Strikes have flooded the news headlines for the past years, as thirty-three significant strikes occurred in 2023, with an estimated 462,000 workers engaged in those strikes. (Chris Isidore, CNN). Boeing was unable to escape the strike fever in 2024, as workers demanded a 40% raise in wages and the reinstatement of pension benefits. (Niraj Chokshi, New York Times). Due to the massive impact the strike had on the company, Boeing and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the “Union”) announced a negotiated proposal (“Proposed Deal”) subject to voting on October 23rd, 2024. (IAM District 751). Ultimately, the Proposed Deal was rejected by a 64% vote. (IAM District 751). This article discusses the key elements of the Proposed Deal and how it sheds light on the greater narrative of Boeing’s fragile state of dwindling finances, reputation, and relationship with its workers.

This might sound like a familiar story: you start work at a new company and have to sign a seemingly endless mountain of forms and employment agreements during onboarding. One of the agreements that you might have signed is a non-compete agreement, which prevents employees from working for a competing employer or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area and period of time” following the end of their employment. (FTC). In January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed a new Rule that would ban all non-competes. Id. Naturally, businesses, such as those affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce, were not the most enthusiastic about the Rule, leading them to challenge the Rule in federal court in the case Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E, 2024 WL 3297524 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024). The court ruled that the FTC cannot enforce the ban on non-competes. Id. at 11. This post will cover the reasons why the FTC implemented the Rule, the pros and cons of the Rule, the court’s reasoning for halting the Rule, and the implications of the court’s decision.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Nothing is certain except death and taxes." (Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy).  In a recent United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) decision, the tax portion is more certain than ever. (Richard Rubin, Wall Street Journal). On June 20, 2024, SCOTUS rejected a challenge to a 2017 tax law (“Tax Law”) on certain foreign investments. (Moore v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1680, 1697 (2024)). The decision keeps the foreign investment tax intact, while avoiding addressing a 16th Amendment interpretation. (Richard Rubin, Wall Street Journal). This article explores the case's background, the Court's reasoning, and how this decision will ultimately discourage individuals from investing in foreign companies