State Treasurer launches website for business owners to find incentive opportunities.
The California State Treasurer’s Office wants to make it easier for business owners to find incentives to help grow their companies.
Today (1/11/18) marked the launch of the California Business Incentives Gateway, or CBIG, (cbig.ca.gov)a website developed by the Treasurer’s Office that allows businesses to search for incentives, and government agencies or nonprofits to post these opportunities, in one central location.
Deputy Treasurer Steve Juarez said at a news conference that the goal of developing CBIG was to create an Amazon-like platform for business owners across the state to find opportunities on one website. By creating a central platform for finding incentives, State Treasurer John Chiang hopes businesses will have a better chance to take advantage of these opportunities.
“Every year, millions of dollars in incentives are left on the table, which small businesses don’t know exist,” Chiang said. “We need to make sure that those days are over.”
Over 70 government and nonprofit organizations offering incentives are active on the site, and another 54 have started the process of registering. The platform won’t reach its full potential for months, according to Juarez, as the Treasurer’s Office builds out its roster of organizations offering opportunities on the platform.
26 out of the 500 on LABJ’s 500 Most Influential People in Los Angeles List were Asian!
Check out the break down by area below:
5 Best Online Business to Start This Year (2017)
According to Entrepreneur.com, they suggest you to sell what you already have: your knowledge. Offer your knowledge or expertise in a package, for example in the form of an ebook or a webinar. If your talents lie in creating things, then launch an Etsy or eBay channel and sell your crafts online. In 2016, Etsy sales reached $669.7 million — an increase of more than $100 million from 2015.
Check out the cool Infographic.
- Employer must pay hourly minimum wage and provide paid sick leave for hours worked within the geographic boundaries of the City. Click here for the update on the City of Los Angeles’s minimum wage & paid sick leave policy.
- Employer must post the Office of Wage Standards Wage Notices in a conspicuous place at any workplaces or job sites in English, Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Hindi, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Armenian, Russian and Farsi, and any other language spoken by at least five percent (5%) of the Employees at the workplace or job site.
- Employer must keep payroll records for four (4) years.
- Employer must provide employees with the Employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing at the time of hire
For more information, please visit: http://wagesla.lacity.org/
Asian Community in Los Angeles County
On Thursday, February 9, 2017, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation release a report that offered a glimpse of the Asian Community in LA County.
Here are some highlights:
- Asians account for 14.5% of the County‘s population, 14.2% of California‘s population and 5.4% of the U.S. population.
- 24.6% has a BA in Business compared to others at 17.9%
- $21.3 billion in economic output (or revenues for local firms), supporting 156,470 jobs in Los Angeles County with total labor income of $7.0 billion and federal, state and local tax revenues of $3.1 billion. (2015 Household spending)
- 213,200 Firms in Los Angeles County at least partly owned by Asians in 2012, an increase of 30,110 since 2007
- About 22% of Asian-owned firms are engaged in “Professional and business services,” which includes consultancy firms, regional managing offices, and employment placement agencies. Almost 16% are in education/ healthcare
- Total sales generated by Asian firms: $97.1 billion (2012)
- $167.2 billion in economic output (or revenues for local firms), supporting 1,114,470 jobs in Los Angeles County with total labor income of $61.8 billion and federal, state and local tax revenues of $32.5 billion. (2012 Asian owned firms)
Read the media coverage and comments from ABA in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
Southwest Airlines Named A Top 10 Most Admired Company By FORTUNE
Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE: LUV) today was named to FORTUNE’s 2017 list of World’s Most Admired Companies. Southwest ranks #8, and is the only commercial airline among the Top 10. This is Southwest’s 23rd consecutive year on the list.
“We are an admired Company because of our People, whose passion and love for the cause that is Southwest are the reasons we have appeared on this prestigious list for 23 consecutive years,” said Gary Kelly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Airlines. “This particular recognition is especially rewarding because it’s driven by input from leaders at other companies, and our folks take great pride in this achievement.”
FORTUNE partners with Korn Ferry Hay Group, a global management consulting firm, and asked executives, directors, and security analysts from around the world to rate which companies they admired most. Voters were able to select any company in any industry that ranked in the top 25 percent of last year’s survey, along with those that finished in the top 20 percent of their industry.
Southwest Airlines, a proud partner with the Asian Business Association.
California Employers May Not Control How Employees Spend Their Break Time or Require On-Call Rest Periods
Action Item: California employers are urged to review their rest period policies and practices, and consider changes that will ensure they relinquish control over how employees spend their break time and relieve their employees of all duties during rest periods, including the obligation that an employee remain on-call.
The California Supreme Court held in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods and requires instead that employers relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. The ABM case was brought by a class of security guards who were required to keep their pagers and radio phones on during rest periods, to remain vigilant, and to be available to respond to calls when the need arose. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that ABM did not permit its employees to take off-duty rest periods because it did not relieve the employees of all duties and relinquish control over how the employees spend their break time.
First, the Court concluded that employers are obligated to permit—and authorize employees to take—off-duty rest periods. During rest periods employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish control over how employees spend their time. The Court reasoned that this conclusion best effectuates the wage order’s purpose and provisions because the reference to “rest period” evokes a “period of rest,” which is the opposite of work. Labor Code section 226.7 prohibits employers from “requiring any employee to work during any meal or rest period.”
Next, the Court considered the issue of whether an employer can satisfy its obligation to relieve employees from duties and employer control during rest periods when the employer nonetheless requires its employees to remain on-call (reachable in case of an emergency). The Court concluded that an on-call rest period is not permissible. Although the wage orders are silent as to on-call rest periods, the Court reasoned that “employees forced to remain on-call during a 10-minute rest period must fulfill certain duties: carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.” The Court held that these obligations were “irreconcilable” with the employees’ freedom to use rest periods for their own purposes.
In a nod to practicality, the Court suggested that there were “several options” available to employers for whom it would be burdensome to relieve their employees of all duties during rest periods, including providing employees with another rest period if the first rest period was interrupted, or pay the premium pay associated with a rest period violation. The Court also noted in a footnote, however, that “neither of these options implies that employers may pervasively interrupt scheduled rest periods” and that “such options should be the exception rather than the rule.”