Joey is under fire for allegedly forcing one of its employees to wear high heels all day and discouraging her to change into flats despite experiencing pain and bleeding. 

The restaurant chain, which has locations in the U.S. and Canada, was named in a photo of a woman’s bloody feet, shoes, and socks uploaded to Facebook on May 3 by Edmonton resident Nicola Gavins. Gavins said the feet belong to an unnamed friend who works at Joey, adding that the restaurant requires women to wear heels unless they are medically restricted. She said her friend was “berated by the shift manager for changing into flats,” then told heels would be required of her again the next day.  

“My friend’s feet were bleeding to the point she lost a toenail,” Gavins wrote, alleging that female staffers are required to purchase a $30 uniform, while men can dress in clothing from their own wardrobes. “Sexist, archaic requirements,” she added. 

The health risks of wearing high heels are no secret — they can cause bunions, knee joint pressure and hammertoes, to name just a few issues. Gavins’ post has been shared over 11,000 times, and is flooded with comments in support of the unnamed server (Gavis has not yet responded to a request for more information) as well as examples from Facebook users of other restaurants they say enforce similar practices.

Britt Innes, vice president of marketing for Joey Restaurant Group, told The Huffington Post that in March the restaurant changed its shoe guidelines after a dialogue with employees, and heels are now required to be no higher than two and a half inches. A handout uniform guide shows a pair of dress flats included among acceptable shoe choices for work. 

“We made these changes and rolled this out in late March,” Innes said. “However, it is clear that it did not reach every [employee] and I take ownership for that. In retrospect, we should have ensured all outdated training materials were destroyed.” 

JOEY Restaurant Group
Joey’s new shoe guidelines, which the company says were released in March.

Innes says she reached out to the employee in Gavins’ photo “the moment we saw this post.” 

“Our [employee’s] feedback is extremely important to us, so I wanted to hear directly from her about her experience. After speaking with her, we followed up with our management team at this location and also sent out company-wide communication to ensure everyone has the correct information and training materials around our policies and guidelines,” she said. 

Innes also denied the company charges only female staffers for uniforms: “We do require a refundable deposit for serving-related equipment from both male and female [employees]. This deposit is not a fee and is repaid upon return of these items,” she said. 

The Huffington Post called three Joey restaurant locations around Canada Wednesday to inquire about the shoe policy for servers and hostesses. One said they have no requirements for heels; another said that while there used to be a heels requirement, it no longer exists; and the Joey’s on Jasper Avenue in Edmonton — where the unnamed employee in the bloody photo works — refused comment. 

Perhaps all the attention will prompt other businesses to re-evaluate any unhealthy shoe policies. Gavins later wrote on Facebook that she hopes “we see some positive changes and fair labour practices for people in the service industry.”

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/05/11/high-heels-bleeding-restaurant-joey_n_9929004.html

The likes of Facebook and Microsoft have spurned fireworks, paintball guns and erectile dysfunction ads, much as publishing outlets have done for decades

Google was widely applauded this week for announcing it would stop selling ads for long-reviled payday loan companies. Facebook, it turns out, banned payday loan ads last year, along with those for weapons and unsafe supplements.

Yahoo wont advertise paintball guns, knives or fireworks and other explosives, Microsoft prohibits erectile dysfunction ads for Xbox users and all major tech firms, it seems, ban pornography adverts.

But does it matter how tech firms draw the line over who they do business with, or what type of ads users should be subjected to?

Googles decision offers the latest evidence that technology companies are not just, as some perceive them, a neutral global commons where all ideas compete. They are also media behemoths, hosting content, soaking up advertising dollars and making the awkward decisions confronted by publishing outlets for decades.

Questions about the morality of running ads arent new. Congress banned cigarette television ads starting in 1971.

Its all about protected first amendment choices and the discretion that publishers in this country enjoy, said Karlene Goller, the former press freedom attorney for the Los Angeles Times and now a media lawyer in private practice. Goller noted that when she was at the Times, the paper didnt run cigarette ads, escort service ads, or other ads that they decided were inappropriate for a newspaper of general circulation.

Whats different now is that an increasingly small number of technology firms control what an ever expanding number of people see online. And theyre willing to go beyond what is circumscribed in law to make their own decisions maybe shaping society in areas where governments wont act.

This change is designed to protect our users from deceptive or harmful financial products, Googles director of global product policy, David Graff, wrote in a blogpost announcing the ban, which goes into effect this summer.

Facebook officially banned payday loan ads last August, though in practice it wasnt permitting such ads before then, a person familiar with the matter said. Yahoo and Microsoft representatives did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.

Chris Moore, marketing consultant and a principal with Greenwich, Connecticut-based Brains For Rent, has written about advertising ethics for the Advertising Educational Foundation. Google, he says, is continuing a long tradition of media companies managing their brands by deciding which ads they want to run.

They are also rarely moral choices, Moore said.

Technology companies motives for policing ads can be hard to determine, but they often come under pressure to ditch certain companies.

Facebook has run into bad press and angry parents for occasionally allowing teens to see ads for inappropriate dating sites and weapons. And Google in 2011 agreed to forfeit $500m to the US justice department over ad sales to illegal pharmaceutical companies.

Facebook and Google have the right to not run ads, said Jonathan Taplin, director of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California.

In this case, Taplin said he was not convinced Google was acting to better society. Id call it a publicity stunt, he said. Their notion of whats bad and whats good is fungible.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/google-payday-loan-advertisement-facebook-microsoft-policies

With his brash rhetoric and hypernationalist platform, Donald Trump at times seems like a gift to activists looking for a boogeyman to rally the immigrant community.

But it’s not clear if Trump is actually serving that role, according to naturalization data. 

The number of legal permanent residents who filled out applications to become U.S. citizens jumped to 187,635 in the first quarter of the 2016 fiscal year, which ran from October to December. That figure marks a 14.5 percent spike compared to the same three-month period the year before.

The Stand Up to Hate campaign, a collection of nonpartisan and progressive groups that have banded together to help naturalize eligible immigrants as U.S. citizens so they can vote in this election, highlighted those numbers during a call with reporters Wednesday.

Several people involved with the campaign cited anecdotal evidence to argue that the charged political environment has prompted more immigrants to apply for citizenship. This would seem intuitive, considering the presumptive Republican nominee has bashed Mexicans as “rapists” and called for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

Stand Up to Hate has helped more than 12,000 immigrants apply for naturalization since last year, and has set an ambitious target of getting 1 million immigrants to apply for citizenship. Reaching that goal would require an annual rate of growth topping 28 percent.

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), who has been in Congress for the last five presidential elections, said on the call that his office has noticed an unusual number of constituents asking for help filling out their naturalization forms.

“There’s something new going on,” Gutiérrez said. “And I think we all know that it has something to do with the tenor, the tone of the race that people are confronting.”  

Mike Blake / Reuters
Undocumented DREAMer Astrid Silva introduces President Barack Obama before he addressed a crowed atDel Sol High School in Las VegasonNov. 21, 2014, and spoke aboutusingexecutive authority to relax U.S. immigration policy. Silva has joined the Stand up to Hate campaign to register immigrants to naturalize.

Immigrant rights activist Astrid Silva of Nevada agreed, saying that a series of Stand Up to Hate workshops saw lines out the door. Some people who have lived here more than four decades only took the initiative to apply for citizenship this year because of the menacing tone of television news, she said.

“They want to participate,” Silva said. “They feel their communities are under attack.”

Her comments dovetail with a multitude of news stories in recent months highlighting immigrants who have naturalized specifically to vote against Trump.

But actual naturalization data shows a less pronounced bump.

An uptick in eligible green card holders submitting naturalization applications is common during presidential election years. The number of applications jumped 15.9 percent in 2012, according to U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Services.

That’s more or less in line with the number Stand Up to Hate highlighted on Wednesday, although a month-by-month breakdown of the figures shows that 2016 might outpace the last presidential election year. When compared to the same three-month period from 2012, this year’s first-quarter results were about 6 percent higher.

But the figures will have to jump a lot more to show that Trump alone spurred a surge in applications for citizenship. 

The number of applications rose 24.6 percent in 2010 — well beyond the clip of the first-quarter results highlighted Wednesday. USCIS only keeps monthly data on its website to the tail end of 2011.

The figure shot up 89 percent in 2007, when the fee to apply for citizenship rose from $330 to $595. Many legal permanent residents naturalized ahead the price increase that July, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Hispanic media and activists led campaigns at the time urging eligible immigrants to apply for citizenship. 

Mary Altaffer / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Presumptive Republican nomineeDonald Trump gestures as he speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in his office at Trump Tower on Tuesday. Activists hope they can naturalize more immigrants to vote against him.

“I think we have to wait a little bit more for data to see whether or not there is a Trump effect,” Mark Hugo Lopez, who researches Latino demographic trends at the Pew Research Center, told The Huffington Post. “You’ll find many people who have chosen to naturalize because of Donald Trump. But is it happening on a large scale? That’s what we don’t know. I think we have to wait a little bit longer.”

USCIS spokesman Jim McKinney also said more data was needed to assess whether the rise in citizenship applications has been more pronounced this year than in the past. 

“Application numbers ebb and flow from year to year and even within the year,” McKinney told HuffPost. “We typically see the highest numbers March through May.”   

USCIS takes roughly five to six months to process citizenship applications, so the opportunity for new applicants to get approved in time to vote is disappearing.

Regardless, activists remain convinced that they can take advantage of a political moment in which Trump has largely alienated immigrants.

The first-quarter bump “doesn’t even come close to the trends that we predict we’ll see,” said Tara Raghuveer, the deputy director of the National Partnership for New Americans and one of the Stand Up to Hate campaign’s organizers.

“None of us have a crystal ball,” Raghuveer told HuffPost. “Our theory is that the political climate is creating urgency among folks that are eligible to naturalize now.”

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liarrampant xenophoberacistmisogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/05/11/naturalization-data-donald-trump_n_9913784.html