief executives Tuesday that his administration was revamping the Wall Street reform law known as Dodd-Frank and might eliminate the rules and replace them with “something else.”

At the beginning of his administration, Trump ordered reviews of the major banking rules that were put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, and last week he said officials were planning a “major haircut” for them.

“For the bankers in the room, they’ll be very happy because we’re really doing a major streamlining and, perhaps, elimination, and replacing it with something else,” Trump said Tuesday.

“That will be the minimum. But we’re doing a major elimination of the horrendous Dodd-Frank regulations, keeping some obviously, but getting rid of many,” he said.

The many provisions of the Dodd-Frank measure were aimed at decreasing risks in the U.S. financial system. The White House is not unilaterally able to upend Dodd-Frank’s rules, almost all of which are implemented by independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve.

A sweeping change to the law would require congressional action, though in some cases regulators may also have wiggle room to make changes through a formal rule-making process.

Report on regulations

In February, Trump issued an executive order requiring Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to consult with U.S. regulators and submit a report outlining a proposal for possible regulatory and legislative changes that will help fuel economic growth and promote American business interests.

That report, due to be released in June, will most likely serve as a blueprint for possible changes down the road. However, congressional action on a Wall Street bill is not expected in the near term, as Congress focuses primarily on health care and tax reform.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting included Rich Lesser, chief executive of Boston Consulting Group; Doug McMillon, chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores; Indra Nooyi, chief executive of PepsiCo; Jim McNerney, former chief executive of Boeing; Ginni Rometty, chief executive of IBM; and Jack Welch, former chairman of General Electric.

The business leaders are part of Trump’s “Strategy and Policy Forum” that last met with him in February.

Trump also reiterated his criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

“NAFTA is a disaster. It’s been a disaster from the day it was devised. And we’re going to have some very pleasant surprises for you on NAFTA, that I can tell you,” he said.
…

your ads here!

United Airlines saw its stock price decline by 4 percent or more after a viral video showing a passenger being dragged off a flight and injured sparked outrage in the U.S. and several nations. One airline analyst says he has never seen such a “parade of incompetence.”
…

your ads here!

South Asian migrants powering the construction boom in oil-rich Gulf countries are often illegally made to pay for their own recruitment, adding to hardships of poor working conditions and wages, according to an investigation released Tuesday.

Millions of migrants seeking a way out of poverty by working in Gulf nations from Qatar to the United Arab Emirates must routinely pay fees that can equal a year’s salary, U.S. researchers said in a report.

“Recruitment is not free,” said report co-author David Segall of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. “Somebody does have to bear these costs, but that of course should be the employing company.”

The findings came as conditions for construction workers from India, Nepal and Bangladesh in the 2022 FIFA World Cup host, Qatar, have drawn scrutiny from rights groups who say migrants live in squalor and work without proper access to water and shelter.

In five fact-finding missions to the Gulf and South Asia, the researchers found workers are typically made to pay for their airfare from South Asia and their work visa, often at inflated prices.

Selling visas for profit is illegal in the six Gulf countries the researchers investigated — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. But violations rarely lead to prosecution and punishment, the report said.

Fees highest for Bangladeshis

Bangladeshi workers paid as much as $5,200 in recruitment fees, according to the study, the highest price among other South Asian construction workers, who number some 10 million people in the Gulf.

In rare cases, construction companies took on expenditures to recruit their workers, the study found. The fees had the effect of pushing already destitute migrants further into poverty by tying them to high-interest loans.

“These are people who are already desperate enough that they feel that they need to undertake this journey, leave their families in order to just achieve the possibility of economic success,” Segall told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “For them to be in debt before they even start this journey is really an injustice.”

Reports of abuse of migrant domestic workers have prompted countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Indonesia to ban their citizens in recent years from seeking jobs in the Middle East.

The New York University report expanded on the findings of an investigation conducted in Qatar and released last week, which concluded hundreds of Asian workers had paid recruitment fees.
…

your ads here!

“No one should ever be treated this way,” reads part of a new public statement issued Tuesday by United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz, following Sunday’s incident when a passenger was bloodied after being dragged off an overbooked United airliner at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.

“I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight,” the Munoz statement also says.

The incident has gone viral through social media after being captured on other passengers’ cell phones.

Munoz added that the company will conduct a review of how the airline handles overbooking situations and how it interacts with airport authorities and law enforcement. He said the company will release the results of its review April 30.

 

Munoz released two earlier statements staunchly supporting the crew, saying in a statement late Monday that United attendants “followed established procedures” when the passenger was forcibly removed.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said President Donald Trump has seen what Spicer describes as the “troubling” video recorded on the United Airlines flight. Besides the global social media firestorm, the incident also has stirred up threats of a boycott.

Spicer told reporters at a White House briefing Tuesday the incident was “unfortunate” but does “not necessarily need a federal response,” adding there are “plenty” of law enforcement agencies available to conduct an investigation.

Because the Chicago to Louisville flight was overbooked, the crew asked passengers to voluntarily take another flight in exchange for financial compensation. According to media reports, the airline needed to make room for four of its employees.

No one volunteered, so the airline randomly selected four people, one of whom refused to leave – resulting in his forced removal by three men who were identified as Chicago aviation security officers.

 

 

Video showing the man, who appeared to be of Chinese descent, being dragged from the plane and later returning with a bloodied face was widely circulated on social media, drawing angry reactions. One passenger, Audra Bridges, who posted video of the incident, said the passenger was very upset when he was chosen and explained he was a physician who needed to get home in order to see patients the next morning. Bridges said the man appeared disoriented when he ran back onto the aircraft moments later.

Crew members eventually ordered everyone off the plane and did not let them return until the injured passenger was removed again on a stretcher.

Bridges said the passengers were “shocked and appalled” at the incident, which prompted threats of a boycott as the busy summer travel season begins.

The online backlash intensified when CEO Munoz used the euphemism “re-accommodate” in a Twitter posting Monday to describe the forcible removal of the passenger. Munoz. However, he also said the airline was reaching out to the passenger “to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.”

In the letter to employees, Munoz said the passenger “raised his voice and refused to comply” when he was initially asked to leave, and became “more disruptive and belligerent” in response to subsequent requests.

Crew members had “no choice” except to call Chicago Aviation Security officers to help remove the passenger, Munoz wrote.

In a statement late Monday, the Chicago Department of Aviation said the incident was “not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officers are obviously not condoned by the department.”

The statement added one officer involved has been placed on administrative leave, pending a review of the incident.

Munoz admitted to employees that the airline could learn from the incident but reiterated on his support of his employees’ actions. “I emphatically stand behind all of you,” he wrote.

Sunday’s incident follows another controversial occurrence in late March in which two girls, one estimated to be about 10 years old, were prevented from boarding a flight in Denver because they were wearing leggings, a violation of the airline’s dress code under a program for United employees.

The negative publicity may be adversely affecting the value of the airline. United’s stock price dropped nearly 4 percent during late morning trading Tuesday in New York, but by the close of the market it had dropped only about 1.1 percent.

For United Airlines, a global carrier that launched nonstop service to China in 1986, and bills itself as offering “more nonstop U.S.-China flights” to more cities in China “than any other airline,” comments on China’s lively social media were just one more problem Tuesday.

One commentator said: “Reading the news of the United Airlines’ violent removal of a passenger reminds me of three nightmarish trips with United Airlines. [It] provides the world’s worst service ever, not just one of the worst.”

Another commented: “I would like to give the passenger thumbs up. Although lots of American Chinese are discriminated against, they are afraid of speaking out due to [losing] face.”

 

Tourists’ remarks

VOA’s Mandarin service interviewed some Chinese tourists visiting Washington.

“I feel very angry. I feel this shouldn’t have happened in the U.S.,” said Xiaotian Liu. “It happened to be an Asian-American. I do not think they had a target.”

“I hope [United Airlines] can improve its service after this incident,” said Liu. “We will probably choose different airlines next time.”

“We happened to fly [United Airlines] on this trip,” said Xuhai Lu. “We flew a Chinese airline last time. Chinese airlines provide better service than American ones.”

VOA’s Mandarin service contributed to this report.
…

your ads here!

China Southern Airlines has flown its inaugural Guangzhou to Mexico City flight, via Vancouver, the first route operated by a domestic Chinese carrier to the Latin American nation, the Mexican government said on Tuesday.

China’s interest in Mexico, including tourism and investment, has been on the rise in recent years. In 2016, 74,300 Chinese tourists visited Mexico, up 33.5 percent from a year earlier.

Mexican authorities expect over 100,000 Chinese tourists to visit this year.

China and Mexico recently pledged to deepen ties at a meeting between their top diplomats following the U.S. presidential election victory of Donald Trump, who has tested Washington’s relationship with both countries.

 
…

your ads here!

Several minutes after a passenger recorded a video watched around the world that showed security officers dragging another passenger off an overbooked United Express flight at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, a smaller snippet of video showed an even more troubling scene.

There stood the passenger who had been dragged on his back to the front of the plane, appearing dazed as he spoke through bloody lips and blood that had spilled onto his chin.

 

“I want to go home, I want to go home,” he said.

 

The treatment of the passenger on Sunday night prompted outrage and scorn on social media, and anger among some of the passengers on the flight as the unidentified man was evicted.

 

The incident risks a backlash against United from passengers who could boycott the airline as the busy summer travel season is about to begin. For Chicago, it is another public relations nightmare, adding to its reputation as a city unable to curb a crime wave in some neighborhoods, which President Donald Trump has highlighted with critical tweets.

 

The embarrassing incident spiraled out of control from a common air travel issue – an overbooked flight. United was trying to make room for four employees of a partner airline, meaning four people had to get off the flight to Louisville.

 

At first, the airline asked for volunteers, offering $400 and then when that didn’t work, $800 per passenger to relinquish a seat. When no one voluntarily came forward, United selected four passengers at random.

 

Three deplaned but the fourth, a man who said he was a doctor and needed to get home to treat patients on Monday, refused.

 

Three men, identified later as city aviation department security officers, got on the plane. Two officers tried to reason with the man before a third came aboard and pointed at the man “basically saying, ‘Sir, you have to get off the plane,’ ” said Tyler Bridges, a passenger whose wife, Audra D. Bridges, posted a video on Facebook.

 

One of the security officers could be seen grabbing the screaming man from his window seat, across the armrest and dragging him down the aisle by his arms.

 

Other passengers on Flight 3411 are heard saying, “Please, my God,” “What are you doing?” “This is wrong,” “Look at what you did to him” and “Busted his lip.”

 

“We almost felt like we were being taken hostage,” said Tyler Bridges. “We were stuck there. You can’t do anything as a traveler. You’re relying on the airline.”

 

United Airlines’ parent company CEO Oscar Munoz late Monday issued a letter defending his employees, saying the passenger was being “disruptive and belligerent.”

 

While Munoz said he was “upset” to see and hear what happened, “our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this.”

 

Chicago’s aviation department said the security officer who grabbed the passenger had been placed on leave.

 

“The incidence on United Flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department,” the department said in a statement.

 

After a three-hour delay, United Express Flight 3411 took off without the man aboard.

 

Airlines are allowed to sell more tickets than seats on the plane, and they routinely overbook flights because some people do not show up.

 

It’s not unusual for airlines to offer travel vouchers to encourage people to give up their seats, and there are no rules for the process. When an airline demands that a passenger give up a seat, the airline is required to pay double the passenger’s one-way fare, up to $675 provided the passenger is put on a flight that arrives within one to two hours of the original. The compensation rises to four times the ticket price, up to $1,350, for longer delays.

 

When they bump passengers, airlines are required to give those passengers a written description of their compensation rights.

 

Last year, United forced 3,765 people off oversold flights and another 62,895 United passengers volunteered to give up their seats, probably in exchange for travel vouchers. That’s out of more than 86 million people who boarded a United flight in 2016, according to government figures. United ranks in the middle of U.S. carriers when it comes to bumping passengers.

 

ExpressJet, which operates flights under the United Express, American Eagle and Delta Connection names, had the highest rate of bumping passengers last year. Among the largest carriers, Southwest Airlines had the highest rate, followed by JetBlue Airways.

 

___

 

Associated Press Writer David Koenig contributed to this report.

AP-WF-04-11-17 1128GMT
…

your ads here!

President Donald Trump’s relentless push for more manufacturing jobs has forced the auto industry into a delicate dance of contradictions in order to keep him happy, tell the truth, and avoid alienating customers in both red and blue states.

Toyota did the waltz with Monday’s announcement that it would spend $1.33 billion to retool its gigantic factory in Georgetown, Kentucky, an investment in the heart of Trump country that has been planned for years.

 

Trump wasn’t included in a company statement sent on Friday in advance of the announcement, but Kentucky’s governor and both of the state’s U.S. senators were quoted. In a paragraph added Sunday evening, Trump claimed credit for the investment, saying it is “further evidence that manufacturers are now confident that the economic climate has greatly improved under my administration.”

 

The company said the Trump quote was added at the administration’s request, but the White House said Toyota requested it and pointed to a poll of manufacturers showing record optimism. Later Monday, Toyota said that it had asked the White House for a Trump quote.

 

Either way, an investment of that size takes years to plan, and Toyota confirmed that it’s been in the works four or five years, long before Trump was elected. The company is switching its midsize Camry sedan, long the top-selling car in America, to new underpinnings that make it more modern and fun to drive. Although the investment doesn’t add jobs, it sustains 8,200 workers at the plant, which also manufactures the Toyota Avalon and Lexus ES 350 cars.

 

The dealings with Toyota show how businesses — especially automakers whose brands cater to both ends of the political spectrum — must tread carefully when dealing with Trump or other politicians. Depending on their response, they run the risk of angering a president who has authority to regulate their industry or alienating customers who are on both sides of the political divide.

 

“That’s kind of the reality of the situation you’re operating in,” said Joseph Holt, a University of Notre Dame associate professor who specializes in business ethics and leadership. “I think it’s a shame that they have to do this dance, but I understand why they’re doing it.”

 

All politicians play the same game as Trump, taking credit for accomplishments they had nothing to do with, said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan. What makes Trump unique is the demand for jobs announcements was done publicly rather than in private conversations, Gordon said.

 

Many CEOs grudgingly supported President Barack Obama’s health care plan even though they disagreed with it, Gordon said.

 

“With President Trump, the difference is the volume is up to 11 or 12 instead of at 10,” he said. “I don’t find him to be that different in terms of what he wants credit for, and putting the arm on people to get on his program, other than he does it publicly.”

 

Detroit automakers are in the most precarious position, Gordon said, because they are perceived as more American. Take General Motors. Its Chevrolet brand, with the top-selling Silverado pickup truck, caters largely to America’s mid-section, which largely voted for Trump. But GM’s Cadillac luxury brand wanted so much to distance itself from the Midwest that it moved its offices to Manhattan, which supported Democrat Hillary Clinton.

 

If GM either confronts Trump or is continually in his Twitter sights, that could upset the automaker’s lucrative customer base in the Midwest. If the company is too supportive, it could hurt GM’s efforts to grow Cadillac sales on the mostly blue coasts.

 

That’s why with few exceptions, GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler have made jobs announcements that largely were in the works long ago, Gordon said.

 

Because the country is so politically polarized, a social-media fueled PR mistake for or against an issue could touch off a boycott that can quickly hurt a company, Gordon said.

 

“Now the companies are really under the magnifying glass,” he said. “Many customers want to know who you are and what you stand for before they even think about your product.”

 

Holt and others say companies shouldn’t allow such deception and would be better off in the long run by not playing politics.

 

While the Trump administration was showing a commitment to manufacturing with the announcement, it may send a different message to government regulators such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should there be any problems with a factory, said Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

 

“Do those agencies feel constrained from enforcing the law because the president has just associated himself with that company or investment?” Weissman asked. “It’s just on its face inappropriate.”

 
…

your ads here!

With its colonial mansions, landscaped gardens and ornate fountains, the town of Petropolis, a traditional haunt of Brazil’s last monarch Dom Pedro II, retains a grandeur that has not faded since he was forced into exile in 1889.

 

But beneath the opulent surface of the former summer imperial capital, resentment simmers against a special tax, the proceeds of which continue to go directly to the king’s descendants – more than a century after he was ousted.

For many of the 300,000 people living in the hill town, a 2.5 percent tax on real estate transactions is a symbol of social injustice in Latin America’s biggest country where inequality has widened amid its worst recession on record.

Brazil is one of the world’s most unequal places for property distribution with almost half of the land owned by one percent of the population. Colonial-era laws exacerbate the problem, analysts said.

“People aren’t happy to pay this tax,” Isabela Verleun, who works at the Imperial Museum of Petropolis, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “It shouldn’t exist.”

Petropolis, known as the Imperial City, is the closest mountain resort to Rio. Just 65 kms (42 miles) northeast of Brazil’s second biggest city, it’s a favored getaway for Rio residents with its forested hills and waterfalls.

It is well known for its 19th century architecture and home of the Imperial Museum, one of Brazil’s most visited museums.

Dom Pedro II and his family spent summers there after 1845 to escape the sweltering heat of then capital Rio de Janeiro.

 

Inside what is now a tourist attraction, children slide along wooden floors as adults marvel at a grand dining room complete with crystal chandelier.

“Ancient and Hereditary”

The town’s special property tax – known as laudemio – dates back to before Brazil’s independence in 1882.

The tax was imported to Brazil by its former colonial master Portugal to ensure land was passed from European settlers to their heirs. In colonial years, Brazil’s land was deemed the property of the Portuguese crown.

Despite becoming an independent republic in 1889, the special tax has never been repealed and is now criticized for continuing to earn money for a few privileged families.

“This ancient tax is hereditary and perpetual,” said Vitor Fernandes, a property law expert at the University of Campinas.

Marco Antonio de Melo Breves, a senior official with Brazil’s federal tax department, could not provide figures on how much revenue is paid annually under the royal property tax or how much it costs the average homeowner.

“There is not a unified database where it’s possible to obtain this,” Breves told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Payments are generally made through notaries, or private lawyers who certify documents, Breves said, so the government doesn’t have information on how many royal descendants are receiving benefits from property taxpayers.

Dom Joao Henrique de Orleans e Braganca, a businessman and photographer popularly known as Prince Bishop Johnny, is the great-great-grandson of the final monarch, and counts prominent politicians and artists among his friends.

In an interview with the Brazilian newspaper Valor, Braganca acknowledged some resent the royal family’s continued perks.

The prince said he received “very little money” from Petropolis under the special tax, without giving an amount, but added payments must continue as they are part of a “legal contract” in the city.

Royal Rewards

A fan of the British TV series “The Crown” which showcases the hectic schedules of the U.K. royal family, Braganca said that he does useful work “traveling all over Brazil doing talks in favor of respect for democracy and citizenship.”

The former royal family is not the only institution to benefit from the laudemio and a related land tax known as enfiteuse. The navy and the Catholic Church also levy similar property taxes, said Ely Machado, a lawyer in Rio de Janeiro who helps clients navigate Brazil’s complex housing rules.

A lack of clear property ownership and complex land registration policies are ongoing problems in Brazil, government officials said.

Half the population cannot prove full legal ownership of their homes, according to the Ministry of Cities.

While taxing homeowners based on colonial history may seem archaic, removing the special land tax would require a series of complex legal changes, said Ana Paula Bueno, a lawyer with the Land Governance Group at the State University of Campinas.

When Brazil emerged from military dictatorship and launched a new constitution in 1988 some people pushed for the tax to be abolished, said Verleun, but their lobbying was unsuccessful.

“We have to live with it,” Ana Paula Bueno told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
…

your ads here!