In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A Anvisa (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária) determinou na manhã desta quinta-feira (22) a proibição da venda do medicamento Fauldleuco 10 mg/mL solução injetável vendido em frascos de 30 mL, produzido pela Libbs farmacêutica.

Em resolução publicada no DOI (Diário da União, a agência determinou a interdição cautelar por 90 dias do lote 25D0808 por suspeita de desvio de qualidade relacionado à presença de material particulado.

Isso significa uma possível presença de materiais não dissolvidos da fórmula ou partículas estranhas como borracha, plástico ou vidro dentro do frasco, o que viola além de violar as normas sanitárias pode causar o entupimento de pequenos vasos sanguíneos e reações alérgicas quando injetado nos pacientes.

O Fauldleuco é um medicamento usado para reduzir a toxicidade e como antídoto após tratamentos de quimioterapia, no tratamento de anemia megaloblástica quando a absorção oral não funciona, e ainda no tratamento paleativo de pacientes com carcicoma colorretal.

Anvisa amplia fiscalização contra irregularidades envolvendo canetas emagrecedoras | CNN 360º

Em nota, a Libbs Farmacêutica informou que está adotando todas as medidas necessárias em atendimento à determinação da Anvisa, que é preventiva e restrita exclusivamente ao lote mencionado.

A empresa alega que conforme investigação técnica própria, o material particulado observado é da formação de cristais do próprio princípio ativo do medicamento, o folinato de cálcio, o que pode pode acontecer por fatores como variações de temperatura durante o armazenamento.

Além disso, a Libbs orienta que caso a formação dos cristais seja identificado pelos profissionais da saúde, ele não deve ser administrado ao paciente, conforme descrito em bula, e seguirá acompanhando a investigação junto à Anvisa e às demais autoridades competentes.

O empresário Ivo Kos, de 48 anos, preso por suspeita de agredir e ameaçar a esposa, teve prisão preventiva revogada pela Justiça de São Paulo e deixou o presídio nesta quarta-feira (21).

De acordo com a SAP (Secretaria da Administração Penitenciária), ele estava na Penitenciária de Potim II, no interior do estado.

O caso aconteceu na zona Oeste da capital paulista, na madrugada de 15 de agosto. Segundo o relato da esposa, a dentista Giullia Falcão, de 27 anos, ele teria a agredido na mão direita com um golpe de taco de beisebol e a ameaçado com um taser.

Leia Mais:

Na data, Ivo foi preso em flagrante e teve a prisão convertida em preventiva durante audiência de custódia. Imagens de uma câmera de segurança, obtidas pela CNN Brasil, registraram o momento da agressão. Veja:

Relato da esposa

Em depoimento à polícia, Giullia afirmou que a discussão começou após um jantar do casal com clientes de Ivo. Segundo ela, durante o trajeto de volta para casa, o empresário teria iniciado as agressões.

Ao chegar à residência, Giullia disse que tentou impedir a entrada no imóvel, mas teria sido puxada para dentro com o auxílio de um segurança da rua, identificado no boletim de ocorrência como Cosme.

Já dentro da casa, segundo o relato, as agressões teriam continuado. A dentista afirmou que Ivo utilizou um taco de beisebol para atingir sua mão direita, provocando a fratura de um dedo.

Ela também relatou ter sido ameaçada com uma arma de choque e disse que o marido tomou seu celular para impedir que ela acionasse a Polícia Militar. Segundo Giullia, o empresário ainda teria feito ameaças de morte caso ela tentasse fugir ou deixar o relacionamento.

Agressões frequentes

Giullia afirmou nas redes sociais que a agressão registrada na data não teria sido um episódio isolado. Segundo ela, outros casos de violência ocorreram durante os quase três anos de casamento.

Em um vídeo publicado nas redes sociais, a dentista mostrou ferimentos no rosto e afirmou ter sofrido uma fratura no dedo.

“Esta é a situação em que meu marido me deixou. Veja, um dedo quebrado, meu rosto todo deformado”, disse. Giullia também relatou que já havia registrado uma ocorrência anterior contra o marido e procurado um advogado criminalista.

Após receber atendimento médico, a vítima retornou à residência do casal e encontrou a porta trancada e a fechadura trocada.

“Vai ser bem ruim para você”: veja mensagens de ameças de Ivo Kos à esposa

Versão do empresário

Em depoimento, Ivo Kos apresentou uma versão diferente dos fatos. O empresário afirmou que a discussão começou depois de comentários feitos pela esposa durante o jantar. Ele afirmou que ela teria o menosprezado diante de clientes.

Kos disse ainda que os dois possuem histórico de problemas relacionados ao consumo de álcool. Durante o trajeto de carro, segundo o empresário, Giullia teria afirmado que ele a havia traído durante uma viagem a Miami e iniciado agressões com socos e chutes.

Ele negou ter agredido a esposa dentro do carro ou da residência. Também negou ter usado um taco de beisebol, uma arma de choque ou feito ameaças de morte.

O investidor, no entanto, admitiu ter dado um soco no rosto de Giullia enquanto os dois estavam na calçada. Segundo ele, o golpe foi uma reação às agressões que estaria sofrendo.

Kos também confirmou ter tomado o celular da esposa para impedir que ela ligasse para a polícia.

Ainda segundo o empresário, ele tentou oferecer gelo à esposa para tratar um ferimento no rosto. Kos afirmou que Giullia teria arremessado o gelo contra sua cabeça, provocando lesões na testa e na orelha direita.

O empresário também disse que pediu ajuda ao segurança Cosme para levar a esposa para dentro da residência e afirmou que foi ameaçado de morte por ela.

A CNN Brasil entrou em contato com as defesas de Ivo e Giullia sobre a soltura e aguarda retorno.

A campanha Vote Segura elaborou um guia com um conjunto de boas práticas legislativas para orientar a formulação de programas de mandato, projetos de lei, atividades de fiscalização e articulação política.

Notícias relacionadas:

• Cresce número de mulheres eleitas para o Congresso Nacional.
• Operação Mulher Segura prende mais de 57 mil agressores em 141 dias.
• Justiça torna ré PM por homicídio de mulher na zona leste de SP.

O guia reúne 11 recomendações para os próximos parlamentares eleitos:

1. priorizar a prevenção sem abandonar a responsabilização;
2. estruturar políticas públicas permanentes;
3. fortalecer a coordenação entre os entes federativos;
4. promover a integração entre diferentes políticas públicas;
5. basear decisões em evidências e dados confiáveis;
6. incorporar mecanismos permanentes de monitoramento e avaliação;
7. fortalecer a transparência e o controle por parte da sociedade;
8. estabelecer critérios objetivos para acesso a recursos públicos;
9. adotar uma perspectiva de direitos humanos voltada também às mulheres;
10. produzir impactos mensuráveis;
11. evitar respostas legislativas exclusivamente simbólicas.
     

 

 

 

 

Ver esse post no Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um post compartilhado por Rede Justiça Criminal (@redejusticacriminal)

A coordenadora executiva da Rede Justiça Criminal, Janine Salles de Carvalho, destaca que as mulheres brasileiras estão com medo, e com razão. Elas mudam suas rotinas, compartilham a localização em tempo real quando saem à noite, preocupam-se com a própria segurança.

“Esse medo, infelizmente, também se tornou um ativo político capaz de mobilizar votos. Mas responder à insegurança não significa apostar apenas em mais polícia ou prisões. Precisamos olhar para aquilo que impede que a violência aconteça.”

Um hotel de quatro estrelas situado junto à Praia de Alvor, no concelho de Portimão, prepara-se para encerrar temporariamente para obras. A unidade, pertencente ao grupo Pestana, deverá permanecer fechada durante aproximadamente seis meses, estando o regresso à atividade previsto para a primavera do próximo ano.

Trata-se do Pestana Dom João II Beach & Golf Resort, cuja página oficial anuncia o encerramento entre 31 de outubro e 1 de maio de 2027. Apesar da proximidade da data, o sistema de reservas apresenta tarifas desde 77 euros por noite para duas pessoas, com pequeno-almoço incluído.

Hotel vai permanecer encerrado até maio de 2027

De acordo com o site oficial do Pestana Dom João II, a unidade vai interromper a atividade para a realização de obras a partir de 31 de outubro. O aviso disponibilizado pelo grupo hoteleiro estabelece o dia 1 de maio de 2027 como data de referência para o fim do período de encerramento, não sendo especificada a natureza das intervenções previstas.

O anúncio surge numa altura em que o hotel continua a apresentar diferentes categorias de alojamento no respetivo sistema de reservas. No entanto, não foram divulgados pormenores sobre as áreas que serão intervencionadas, nem sobre eventuais alterações aos quartos, restaurantes ou restantes instalações depois da conclusão dos trabalhos.

Quanto custa passar uma noite neste hotel?

Numa consulta ao site oficial do grupo Pestana, realizada esta quinta-feira, 22 de outubro, surgia uma tarifa de 77 euros para um quarto Deluxe Vista Terra, com pequeno-almoço incluído, para dois adultos, na noite de 29 para 30 de outubro. O preço já contemplava um desconto de 10% associado aos benefícios para membros, sendo a modalidade mais económica apresentada como não reembolsável.

Na mesma pesquisa, um quarto Deluxe Vista Jardim custava 90 euros, enquanto a opção Deluxe Vista Lateral Mar apresentava um preço de 99 euros.

Piscinas e spa fazem parte das instalações

O Pestana Dom João II encontra-se junto à Praia de Alvor e dispõe de acesso direto à zona balnear. Entre as instalações destacadas pelo grupo hoteleiro está uma piscina exterior de água salgada, rodeada por jardins, bem como uma piscina interior aquecida, destinada aos hóspedes que procuram uma alternativa aos banhos de mar.

Segundo a mesma fonte, o hotel conta ainda com o Magic SPA, onde estão disponíveis massagens e tratamentos, além de sauna e banho turco. Para quem prefere atividades ao ar livre, existem opções como minigolfe, futebol e voleibol de areia. Os quartos apresentam uma decoração inspirada nas cores da praia, havendo também soluções comunicantes destinadas a famílias.

Hotel fica a 10 minutos a pé do centro de Alvor

A localização é outra das características desta unidade hoteleira. Situado entre a Praia de Alvor e a zona da ria, o estabelecimento encontra-se a aproximadamente dez minutos a pé do centro da vila, permitindo chegar a restaurantes, comércio e outros espaços de interesse sem necessidade de utilizar automóvel.

No que diz respeito à restauração, o hotel dispõe do restaurante Pavilhão do Rei, onde são servidas refeições em regime de buffet, incluindo especialidades internacionais e propostas com influência algarvia. A oferta é complementada por espaços de bar, utilizados para refeições ligeiras e bebidas, sendo que alguns funcionam sazonalmente.

Leia também: Resort de Albufeira eleito o melhor de Portugal em regime tudo incluído nos World Travel Awards

Manager e imprese, l’equilibrio fragile tra autonomia, riorganizzazioni e contenziosi

Il rapporto tra impresa e manager è diventato negli ultimi anni più complesso e, in parallelo, più esposto al contenzioso. Non perché siano aumentati i conflitti in sé, ma perché è cambiata la natura stessa delle responsabilità affidate ai dirigenti. Il manager oggi opera in contesti caratterizzati da trasformazioni rapide, riorganizzazioni frequenti, obiettivi economici più stringenti e una crescente esposizione personale, anche reputazionale. Ne deriva un equilibrio sempre più delicato tra autonomia decisionale, responsabilità e rapporto fiduciario.

Il tema riguarda in particolare i cambiamenti di strategia aziendale. Un’impresa può modificare assetti, organizzazione, mercati di riferimento e leadership per rispondere a nuove esigenze. Ma fino a che punto un cambio di strategia può incidere sul rapporto con il manager? E quando una diversa visione del futuro dell’azienda può tradursi legittimamente nella cessazione del rapporto?

Un caso particolarmente significativo, per quanto riferito a un contesto diverso da quello manageriale, è quello di Sigfrido Ranucci e della Rai. Il giornalista era stato rimosso il 28 agosto 2026 dalla conduzione di Report nell’ambito di una riorganizzazione aziendale; egli aveva contestato la decisione rivolgendosi, in via cautelare e urgente, al Tribunale di Roma, sostenendo, tra l’altro, la natura discriminatoria del provvedimento e un suo sostanziale demansionamento. La Rai aveva invece ricondotto la scelta a esigenze organizzative e alla necessità di intervenire sulle tensioni interne alla redazione.

Assunte sommarie informazioni dai testi indicati dalle parti, il Tribunale ha respinto il ricorso di Ranucci. La motivazione è interessante sotto il profilo giuslavoristico: secondo il giudice, la riorganizzazione della redazione, accompagnata dall’avvicendamento nella conduzione e nelle responsabilità autorali, appariva, a un esame sommario, sganciata dalla parallela vicenda disciplinare e finalizzata a risolvere una situazione di tensione interna, costituendo uno strumento di tutela del “sereno operare” della redazione. Il giudice ha inoltre considerato l’individuazione del conduttore, come scelta riconducibile alle prerogative dell’impresa editoriale.

Il caso mostra quanto sia importante, quando un’azienda modifica il proprio assetto organizzativo, documentare le reali ragioni della scelta e mantenerle distinte da eventuali profili disciplinari. È una questione che riguarda anche il mondo manageriale. Per un dirigente, infatti, la domanda centrale diventa: quanto è protetto il ruolo quando cambia la strategia dell’azienda? La risposta dipende anzitutto dal contratto, dalla posizione ricoperta, dalle deleghe, dagli obiettivi assegnati e dalla concreta struttura dei poteri. Ma anche dalla capacità dell’azienda di motivare e documentare le proprie scelte.

In verità, i contratti dei top manager spesso vengono costruiti pensando soprattutto alla remunerazione, ai bonus, agli incentivi e agli strumenti di retention, mentre meriterebbero maggiore attenzione proprio le clausole relative alle modifiche dell’incarico, alle riorganizzazioni, alle deleghe, alla cessazione del rapporto e alle conseguenze economiche di un cambiamento di ruolo.

È un aspetto destinato ad assumere crescente importanza. Il manager oggi è infatti più autonomo rispetto a ieri, ma proprio per questo è anche più esposto. Gli vengono attribuiti maggiori poteri decisionali, ma anche maggiori responsabilità sui risultati, sulla compliance, sulla reputazione e sulle conseguenze delle proprie decisioni. L’autonomia, quindi, non coincide necessariamente con una maggiore protezione: spesso significa maggiore accountability.

li caso Lovaglio, nel mondo bancario, rappresenta sotto questo profilo un altro esempio utile per interrogarsi sul rapporto tra vertice aziendale, strategia e fiducia. In situazioni di cambiamento profondo, la domanda non è soltanto se il manager abbia raggiunto gli obiettivi assegnati, ma se esista ancora una sufficiente convergenza sulla direzione strategica dell’impresa: insomma, il diritto del lavoro incontra la governance societaria. 

Un manager può essere professionalmente valido e, nello stesso tempo, non essere più ritenuto funzionale alla nuova strategia dell’azienda. Il punto giuridico diventa allora distinguere questa situazione da una decisione arbitraria, ritorsiva o discriminatoria.

La prevenzione del contenzioso passa quindi anche attraverso una maggiore qualità della contrattualistica. Per i ruoli apicali non basta definire retribuzione e benefit: occorre disciplinare con chiarezza responsabilità, deleghe, obiettivi, possibilità di modifica dell’incarico e conseguenze di una riorganizzazione. Quanto più il ruolo è strategico, tanto più è importante che il contratto individui correttamente poteri e responsabilità effettivi.

Il tema, in definitiva, non è rendere il manager inattaccabile, né attribuire all’impresa una libertà assoluta di riorganizzazione: è raggiungere un equilibrio. L‘impresa deve poter cambiare per adattarsi al mercato; il manager deve poter conoscere con sufficiente chiarezza le regole del rapporto e quali rischi derivano dall’esercizio delle proprie responsabilità.

Il futuro del rapporto tra aziende e dirigenti passerà sempre più da qui: meno rigidità nelle formule contrattuali ma maggiore precisione nella definizione dei ruoli; più autonomia manageriale, ma anche più accountability; maggiore capacità dell’impresa di cambiare, ma anche maggiore attenzione a motivazioni, procedure e documentazione.

LEGGI LE NOTIZIE DEL CANALE ECONOMIA

L'articolo Manager, rapporto fiduciario e nuove regole del lavoro: quando cambia la strategia dell’impresa proviene da Affaritaliani.it.

No 10 says Russian president ‘has killed thousands of people, both innocent Ukrainians and his own people’

Downing Street has rejected the description of Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian” made by Donald Trump’s chief negotiator on the Ukraine war.

Steve Witkoff met the Russian president in St Petersburg on Wednesday as he sought to make a new push to end the invasion of Ukraine, with the US putting pressure on Kyiv to agree to a settlement.

• Julian Buckner founded Vesta Homes, a luxury interior design company in 2018.
• He's worked with celebrities and high-end clients staging their homes and selling custom furniture.
• He gives his advice on how to make your home feel more luxurious without breaking the bank.

For luxury and elegance, homeowners often have to shell out for professional help finding the latest trends and big-ticket items. But what if you want your home to look expensive, but you can't break the bank?

According to an interior designer to the stars, there are still ways to communicate luxury via your own personal taste.

"Anyone with money can walk into a B&B Italia and spend $1 million on furniture and have it look like a B&B Italia showroom," said Julian Buckner, who founded the Los Angeles-based staging, interior design, and furniture sales company Vesta Homes in 2018. "Taste is knowing when to put in the ultra-modern leather casino sofa and then marry it with some vintage nightstand that you found at the design mart in Texas."

Buckner, who has worked with clients like LeBron James, Travis Scott, and Jonah Hill, said the average home he stages is worth about $6 million. But his advice applies regardless of price point. Below, he shares his tips for how people can make their homes feel more luxurious without the hefty price tag.

Bring a personal touch to your decorating.

Bringing something unique and unexpected into a room as decoration shows a level of thought that conveys luxury unlike anything else, Buckner said.

"Those small knickknacks or found items may be the single biggest thing to add personality to a space," he said. "I've seen those antique old wooden shoe horns, antique toys, plaster or marble busts, anything you just wanted to tie into the broader aesthetic."

Just make sure not to get carried away.

"I see people go to HomeGoods and just buy a bunch of random knickknacks and put them on every shelf, and I think that cheapens it," Buckner said.

"It's like informal men's dress wear," he added. "There are a couple of areas you can express personality, and it's maybe in your socks and your choice of a wristwatch. I think that same thing is true in luxury design, where it's in those found items, those antiques, and ultimately the accessories; that's a really unique opportunity to express yourself."

Make furniture unique by having fun with different fabrics.

There are other subtle ways to show off your personality, too. Buckner said a great way to add a unique fixture to your home is to reupholster furniture.

"I think that the average consumer does not appreciate, does not understand, or does not even know that reupholstering is an option," he said. "You can take a relatively inexpensive sofa and for not a ton of money, reupholster it in a really unique fabric that ties into the rest of the home, and that can absolutely make a space."

Try not to have everything match.

While having a theme to a room is fine, Buckner said having things too "matchy-matchy" is no longer in style.

"You can see that with the emergence and the popularity of a company like a Restoration Hardware, this more monotone type of furniture and people buying full rooms together and having everything matchy-matchy," Buckner said. "We're seeing a shift away from that and a real focus on curation — on things not matching."

Sometimes, things clashing can actually make a room more interesting.

"I think when things don't match, when there's a little bit of dissonance in the design, that's an area — when it's done tastefully, not tons of different fabrics and colors and textures everywhere — to make you stop and think, 'Oh, that's interesting,'" he said. "We're starting to see a lot more of that."

Window treatments are the most important and easiest fixes for your home.

Buckner's No. 1 fix for adding style to your home is adjusting your window treatments.

"Window treatments, I think, are often massively overlooked, and it's a very inexpensive way to make a space feel very high-end," he said. "Whether the curtains are too heavy, they're poorly positioned, or the rods look cheap, there's such an opportunity there in fabric and layering on the window treatment side that I think can add a ton to a room."

Trendy isn't always better.

It's hard not to be inspired when you see a celebrity's home with a special lamp or a certain style of couch (Buckner said Bouclé has had its moment), but it's often better to stay away from popular trends.

While Buckner's high-end clients change their homes around every three to five years, trying to keep up with trends isn't cost-effective for the average consumer. It's more important to find pieces that you like first.

"I would stay away from trends and focus on timeless design and products that you actually love. Spend the time on putting that together, whether it's something you found in a unique place, or has a story behind it, or something that resonates," Buckner said.

"When it's thoughtfully done, it really conveys the highest level of taste."

• After traveling to over 50 cities in Europe, I've enjoyed visiting some lesser-known locations.
• Bath, England, is a great place to visit for Roman ruins and beautiful architecture.
• I also loved traveling to Bruges, Belgium, which is both historic and romantic.

I've visited over 50 cities in Europe, and although I love global tourist hubs like London and Paris, I also try to seek out smaller cities and towns.

Here are five lesser-known destinations in Europe I recommend visiting.

Bath, England, is just a 90-minute train ride from London.

As you probably could have guessed from this city's name, Bath is known for its Roman baths. These baths, dating back to AD 70, are some of the best-preserved Roman ruins in the world.

The city is full of beautiful Georgian architecture, which can be admired in places like the Royal Crescent — a crescent-shaped row of 30 houses.

I also loved visiting the Circus, which is made up of townhouses arranged in a circular pattern. In my opinion, these areas are part of what makes walking around Bath feel unique.

The train from London to Bath takes about 90 minutes, making this city the perfect day trip.

Heidelberg, Germany, embraces modern life without losing its historical charm.

Heidelberg has striking views around every corner. The city is home to a centuries-old castle as well as the oldest university in Germany.

I enjoyed walking along Philosophenweg (also called Philosopher's Way), where professors sought solitude and academic inspiration. The path was especially beautiful during my trip in the fall.

We loved spending time in the city, which had lots of nice restaurants and cool bars. In my opinion, Heidelberg does an amazing job of embracing the new while holding on to its historical charm.

Bruges, Belgium, is a romantic city.

Bruges is a laid-back destination that makes a convenient day trip from nearby Paris and Brussels. In my opinion, visiting the medieval city feels like stepping back in time.

The best thing I did was take a boat ride on the canal, admiring the architecture while cruising through Minnewaterpark, commonly referred to as the Lake of Love.

The city is perfect for couples looking to indulge in Belgian beer and chocolate.

Mostar is a beautiful city in southern Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mostar really surprised me because it didn't look like anywhere else I'd been. The towering 16th-century Old Bridge connecting the two sides of the city is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The city also has a well-preserved Ottoman quarter with charming cobblestone streets.

During my time in Mostar, I loved drinking Bosnian coffee, taking in the views of the city, and feasting on local dishes like ćevapi.

Andorra La Vella is a hidden gem in the Pyrenees mountains.

Andorra La Vella is the capital of Andorra, a country in the Pyrenees between France and Spain.

Every restaurant we dined at featured dishes influenced by the surrounding countries. If you want to try authentic Andorran food, head to a borda — a traditional house once used for agricultural purposes. Now, these buildings are used as charming restaurants.

Andorra la Vella makes a great day trip from Barcelona, but, in my opinion, the city deserves more than a one-day visit.

This story was originally published on July 3, 2024, and most recently updated on October 22, 2025.

The Pentagon’s Active Denial System shoots energy beam that causes ‘sensation of intense heat on surface of skin’

Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defense, reportedly signed a memo last month permitting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to test a non-lethal “heat ray” for potential use at the US southern border.

The “heat ray”, known as the Active Denial System, is a military-grade weapon that shoots an energy beam causing “a sensation of intense heat on the surface of the skin”, according to a 2009 National Defense University case study on the weapon.