logo
Pampers diaper maker will slash 7,000 jobs as tariffs fuel uncertainty

Pampers diaper maker will slash 7,000 jobs as tariffs fuel uncertainty

CNN2 days ago

Procter & Gamble said Thursday it would cut 7,000 jobs or about 6% of its total workforce over the next two years, as part of a new restructuring plan to counter uneven consumer demand and higher costs due to tariff uncertainty.
The world's largest consumer goods company also plans to exit some product categories and brands in certain markets, executives said at a Deutsche Bank Consumer Conference in Paris.
The company had about 108,000 employees as of June 30, 2024. It said the job cuts would account for roughly 15% of its non-manufacturing workforce.
The Pampers maker's two-year restructuring plan comes as consumer spending is expected to remain pressured this year and global consumer goods makers including P&G and Unilever brace for a further hit to demand from even higher prices.
'This is not a new approach, rather an intentional acceleration of the current strategy… to win in the increasingly challenging environment in which we compete,' executives said.
President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on trading partners have roiled global markets and led to fears of a recession in the United States, the biggest market for P&G. The company imports raw ingredients, packaging materials and some finished products into the US from China.
Trump's trade war has cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, a Reuters analysis showed, a toll that is expected to rise.
In April, the Tide detergent maker said it would raise prices on some products and that it was prepared to pull every lever in its arsenal to mitigate the impact of tariffs.
Pricing and cost cuts were the main levers, CFO Andre Schulten said at the time.
On Thursday, Schulten and P&G's operations head Shailesh Jejurikar said the geopolitical environment was 'unpredictable' and that consumers were facing 'greater uncertainty.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Musk's feud with Trump could jeopardize his business empire
Why Musk's feud with Trump could jeopardize his business empire

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Musk's feud with Trump could jeopardize his business empire

Elon Musk, the world's richest man, may have made himself an enemy of the world's most powerful leader. The public blowout between Musk and President Trump is threatening the tech billionaire's businesses, some of which have billions of dollars' worth of federal contracts. Musk's aerospace company SpaceX alone reportedly has at least $22 billion in federal contracts — which Trump had threatened to revoke at the peak of his feud with his former adviser. 'Trump goes after people, companies and organizations he doesn't like,' said Peter Loge, a professor at George Washington University and former senior FDA adviser during the Obama administration. 'As a real estate developer, politician and president, he has used every tool at his disposal to punish people he thinks have wronged him,' Loge added. 'Unless Musk expresses contrition, Trump is likely to hurt him in every way he can think of. If Musk is contrite, he can be welcomed back into the Trump tent.' While the two could reconcile in the future, observers agree the dramatic turn of events leaves Musk's business empire vulnerable to Trump's wrath. Trump, at one point during Thursday's back-and-forth, threatened to cut Musk's government contracts as he called his former adviser 'crazy.' 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. Musk, in turn, said he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which is responsible for ferrying astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station. He later backed off, after an X user urged him to 'cool off and take a step back.' The exchange underscored how Musk's business ventures could get caught in the crosshairs of any feud with the president, who is known to have a proclivity for retribution. 'If this turns into a hot war, certainly, the consequences for Musk's business relationship with the federal government could be in peril, or at least significantly complicated,' said GOP strategist and Trump campaign alum Brian Seitchik. The tech billionaire officially departed the White House last week after a four-month stint in government in which he seemed to rarely leave Trump's side, becoming a near constant presence at Mar-a-Lago, Cabinet meetings and the Oval Office. He exited the administration seemingly on good terms with Trump despite his pushback against the president's sweeping tax and spending bill — the centerpiece of Trump's domestic policy agenda, which is projected to add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Trump presented Musk with a golden key to the White House during a Friday farewell ceremony in Oval Office, during which the duo downplayed their differences and spoke highly of each other's work. However, Musk sharpened his criticism of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' soon after, as he slammed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination.' The president responded Thursday, saying he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by Musk's comments and cast doubt on the future of their relationship. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said during an Oval Office appearance alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The situation quickly devolved into personal attacks. Musk fired back on his social platform X, suggesting the president would have lost the 2024 election without him, linking Trump to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and backing calls for the president's impeachment. As the feud dragged on Thursday, Tesla's stock plunged 14 percent Thursday, costing the electric vehicle maker more than $150 billion. The company was still trying to fully recover from the fallout of Musk's highly controversial role in the Trump administration, leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Tesla's stock is down 20 percent since the start of the year. 'The social media and war of words back and forth is not good for anyone and put massive pressure on Tesla shares with fears that Trump will turn from friend to foe and create a tough regulatory environment for Musk in the Beltway,' Wedbush Securities analysts wrote in a note Friday. 'Musk needs Trump and Trump needs Musk for many reasons, and these two becoming friends again will be a huge relief for Tesla shares,' they added. Ross Gerber, a longtime Tesla investor and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, slammed Musk for the ripple effects his comments may have had on Tesla's stock. 'Trump is an angry and vindictive man who doesn't forget when slighted. This doesn't get solved other than Elon groveling back and publicly apologizing,' Gerber wrote on X Friday, adding in an earlier post, 'So Tesla investors are down $140 billion over this break up. About how much Musk claimed to saving for the US government.' As the back-and-forth unfolded Thursday, Gerber quipped, 'Can someone please take the phone away from him [Musk].' When pressed on the feud, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Musk has a right to speak for his companies. 'So the only difference between Friday and today is Elon went back to his companies. And, as a businessman, he has a right to speak for his companies. But as president, President Trump has a responsibility to fight for this country,' she said Thursday on FOX News Channel's 'Hannity.' While Trump could pose new risks to Musk's business outlooks, analysts say the fight could also impede the president's ability to run the government. SpaceX held federal contracts with agencies like NASA and the Pentagon long before Trump's presidency, becoming a crucial partner to the federal government as it phased out the space shuttle program. If Musk reverses on his decision to keep Dragon in commission, experts say it could debilitate the U.S. space program 'If such threats were carried out, it would be catastrophic,' said space policy expert Mark Whittington, adding later, 'Without SpaceX, we're back to being dependent on the Russians.' NASA has increasingly relied on SpaceX for its infrastructure, including the Dragon capsule, which is the only U.S. system capable of getting crews to the International Space Station. Russia's Souyuz capsules, the Associated Press reported, are the only other way to get crews to the space station. While both Trump and Musk have much to lose from a war, some Republicans veterans aren't ruling out the chance of a reconciliation. 'There's always the possibility that Trump is serious about this, but I think if you take the 'Art of the Deal' seriously, he is often maximally negotiating,' said GOP strategist Chris Johnson. The feud appeared to cool slightly Friday morning, as Musk seemingly agreed with a post from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who suggested the pair 'should make peace for the benefit of our great country.' But Trump has shown no desire to talk to Musk despite reports the two might speak on the phone. 'I won't be speaking to him for a while, I guess, but I wish him well,' Trump told CNN's Dana Bash on Friday. Tesla's stock partially recovered amid hopes of a détente, rising 5 percent. 'If Musk is able to sue for peace and the onus is on him to make peace with Trump, then it'll be a blip in the screen and their bromance will be restored,' Seitchik told The Hill. However, he added, 'If this call goes poorly and this continues to escalate, then certainly Trump will look for every bit of leverage to inflict pain on Elon Musk and his businesses.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Sign in to access your portfolio

Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag
Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag

Pride Month has long been an occasion for companies and institutions to display their support for the LGBTQ+ community, whether it be for profit or for principle. It's often a trivial gesture, but it can have a meaningful impact for a community that had long been relegated to the shadows of society. But more recently, that support has waned amid a regressive political climate that has made many companies rethink their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. A survey conducted by the national risk management firm Gravity Research found that around 39% of companies said they would reduce their engagement around Pride Month this year. Some of the top reasons for the change were the Trump administration, conservative activists and conservative policymakers, the survey found. Major corporations, including Mastercard and Pepsi, have pulled their sponsorship of major Pride events or avoided the topic on social media. In North Carolina, the results are mixed. Take Lowe's, which is based in Mooresville. Lowe's hasn't yet acknowledged Pride Month on its social media — a marked difference from past years when it openly embraced the occasion. That's not unexpected, given that Lowe's has already announced an end to many of its DEI initiatives. Last year, the company said it would no longer participate in surveys conducted by LGBTQ+ groups and ended its support of outside events like festivals, parades and fairs. (Lowe's had previously been a longtime supporter of Charlotte's annual Pride festival.) But surprising or not, it's reflective of a growing trend away from publicly embracing the LGBTQ+ community. Charlotte-based Bank of America also has remained quiet about Pride so far. In past years, Bank of America has been vocal about celebrating the occasion on social media and honoring its LGBTQ+ employees with the hashtag #BofAPride, but that support has been absent this year. Compare that with Truist, which posted in celebration of Pride on its Facebook and Instagram accounts. For North Carolina's professional sports teams, the results are mixed, too. While the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte Hornets both celebrated the start of Pride on social media, the Carolina Hurricanes have not. In fact, the team has remained largely silent about Pride since 2023 — the Hurricanes are one of just a handful NHL teams to not acknowledge it this year — a decision that has disappointed many fans who feel a simple acknowledgment of the occasion is not too much to ask. The same goes for the state's largest cities. The city of Charlotte posted on its social media accounts at the beginning of Pride, in addition to updating its profile picture to a rainbow version of the city's crown logo. The cities of Raleigh and Greensboro, however, did not. This move toward silence comes at a time when things like Pride celebrations and flags are under attack from lawmakers across the state. Legislation has been introduced at the state level that would effectively ban the display of Pride flags in government buildings, while some counties have passed ordinances governing public events that some interpret as targeting Pride events or drag performances. Of course, a social media post is just that: a social media post. It's not going to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation, or save gay kids from being bullied, or change the country's attitude towards transgender people — at least not on its own. From some companies, it's just a lot of empty words or glorified virtue signaling. But public support for any marginalized group can be meaningful, especially when it happens on a large scale. And when institutions cower in the face of political pressure to stay silent, they're just letting the bullies win. It makes real change all the more difficult. Ultimately, it's not the silence that is the problem. It's the fact that the silence is new — a sudden absence of the public support and acceptance that existed before. It feels like another step backward during a time when progress feels like it's constantly stuck in reverse.

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights
Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sheetz racial discrimination case is on the chopping block as Trump rewrites civil rights

Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operates at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. In statement Friday, Lucas applauded a Supreme Court ruling Thursday that she said should encourage employees who feel DEI policies have discriminated against them. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store