" Generally, a company that uses a temp agency is the company that pays the worker...not the temp agency."
Incorrect. I was a partner in such an agency. The individuals were W-2 or 1099 to **our** company, not to the client. We invoiced the client company.
"For a company to try and claim that their workforce is comprised of employees of the temp agency is a little stretch IMO."
Again, incorrect understanding. The company did NOT want the individuals in THEIR workforce. That was the whole point of contracting with our company.
"Temp agencies are more like unions where they provide workers to a company on a temporary basis generally. This is also what many unions do, as they provide workers to a company and the company uses the union for qualified help."
Some **trade** unions do as you describe. But industrial unions function differently.
Many years ago I was hired by, and was an employee of, a trucking company. I was recruited directly by the company; I was not "sourced" by the Teamsters. I had to join the Teamsters as a requirement of employment.
Same with friends who worked in the auto industry. They were not sourced by UAW. They were direct hires of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. They were obligated to join the union as a condition of employment.
This can work well, so long as you have ample storage facilities on the other end for that much gasoil. There is no tank cleaning involved, as it looks like these are new builds and therefore this is first load. Not a bad idea, as the owner would probably have had to take the newbuilds from S. Korea and sail in ballast to crude loading port. Now the owner can get paid something, even if it was for half a load. As long as the VLCC can fit at the product dock, any tanks they fill would be some revenue for them instead of none and they must have a decent discharge port.
As far as I know, any business can have their employees solicited for unionization so long as the employees are non supervisory or at least have to answer to a higher up. Even supervisory people can organize, but they aren't protected under Taft Hartley, as far as I know. A union can attempt to organize a workforce, but it requires an election by the workers to do so, and many times, the employer just tells the workers that if they think of organizing, the boss will find another reason to fire them or set them up to be fired. Generally, a company that uses a temp agency is the company that pays the worker...not the temp agency. For a company to try and claim that their workforce is comprised of employees of the temp agency is a little stretch IMO. Temp agencies are more like unions where they provide workers to a company on a temporary basis generally. This is also what many unions do, as they provide workers to a company and the company uses the union for qualified help. An example might be the carpenter's union. You aren't considered a union journeyman carpenter until you have served as an apprentice for a certain period, taken classes, been reviewed and then taken exam and finally given journeyman's status. That is why usually union carpenters can be handed a set of plans and they will build the home. If you just hire somebody claiming to be a carpenter out of the paper, they might not even know how to read more less read a set of plans.
The government just redefined what it means to be an employer. It's a huge deal.
On Thursday, the National Labor Relations Board issued what observers are already calling its most significant ruling in 35 years. It ruled that the company Browning-Ferris Industries of California is a "joint employer" of workers it hired through a temp agency. The company had contended that the fact that the workers were directly employed by the temp agency, a contractor, meant that it could not be considered their employer for the purpose of unionization. NLRB rejected that reasoning.
Browning-Ferris is not super important as a company. But the NLRB's reasoning opens the door for labor organizing in industries that had previously been resistant. Big franchisers like McDonald's could be targeted. So could big non-unionized government contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton. It's too early to say what the ruling's precise implications will be, but if the ruling holds, they could be massive.
Continued from post ending in: "production levels and world wide oil consumption and storage,"
changes in the Company's operating expenses including bunker prices, dry-docking and insurance costs, changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities, potential liability from pending or future litigation, general domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents or political events, and other important factors described from time to time in the reports filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
So basically, with the bulk of the statements you consider "good news", the company is sayin they are really hopin this comes to pass.
Now then, for the rest of their announcement, the following characterizes what they have said:
"We confirm, to the best of our knowledge, that the condensed consolidated financial statements for the period January 1 to June 30, 2015 have been prepared in accordance with U.S generally accepted accounting principles, and give a true and fair view of the Company’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss as a whole. We also confirm, to the best of our knowledge, that the interim management report includes a fair review of important events that have occurred during the first six months of the financial year and their impact on the condensed consolidated financial statements, a description of the principal risks and uncertainties for the remaining six months of the financial year, and major related parties transactions.
Now that's a different standard.
Best of luck,
Continued from: 'Hi Mr. Tanno, I would like to take your points of yesterday's "good news" one by one"
A lot of what you call "good news" is either "old news" or "forward looking statements", and not actually news. I think it a major point because so many on this board discuss all the potential real news and what it will do to the share price, but in the face of no actual news of real significance, they instead react to "forward looking statements".
When evaluating "forward looking statements" I think it important to keep it in context. Here is Frontline's take on their own "forward looking statements":
"This press release contains forward looking statements. These statements are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions, including Frontline management's examination of historical operating trends. Although Frontline believes that these assumptions were reasonable when made, because assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond its control, Frontline cannot give assurance that it will achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs or intentions. Important factors that, in the Company's view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in this press release include the strength of world economies and currencies, general market conditions including fluctuations in charter hire rates and vessel values, changes in demand in the tanker market as a result of changes in OPEC's petroleum production levels and world wide oil consumption and storage,
To be continued:
I knew they could load a new clean crude tanker with refined product, but I thought they would do suzies before they did vlccs. 2 million barrels would be a hell of a lot of high sulfur diesel.
Maybe there is some refined product storage issues coming up. Cheaper to do a lot on a big tanker than on a bunch of smaller tankers.
Perhaps it is a method of gaining on the maiden voyage coming out of South Korean ship builders. Otherwise they would have to sail to their initial pick up point.
The good news is this action sucks up some of the excess crude tanker capacity and might prop up spot rates a penny or two.
We shall see.
Best of luck,
"In a rare cargo movement, trading house Trafigura has chartered newly built VLCCs to move gasoil from South Korea to West Africa, traders and shipping industry executives said Thursday.
Gasoil typically moves on clean medium and long range product tankers carrying up to 90,000 mt parcels across the globe and it is rare for this commodity to be transported on VLCCs, which are used to carry 2 million barrel-cargoes of crude and fuel oil.
Trafigura has taken at least two mint-fresh VLCCs for gasoil loading next month on the South Korea to West Africa route, brokers said. It is expected to take more VLCCs for the purpose, they said.
While a Cosco Dalian VLCC has been taken for around $2.55 million, another supertanker was chartered from Navig8 for around $3.15 million, they said.
“The rate is similar to an LR2 rate [for South Korea to West Africa], so if they can fill up the VLCC it will be very cheap,” said a chartering executive with a global trading company.
“They may not be able to fully load the VLCC, maybe 70%-80%, but that is [still] going to be equivalent to three LR2 tankers,” an official at an LR2 owner said.
Brokers said the cargo size will be anywhere between 150,000 mt and 270,000 mt.
If one looks at all the information out there, one thing is very very clear.
It is very very difficult to measure the temperature of the earth's surface, the sky, the waters, and the subterranean.
What is a better indication of global warming is rising sea levels.
NASA: Rising Sea Levels More Dangerous Than Thought
"The current warming of the seas and the associated expansion of their waters account for about one-third of sea level rise around the world"
"The remaining two-thirds of sea level rise is occurring as a result of melting from ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica and mountain glaciers, Nerem said."
Uhhh, right off the bat they have missed one of the major causes of rising sea levels. Fully 20-25% of the rise in the oceans is from the water produced in the combustion of fuels.
So, whatever models they are using are already badly in error.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international organization created by the United Nations that produces climate change models, has predicted that sea levels could rise as much as 21 feet (6.4 meters) in the next century if global warming continues unabated."
Well, anybody near the ocean better put stilts under their homes, because we are powerless to end the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using today's technology,.
"While global sea levels have risen about 2.75 inches (7 centimeters) over the past 22 years, the west coast of the United States has not seen much of a rise in ocean levels. That's largely because of a long-time-scale weather pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is masking the global effect"
Oh #$%$/parc. You mean we can't measure the sea level any better than we can measure the earth's temperature?
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. buster,
From your post: "a foolish union employee standing on a corner holding up a sign they do not even understand "
Apparently you didn't get the memo. They have found that most of those people standing on corners holding pro union signs, aren't union members. They are sign holders paid for by the union hall. They are not paid union wages, and get no benefits. Often they have been found to work through temp agencies, and also often found to be illegal aliens.
That is why they don't understand the sign. Either they don't care, or they can't read. Often both.
Get a union member to stand on a street corner holding a sign? You've got to be kidding me. lol
Best of luck,
Actually 80% of the Earth is not ocean and most of the water on earth is not in the oceans.
According to Japanese researchers most of the water on this planet is in subterranean areas well below the oceans. They now believe oceans only contain about 10% of the water in this planet.
Of the surface of the planet,71% is covered by oceans.
400 feet down in the ocean temperatures have actually cooled and in the Western Pacific areas in particular have grown considerably colder which corresponds to the recent increase in Arctic ice (increased 33% between 2012 and 2014).
According to British Researchers, the Atlantic Ocean is cooling and the Atlantic heat conveyor will change for the next 40 to 50 years and it appears this is a cycle.
What the British are concerned about is that Atlantic heat conveyor is changing exactly the same time the mini-ice age is hitting us from reduced solar activity. Europe may struggle in the future to grow crops.
In 2014 the Antarctica set a 900 year record in sea ice extent and until May - June of this year when we suddenly had some sun spot activity and some X flares that missed earth, we warmed up and the current Antarctica sea ice extent is now about average, but since sunspots have again died down, I would expect the cooling to reintensify.
The Russian Academy of Sciences, the director of the Russian Space Program, and other prominent Russian astrophysicists say that by 2030 we'll be in a very harsh mini-ice age.
All one has to do is Google Russian Global Cooling or Indian Global Cooling or Chinese Global Cooling or British Global cooling to find vast information. Also Ice Age Now Info web site has a lot of good stuff including sun spot count and information. Click on the sunspot link and you'll see all kinds of graphs and data.
your point is well made. It is like when one sees a foolish union employee standing on a corner holding up a sign they do not even understand - opposing the very store they could be working in. What they also don't understand is the leader of their fearless union is sitting in aa mansion or on a beach somewhere, on their coin.
The strength of liberalism comes from having followers that can't and won't think for themselves.
buster, it seems kind of sacrilegious for Lakeed and Keembodakine to own any oil interest since oil and coal are heating up the planet according to Obummer.
Did you notice coal had a good day (BTU and ACI).
Also did you know George Soros bought shares of BTU and ACI.
CALPERS was also buying coal during Q2 which is shocking!
I bet when news reached Jerry Brown that CALPER's was buying coal, he probably had a fit.
There is only one success–to be able to spend your life in your own way.
Danske Bank has upgraded shares of Frontline as it closes in on a merger with spin-off Frontline 2012. Analyst Bjorn Kristian .
By: Asgeir Nilsen - Stocklink iMarkedet
Published: 08/27/2015 10:56:16
- Frontline is attractive at current levels .
Danske Markets upgrade recommendation on Frontline to buy from sell under a new price target of 25 kroner.
It emerges in a share comment.
The upgrade takes place on the basis of brokerage house's positive view of the merger of Frontline and Frontline 2012 .
- We believe the proposed merger combined with our forecast of a strong market opening offers multiple triggers, which makes Frontline attractive at current levels , writes Danske Markets .
From Yahoo finance and short squeeze, this is only about 150,000 more shares short than last month.
Best of luck,