Should small business owners care what the Supreme Court does?

Yep.

Supposedly, 40 percent of the court's cases directly impact business owners.

There was a host of rulings during the 2007-2008 session that could impact entrepreneurs both positively and negatively -- everything from rulings on union organizing to taxes.

So how did things play out for all of you this session?

Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel for the Small Business Legal Center at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) offers a great overview of the decisions, and she gives the court's record a mixed review:

Under the "victory" column:

--Employers scored an important victory in Chamber vs. Brown when the court rejected California's attempt to restrict employers' communication with employees during a union drive. This decision allows California's small business owners the rights provided to them under the National Labor Relations Act, and it serves as a warning to other state legislatures considering regulating employers' speech. 
 
--In Sprint vs. Mendelsohn, the court ruled that courts are not required to admit "me-too" evidence (testimony by non-parties) in employment law discrimination cases. If trial courts were required to admit "me-too" evidence, then in every employment discrimination case an employer would face litigating not only the decision being challenged, but also the circumstances of every termination or any other adverse employment action taken against each of the "me-too" witnesses.
 
Under the "failure" column:

--The court's 7-1 ruling in Meacham vs. Knolls will make it easier for workers to pursue age discrimination lawsuits. The court determined that when older workers are disproportionately impacted by employment decisions the employer bears the burden of showing that reasons other than age discrimination were responsible for the outcome.
 
--In Federal Express Corp. vs. Holowecki the court sided with employees who had argued that the filing of a simple intake questionnaire is tantamount to filing a discrimination charge. This decision may allow certain informal filings to be recognized as a charge for discrimination purposes.
 
--In the non-employment arena, two of court's business decisions are particularly disappointing for small business. The court's decision in Hall Street Associates vs. Mattel will preclude parties from contracting for expanded judicial review of arbitration decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act. NFIB's brief argued that allowing parties the right to contract for expanded judicial review would have made arbitration a more attractive option for small business owners.
 
--In a critical tax matter, U.S. vs. Clintwood Elkhood Mining, the court sided with the Internal Revenue Service and ruled that taxpayers have just three years to file a claim for a refund of an unconstitutional tax assessment. The NFIB had argued that taxpayers are entitled to six years under another federal law.

As you can tell, many of the decisions were weighted against businesses. Do any of you believe these cases will impact your business? If so, how?

The NFIB thinks they will, and the group plans to keep fighting in order to show "how important it is for the justices on the Supreme Court to understand how their decisions will impact small businesses," Milito said.

Lawmakers have crossed the aisle in Congress to come up with a health care bill that won't do a lot to alleviate the hell small businesses face when it comes to affording insurance, but at least it's something.

Last week, House Small Business Committee Chairwoman Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) joined forces to introduce a bill called The Small Business CHOICE (Cooperative for Healthcare Options to Improve Coverage for Employees) Act that aims to help make healthcare more affordable for entrepreneurs.

The bill encourages small business cooperatives to pool their buying power and potentially get better rates, and it also provides some tax incentives.

Will the bill be enough? Probably not.

Legislators shared some gloomy statistics when they announced the new act. According to a press release from the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Small Business:

"It is estimated that more than half of the 47 million people across the country who lack health insurance live in a household headed by a small business owner or employee. Over the course of the past year, small firms have seen healthcare costs rise by almost 15 percent. The number of companies offering coverage, meanwhile, has dropped by more than a quarter."

Despite the harsh realities, Velázquez and Pitts think their proposal will make a difference.

"The Small Business CHOICE Act would keep small firms from having to choose between providing health coverage to their employees and keeping their doors open," Velázquez said. "By giving entrepreneurs viable health care options, we are not just helping their businesses succeed. We are bringing coverage to the tens of millions of Americans who contribute to our economy, but find health insurance out of reach."

So, how will this happen?

The new act calls for a refundable tax credit of 65 percent -- an extra 5 percent credit for firms that have not offered insurance before -- and it takes away some of the risk that insurance companies face when small firms buy into insurance cooperatives, thus opening up the door to more entrepreneurs who want to join those cooperatives.

That, at least, is how the legislators see it.

The buying pools, a key part of the legislation, make sense on the surface, but it's unclear whether such cooperatives will actually work. Many experts I've interviewed in the past have said the only way to make these pools work well is if businesses are allowed to join forces with companies in other states to buy health coverage across state lines, something that's currently prohibited.

I asked Duncan Neasham, the press person for the Committee on Small Business, if the CHOICE Act would eliminate this barrier.

Alas, the answer was no:

Last week, I was a guest on "The Big Idea," a show on CNBC hosted by Donny Deutsch, and the topic of the day was whether a husband and wife should start a business together.

I was on hand to talk about why this is probably not a good idea for most couples out there.

My mom has a saying -- "never with your husband."

She came up with it after years of trying to run a business with my late father.

Both my mom and dad were successful entrepreneurs when they operated ventures on their own. My mom ran a successful home tailoring business and also did well with a boutique in Manhattan. My dad was a serial entrepreneur -- a furrier, stationary store operator and restaurateur.

But when they combined their efforts things usually collapsed.

Why? If you ask my mother she'd say it's because of my dad's ego and his upbringing -- he was brought up to think men had to run the show.

When it came to my sisters and me, he wanted us to get a good education and never rely on a mate, but when it came to my mother, he wanted to be the boss.

I gave Deutsch five reasons for why couples shouldn't embark on cohabitation at work:

1. Marriage and business usually go belly up.
2. Kiss romance goodbye.
3. The dining room becomes the boardroom.
4. "I can't believe you said that." Try telling your spouse they screwed up.
5. The battle of the sexes. If you've never resolved the issue of which one of you is the boss at home get ready for all out war at home.

I know, I was being pretty negative. So I figured I'd offer you all some tips on how you might be able to make it work:

1. Follow the leader: I think one of the biggest things to figure out right away is the role for each spouse. In many marriages today, even though we're a more enlightened society, the husband often takes on the role of head of the household. How will that play out with the business, especially if the venture was the brainchild of the wife? You have to figure out who will be the leader of the company.
2. Erect a wall: While it's impossible to keep work and home life totally separate, couples have to do their best to have off-the-clock couple time, and they have to create boundaries when it comes to bringing family issues into the office or factory floor.
3. Find a mediator: Sometimes a couple will reach an impasse and be unable to decide on something, and because you're so emotionally invested in one another the risk of hurting your spouse's feelings is high. In general, I've always found that successful entrepreneurs have mentors or other business people they trust, and this sort of person would be a great source to help mediate any particularly sticky business decisions that crop up between you and your spouse.
4. Get on the same page: Before a couple even considers joining forces to form a company, they have to make sure they have a shared vision for the product or service they'll be selling. Since you could be sacrificing your most important relationship (your marriage) you want to make sure that the two of you have the same goals from the outset, or you'll be doomed.

The two couples I was on the CNBC show with -- Cricket and Brian Allen, the co-founderss of bot, a fortified water business, and Sandra and Kym Yancey, owners of eWomenNetwork, a national networking website -- seemed to have gotten it right.

Do any of you have stories of couple-run businesses that worked, or crashed and burned?

Ideas are sticky things, especially if you come up with an idea while you're working for a company and then want to leave that company with that idea and compete with your former employer.

The recent hubbub over the popular Bratz doll line involving Mattel and a designer who used to work for the toy giant is a good example of what not to do if you're working for "The Man" and have dreams of going off on your own to start a business that's similar to your old boss' company.

Mattel claimed that the company manufacturing Bratz stole the idea for the doll through a "secret collaboration" with a former Mattel toy designer. A court in California agreed with Mattel on many points in a decision late last week.

Basically, the company proved that the designer had been working for Mattel when he designed the funky, big-headed Bratz dolls, which look like a hipper version of Barbie.

This from a Mattel statement:

Today in Federal Court, a 10-person jury has rendered a unanimous decision that the majority of Bratz design drawings, prototypes and sculpts were created by doll designer Carter Bryant while he was employed by Mattel. The jury has also determined that MGA and its CEO, Isaac Larian:

-- intentionally interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel;

-- aided and abetted Bryant's breach of his duty of loyalty;

-- aided and abetted Bryant's breach of the fiduciary duties he owed to Mattel; and

-- converted Mattel property for their own use.

While one-time Mattel toy designer Bryant went on to work for another company, this is an important case for aspiring entrepreneurs to think about.

Employees often decide to embark on their own ventures, and many of them believe the products they designed or the ideas they hatched while still under the employ of a company are theirs to do with as they please.

Sometimes courts disagree and find that employees have little rights to the ideas they hatch while working for a company, especially if those workers sign non-compete contracts or create the product on a company computer, or using the company's property.

Even though you may not be stealing "company" ideas, and you start your new business from the ground up, your former employer could still end up hauling you into court.

I wrote about this very thing for the New York Times a while back.

Two friends who had worked for Pitney Bowes decided to start their own venture, similar to the Pitney model, and ended up in court.

In the case of the Bratz dolls, Mattel not only sued MGA, the company making the dolls, but also its former employee, Bryant.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Bryant settled that suit for an undisclosed sum.

Supposedly, Bryant used a program to wipe his computer's hard drive clean, calling into question his credibility.

What do you all think about this decision?

Mattel doesn't seem to dispute that Bryant came up with the Bratz designs.

It seems unfair that individuals may end up not having the rights to the things they've created. Won't these kinds of court findings put a damper on working stiffs who have visions of someday striking out on their own?

Who's to say if Mattel would have ever put money behind Bryant's Bratz concept? If they hadn't, the world may have ended up with only one ridiculously thin, plastic doll that wears ridiculously high heels.

The $6.50 Cuban sandwich sold at the three Pressed sandwich shops in Boston will likely be going up in price about 32 cents before the end of the month.

After several years of keeping prices steady, owner Andrew Pierce says inflationary pressures are squeezing his profits like a hot panini press, and he's got to raise prices or his business will end up oozing out like melted cheese in an overloaded sandwich.

OK, I got a little carried away with the metaphor.

But the bottom line is that small businesses are being hammered by inflation.

Do you hear that, federal policymakers?

Federal Reserve policymakers have been struggling over whether to take further action to boost economic growth or to begin raising rates to curb escalating inflation.

If you ask small business owners, they'll probably tell you to focus on inflation because rapidly rising prices for a host of supplies are causing them to boost their own prices, and who do you think won't like that? Customers.

No customers, no sales. No sales, no economic growth.

The day I interviewed Pierce, a story in the Wall Street Journal came out about how inflation is causing workers to brown-bag it and bypass eating out for lunch.

Pierce hadn't read the story yet because he was so busy with work that day, so I had to break the bad news.

"Oh, man," he said with a hint of agony in his voice. "Our biggest competitor is the lonely brown bag."

He knows even a 5 percent hike in prices for his sandwiches will get a lot of customers saying, "Forget this. I'll just bring lunch from home." But he has little choice given that meat prices have skyrocketed 15 to 20 percent this year.

"Inflation has made it difficult for us to squeeze out any profit," he says.

Indeed, a new study put out by the National Federation of Independent Business found that inflation is the No. 1 concern among their members.

"Since 1983, the average percent of owners citing inflation as a top problem has been 3 percent. In February 2008, 8 percent cited inflation as their top problem. By May, 17 percent said inflation was their top concern, and in June it rocketed to 20 percent."

Inflation isn't the only culprit. The growing push for businesses to go green is also taking a bite out of the bottom line.

Pierce says customers want him to use environmentally friendly products and paper goods, but those cost more. "People are not willing to pay more for that," he explains.

So, after looking within his operations, which also includes fourth restaurant called The Carving Station, and getting rid of excess fat where ever possible, he's left with no choice but to raise prices on many of his products.

For what it's worth, Pierce offered his advice to the Federal Reserve: Take some pressure off the inflation panini press.

I was amazed at the types of responses I got to my recent blog post on giving grants to flood victims.

Many readers were up in arms that the women quoted in the post suggested the government should give small business owners hurt by the floods a grant instead of a loan because so many of these entrepreneurs were already in debt.

One reader summed up how many of you were feeling:

"The flood is indeed a tragedy, and I will gladly donate money to help flood victims. However, why does being a flood victim entitle anyone (to) a grant from the government? The government is not the cause of the flood. Furthermore, these business leaders freely chose to establish their businesses in a flood zone. Instead of seeking handouts from the government, these business leaders should take care of themselves with more prudent business practices such as maintaining a realistic emergency (flood) fund, etc."

There are some valid points here but when our neighbors hit rock bottom, shouldn't we all come together?

Even the federal agency behind many of the loans is extending a tiny lifeline to these small business owners now.

Late last week, the Small Business Administration put out a release urging lenders participating in the its loan program to give a break to small firms in the Midwest flood zone.

The SBA urged "lenders to provide deferment relief of three or more months for borrowers in the six Midwest states that were declared federal disaster areas following the recent flooding.

"Counties in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri and Wisconsin, and adjacent counties in Kentucky and Ohio were recently declared federal disaster areas, making federal recovery assistance available to residents and businesses in the area."

I know, it's not a government grant. But I can imagine such a deferment will go a long way for small business owners trying to come to grips with the devastation.

The SBA move is only a suggestion, not a guarantee that these lenders will allow such deferments.

"I want you to understand that we do not have the authority to compel lenders to offer these deferments to their borrowers," explains SBA spokesman Mike Stamler. "We can only urge them to do that."

We can all do a little urging of our own. If you're dead set against grants for flood victims, giving them a few extra months before they have to start repaying loans isn't asking a lot, is it?

One reader from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, put it best: "I, for one, like most (of) the people around here that will help regardless of who it is or what state they are in, am going to do all I can to help, regardless of who 'the public' feels is deserving.  We are all in this together, whether you want to believe it or not."

"I have quit feeling guilty that I'm a mom first."

I recently read this line in Working Mother magazine while I was sitting in the pediatrician's office waiting to have my son's tonsils checked. Ah, guilt -- every working mom has it at one point or another. How do you quit it?

I had to cancel an important story interview to get my son to the doctor's office, and I only started reading the magazine as a way to take my mind off a number of stressful thoughts.  Would I make it back to my office in time to finish an article that was due? Would the doctor tell me my kid needed his tonsils out? Would dinner be ready by 6 p.m. when my father-in-law was coming over.

The source of the quote above was Sarah Stevens, the owner of a technology security business in Charlotte, N.C., and mother of four kids, ages 9 and under.

The article talked about how she sometimes attends meetings or work dinners with a baby in tow, and "I've had children spill on clients," she says. "I never really find balance, but I'm comfortable with who I am and what I do."

Turns out many mom entrepreneurs are having trouble staying on the business balance beam, according to a new survey.

A survey of more than 1,000 female business owners who are part of the Make Mine a Million $ Business program -- created by Count Me In for Women's Economic Independence and American Express OPEN -- found that 27 percent of moms have "a high level of stress related to balancing work and family demands, compared to just 18 percent of non-mothers."

And, as you might expect, the stress level is ratcheted up for mothers with preschool-age kids. Nearly 40 percent said they had high levels of work-family anxiety.

This wasn't all a doom-and-gloom survey. It also offered some tips from the moms surveyed when it comes to making things better.

"Moms -- especially those with preschool children -- do sacrifice personal time and sleep, but they employ a variety of strategies to ensure that family needs are met along with the demands of their growing businesses. Among those strategies: outsourcing household tasks, booking family time into their workday schedules and carving out family time on weekends."

While going through this survey I started wondering why we always ask women these questions and rarely ask men.

There are typically two parents in these households, so why isn't "dad does half the work at home" one of the top strategies these women employ?

Most women I know always gripe to me about how their hubbies just don't do enough when it comes to family obligations.

I'm lucky to have a husband who is a true partner, but even he would admit I get stuck doing a lot of the home stuff because I'm sort of a control freak, and let's face it, society still expects the mommies to handle most of the family load.

Maybe we women need to start thinking more like the "co-CEO" of the household and enlisting the guys to do their share.

So, how did my day end?

My son just had a cold and didn't need his tonsils taken out. My husband went to the store and started the baked potatoes while I was at the doctor's office, so dinner was on time. And I finished the article, although I did have to work after dinner.

Who has time to feel guilty?

I got a call the other day from my mom updating me on the latest family drama.

My aunt and uncle are in a pitched battle over money with their two adult children, and it's causing nothing but heartache for everyone involved.

There's no real need to share the details with you all because this is a scenario that plays out often in families. And the more money involved the uglier it gets. You probably have your own horrible money-family-strife story.

Take the Mondavi family, for example. At the very heart of this wine-making family was a rift between two brothers, Robert and Peter.

"The brothers were very different in terms of motivation, interests and values. Robert focused on the business, where he held the reins in terms of sales and marketing, with few outside interests, apart from getting married to Marge in 1937. His younger brother Peter followed a more balanced approach to life, leaving time outside his work, where he was responsible for all the production aspects of the company, to devote to his hobby – fishing – and his family."

"Robert, wanting to develop the business, constantly pressured Peter to produce better wines to improve the family firm's reputation for quality. When Peter did not deliver Robert was angered. Increasingly, the two grew apart."

This is an excerpt from a new book called "Family Wars: Classic Conflicts in Family Business and How to Deal with Them" by Nigel Nicholson and Grant Gordon. The book looks at family wars within many of the world's most successful companies.

Power, money, dominance – these are all factors that can fuel family unrest.

It's not surprising then that only one third of family businesses make it from the first generation to the second.

Indeed, the Mondavi family ended up splitting.

"With the death of the patriarch Césare in 1959 the family no longer had a peacekeeper and the divisions between the siblings widened," the authors write.

"The family firm was no longer unified by a shared vision. Robert's ambition to be the best was not matched by Peter's honest but more modest aims. In November 1965, the Mondavis assembled for a family gathering, which turned out to be the stage for a fundamental point of fracture. Robert and Peter got into a fist fight over an argument about Marge's new mink coat, and whether it had been bought with company money (which it transpired it had not). Robert, now in his 50s, seemed to gather the negative energy of their decades of rivalry and let his emotions rip, landing several blows on Peter."

A fist fight? A mink coat?

What the heck is it about money that wreaks such havoc on families?

I figured I'd ask the authors what conclusions they came to after doing their research.

"Money causes havoc in several ways," says Nicholson, a professor of organizational behavior at the London School of Business.

"One, is that it ups the ante when win-lose games are being played among family members, usually siblings or family branches," he explained.

"Another is that it is symbolic. It encodes value, so different financial outcomes become surrogates for love, regard, esteem, worth and such like."

"Third, money represents the future – and people will fight for the right to shape the future of the family business according to their vision, not someone else's."

Given all this, it makes me a bit nervous that family businesses make up about 50 percent of the gross domestic product in this country.

That's a pretty volatile group to hang your economic hat on, no?

Last week a congressional panel brought together small business representatives to discuss the growing dominance of Google and Yahoo when it comes to Web ads.

The two search engines, with Google clearly at the forefront, pretty much are the only real choices business owners have if they want to hawk their wares on the Web.

Rep. Charlie Gonzalez D-Texas, chairman of subcommittee that held the hearing, questioned whether new laws are needed to make sure small firms don't get pummeled in what is shaping up to be a Web advertising monopoly.

But after listening to the hearing on YouTube it seemed like none of the so-called small business representatives were all that worried about the Google ad gorilla.

A lot of the testimony was about how great Google and Yahoo are when it comes to innovation.

The harshest words seem to come from the politicians.

This is from a statement released by Gonzales' office on the day of the hearings: "A principal challenge for small businesses is gaining prime spots on the Web pages of search engines. Because media giants such as Google and Yahoo dominate the online advertising field, their policies can dictate online strategy for small companies."

I e-mailed congressional staffer Jaime Zapata about the lack of small business outrage. I figured maybe I missed that part of the hearing.

"I couldn't find any witnesses that are worried about Google and Yahoo's dominance," I wrote. "Did I miss this?"

"I'd say that's a fair read on the hearing," Zapata replies. "Concern yes. ... call for regulation—not so much. Some highlighting of the importance of a diverse e-business model, but all in all—no Google- or Yahoo-bashing."

Even Gonzales seemed perplexed.

"Maybe we don't have to do anything, but  I think we have to watch it carefully," he said during the hearing. "The basic principle in Washington we adhere to, and that is competition is a good thing."

Gonzales even quoted Rob Pegoraro, the Fast Forward columnist at the Washington Post, to make his point:

"It's not that Google is some tyrannical monopolist that must be brought to justice. This company has come to dominate the markets for Web search, advertising and many other services fairly, by providing quality products at a fair price (which, for most Web users, is free). It's moved when others have stood still: Imagine, for instance, how limited Web-mail and online mapping would be if Google hadn't reinvented each category earlier this decade.

"But that doesn't mean that I want it to run away with the rest of the market. It's fundamentally unhealthy for any one company, even one that claims to have 'Don't Be Evil' stamped on its corporate DNA, to amount to the crossroads of the Internet."

Maybe the whole Web-advertising arena is just too new, and maybe things are happening just too quickly.

Small business owners' heads are spinning when it comes to this new world.

Few people could have predicted early on how Microsoft would come to dominate the world of personal computing.

Google may not be thumping its chest right now, but all gorillas have to eventually, no?

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)