vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Yea I'm super confused about why this is being touted as some revenge fantasy on corporate overlords, or something. She was hired to do a job, got paid to do it, and was no longer required to do the job.  I don't still get residual paychecks from my first job out of college, and they don't get to call me up and ask me to do a process analysis- I did my job and now I do another one (for someone else). What obligation does an organization have to an employee beyond a paycheck....?
The majority of the employers hold the misconception that employee training programs are costly and an unwanted expense. But the fact is that a company can reap plenty of benefits by providing personnel training to their employees. Here below we can find some of the top benefits one could enjoy from an employee training program.
There is already large demand for new jobs. There is also a large labor supply available for jobs. When the buyer (employer) meets the price of the seller (employee), a job is created. The reason there is not 100% employment is that not every employee is willing to work for what they can get, and not every employer is willing to pay what an employee is willing to work for.
Most of the people I know who started doing that shit did it because they knew they were just cheap labor and didn't need their wits about them. It comes from a lack of respect of the job and the fact that they don't want to be there. Habits like that happen because they get started and change jobs and keep bad habits, which means that on some level you can assume someone coming from a long time of blue collar work may have habits that affect their productivity in a white collar job, which is opposite from the point you're trying to make.
"Owning more than 50%  of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one ""class"" at a time, with three or four ""classes."" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. ""A"" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and ""B"" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the ""A"" shares."
There are so few VP spots available at top firms, so they can choose the top of their class.  The hierarchy is more like a pyramid in terms of size, which makes sense due to the difference in job roles and tenure as you become more senior
"I was recently terminated from a company that promoted its company culture as one of the mainstays of the perks there. I can assure you that in many cases, it is all a facade for any company claiming how amazing their culture is. You can easily go to Glassdoor and check out the reviews and get an idea of what the true company culture is like. At this particular company, it was almost cult-like in how they pushed the culture down your throats. Every Monday was a ""TGIM"" Monday and every department hold meetings after 6PM. Part of the ritual was that dinner would be served every Monday night, catered from popular restaurants around the city. Most people don't get home until 8-10PM and most of them start 8-9AM. If you failed to show up for these TGIM's you were an outcast and managers often confront those that they noticed were not present. Of course one of the big selling points of working at this company was the many ""perks"" they try to entice you with. Beer on tap on every floor, free coffee and spa water, tons of snacks on a weekly basis, company events, wellness programs, etc. Of course they will often pay you 30-40% under the market rate for your skills. In fact, almost everyone I knew there have told me they took a pay cut to work for this company. The company would also hold major annual corporate events, namely a huge ""Summer Camp"" event where they will fly everyone in around from the world and spend 4 days at a weekend retreat. There's also an annual company summit where, again the company flies everyone in to a location to hold a major conference. All of these events however, cuts into your actual vacation time as they subtract it away from your accrued vacation. These events are mandatory for all employees to attend. Underneath the facade of ""culture"", the management was extremely toxic. If you did not drink the koolaid, you were almost assuredly on your way out. As this is an at-will company, I would often see people let go for the most stupid reasons, if any were even given (including myself).
What happens would depend on company culture.  At the very least they could pass it on to their manager.  Or maybe the company just pays support staff by number of answered emails in which case you get the quickest pre-canned answer they can provide.  But the net effect is they will continue to lose to alternatives because of this issue.  They have been given customer feedback.  And their culture is to ignore it.  The results are self inflicted.
In my experience, even if you are invaluable to the company, you won't be dutifully compensated or recognized. It is very rare that a company has a good enough performance assessment system that actually measures this with any measure of accuracy. The end result is that the only people compensated are those that make themselves close to management, AKA Brown Noses...
ITT: people souped about bankers losing jobs  In the article: back-office workers are projected as the majority job loss takers- so that is corporate finance, operations people.   These kinds of jobs are through the corporate world, and a frequent employer of many college grads
What about electrician, plumber, welder, construction with on the job training to work specialized equipment, mechanics that specialize on certain brands of vehicles, HVAC specialists, and so on? By the way, the apprentice of the year a few years ago for welding in my Hubby's union was a woman looking to move up to engineering after the training paid by the union was complete. There are also the office jobs that train people for the specialized requirements as they go like bookkeeping. Too many don't look in the right places and are not willing to put in the extra hours and work for the paid as you work training these jobs provide for entry level applicants.
Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.
How far can this be taken though?   If you increase the minimum wage to $100/hr, tons of businesses will either close or eliminate most of their staff.   Will the increased spending power of those that remain employed really manage to drive growth and subsequent expansion of hiring?   Isn't that a rather roundabout way of creating job growth?
But that's the problem. There is nothing that could protect you. If a government restricts businesses to replace humans with software, they just move to a country with better laws.  And as far as I am aware, there are no laws protecting you from being fired when replaced with software.
come on. they're interns. do you really expect, or need, them to be qualified? Interns are there to do scut work and canned development training, and to audition for the graduate analyst position they want to apply for next year. Or to get do disillusioned by the experience that they self-select out after they graduate.
I'm delighted that the people who work for me fly in the appropriate class. I want them to arrive fresh, rested and prepared to do a great day's work.  If I'm paying for an employee to fly somewhere it's because they're smart, capable and are going to create value at their destination.  As a shareholder, why would you want them turing up tired, fractious, annoyed and unhappy?
Why would the companies pay more to cover personal risks of the employee? The employees will just have to suck it up and live with more risks. Employees who cannot work anymore because of that are the problem of the state and society, not of the company.  There's a reason social safety nets were constructed in the first place.
We're talking about low paying jobs.. and if there's more applicants than jobs than why are staffing companies HUGE right now?  Across the entire  country. Because can't fill the jobs like they want.  There's absolutely a ton of demand for low paying workers all around. Places can't keep or find people even to stay for a month.  Anyone that's ever applied knows these places also end up having tons of overtime because they don't have enough help.  The only solution is to throw more people at those jobs.  Your responding too fast. I did an edit I'm on my phone and alot of typos sorry. Your idea is to take all three of illegals , felons and potheads out of jobs yet somehow still filll these jobs that staffing companies have been trying to fill.
Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.
As you own a company, you need to know what your role is. You can never just move money into or out of the company, you have to identify the role in which you are doing it, and do it properly. There is Company, and there is You, in three different roles. You are the sole shareholder and director of Company. You are the sole employee of Company. You are also just a private person. You need to keep these three roles separate. As the sole shareholder, you own the company. However, you don't own any assets of the company. The company is yours, but the money in its bank account isn't. As a private person, you give a loan to your company. You write on a sheet of paper that You personally, give a loan to the company, how much a loan is, what interest is paid, and when the loan will be paid back (that could be 'whenever You demands the money paid back'). Then you move the money from your private bank account to the company bank account, and the company has the money it needs to fund its operation. Assume it wasn't you who loaned the money, but I gave the loan to the company. You can imagine that I would have this loan written down and signed before I hand over the cash. And you must have exactly the same papers that I would have. How do you get money from the company? The company can pay back your loan. That should be written down again, in the same way as the loan itself was written down. Other than that, there are three ways how you can get money out of the company: The company can pay You, in your role as its employee, a salary, which it can deduct from its profits. The company can pay money into a pension of the company director (that's You in your role as company director) up to £40,000 or so a year; that money is deducted from its profits again. The company pays 20% tax on its remaining profits. Then the company can pay You, in your role as company director, a dividend, usually twice a year. Each of these payments has to be written down and given to HMRC properly.
How are unions leverage in this situation?  The jobs demonstrably *can* be done elsewhere, the questions is one total cost (both monetary and with respect to other factors, such as quality, timeliness, and intangibles such as company reputation and public opinion).  Unions are great when the jobs are not easily mobile, or when the issues at hand are legal and the collective resources of the union allows for more effective legal action.  They're also effective when the issues are incremental (i.e. of relatively low overall cost), because the union serves (almost by definition) to organize and focus the resources of the group into addressing the groups concerns and desires.  The only *really* effective leverage is to have a skill set that is costly to replace.
Once you make up your mind to go for AV hire, you will have to shortlist the names of companies. In addition to that, you will also have to check out the services available in AV Hire. Right from projection, sound optimization, lighting, recording, stage layouts, computer program management and others, they will offer a plethora of services.
As littleadv says it depends on the local laws.   Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.
So what we ended up with was the generic MBA manager (lacking domain knowledge/experience) shifting the responsibility (or at least most of it) for candidate filtering &amp; hiring off to generic HR people/processes (who pretty much by definition, lack domain knowledge/experience) -- and who then attempted to ""systematize"" the whole thing. Add in stuff like equal opportunity ""anti-discrimination"" laws (and lawsuits) to drive the ""generic-ization"" of the whole process... and you have the perfect pre-conditions for the storm that is the current fiasco. So we end up with generic (and lets face it, often ignorant) managers taking ""job requirements"" and coming up with checklist style ""help wanted ads"" (CS Degree, 5-10 years of Ruby on Rails work experience, etc)-- HR departments that are clueless about the validity/availability of those requirements pretty much just keying the crap into the ads &amp; application filtering software in a rote fashion -- and like a badly constructed Google search, it shouldn't be surprising that they come up with minimal ""results"". Of course within the ""discarded"" applicants are probably several potentially *excellent* hires -- but they will simply never be found. --- So... SMART people will (still? again?) do their best -- not to ""game"" the bots -- but to do an ""end run around"" the whole thing. And that means using your ""network"" to get your name in the door and your resume in the hands of the ""person that matters"" within the company (that may or just as often may NOT be the manager who makes the ""hiring decision"" -- it may very well be the most experienced person in his department; who then PUSHES the manager to interview and hire you) -- and you preferably do that BEFORE the damned ad is even written, and BEFORE the HR department is even aware that there is a ""need"" for a hire.
An employee can still be fired.   A founder, in a company which took investment unwisely (which sadly is most of them, because it's so freaking complicated), can also be fired.  A founder in a company which took no investment or took investment EXCEEDINGLY carefully, cannot be fired.  That is the difference.
"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper ""on the books employees"" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes)."
You seem to be confused - try answering these:  1. Whom do the traders work for?  2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles?  3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed?  Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first.
More likely employees that were either never trained, trained improperly, or just don't give a fuck. I'm sure there was plenty of Target employees raking in free money but it was clearly not just an inside job with how widespread the practice became.
I work for a very large company and had a similar situation where I got threatened with my life and when I attempted to quit they wouldn't allow it. I contacted HR, and they didn't do anything. It got to the point of lawyering up to develop a lawsuit; however, filing a lawsuit would make it impossible to find another job.   Best thing to do, find another job. Leave on a high note, and do whatever it takes to avoid them. If you get contacted on why, explain and leave professionally.
It would be wise for company owners or employers to have their employees train on health and safety practices especially if their job involves some risks. The training will not only prepare them in case of accidents but will also boost their confidence in doing their tasks.
Perhaps your company is trying to save money or you’re trying to meet some other goal, such as lowering volatile organic compound emissions, gaining LEED points for certification, or just plain being eco-friendly—whatever the case, the time has come find someone to work with.
It's also bad to create skewed incentives that result in the best candidate not getting the job.   Or should we have no feelings for the other candidates who apply?   Edit: Hypothetical situation. My wife gets a job in another city, and I also need to relocate. I currently have a job. I am the best candidate for a new job, but don't get it because of the proposed tax credit.   Not only have you created an incentive for the company to hire a second best candidate, which is bad for the company and its customers, but I am unable to relocate.   Bad policy. Economic engineering that sounds good, but is not the most efficient means of allocating resources.
&gt;Says who?  Says the business that created the position.  Are they looking for someone to work all day, every day, and therefore require a full salary that supports adult life? Or are they looking for someone to cover a 4 hour shift a few nights a week in their spare time?  &gt;Companies could easily cut a third of their workers and increase hours...  Why would they do that? That's a horrible business move.  If the job you need done is unskilled and no-responsibility, it just makes sense to hire teenagers and students to do it. They want beer money, and you want a simple job done cheap. Everyone wins.  Aldis, Costco, etc have different business models. They pay more to attract better employees, but not every business follows their model - nor could they.   As I said before, the problem is that we have a lack of actual full time jobs available. Not that fast food places pay beer money or refuse to turn register positions into career opportunities.  You can't empathize your way out of reality.
To answer your question: is there any way around this? My recommendation is to simply wait out the end of your recruiter agency contract and get a permanent job with the company where you have been placed. Then there are no issues. If not, get your company to make a written offer of a permanent job starting nine months from now and hope that this (together with your current employment) impresses your bank into lending you money. This might not work, though. In the early 1970s, one of my friends was offered a job at a large aerospace company which lost a major contract in the interim period between offer and joining. My friend showed up for work on the day he was supposed to start, and instead of being processed through HR etc, his job was terminated on the spot, he was paid one day's salary, and shown the door. Times were crappy then too. If this does not work, get your company to offer you a permanent job right away, pay off the recruiter company yourself, and then go to the bank.
Similar story with the last big corporate company I worked for.  One of the major hotel chains dicked around our CEO and next thing you know, there's a ban on certain hotels - as in, all 50,000 employees are forbidden to stay at those hotels when on company business.  And that company spent *millions* each year on hotels.
"I'm in this situation right now.  I've increased my annual pay by 20% due to overtime but the extra work is killing me.  I finally went to my boss and said that if they weren't going to hire more people, the least they could do is replace the deadweight employees with ones who are actually capable of doing some work.    We have a lot of ""lifers"" with my company who were hired 20 years ago to do some simple task that has now been eliminated so they were shuffled into a different position that they just aren't qualified for and none of them are willing to put in the effort to update their skills.  If my coworkers had to interview for the positions they currently hold, about half of them would not be hired.  But since they're already here and the company is scared to fire people for being incompetent, we're stuck with them."
They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated.  We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.
Some non yourh have to work those jobs while the youth are in school. So they would have to hire at least a few older people. Just like me because of high school i can only work around 30 hours a week but full time would be an extra 10 hours.
I'm a former developer/current hiring manager, and he's not, at least not entirely.  You have to have a degree for HR to consider you.  It doesn't really matter what that degree is in, but you have to have one or HR will trash your resume.
All we need is simple basic laws that bring secured and high employment levels. The rest will naturally fall into place.  - No more H1B visas.  - Outsourced work has to be taxed.  - Can't outsource work that has to be continuously done.  Only real temporary needed for a limited time can be outsourced.  - When fired, paid for every year worked a set percentage of current salary.  - All customer service, including talking to customers and handling their requests, must be done by humans and not machines/AI.  - CEO pay cannot be more than a set multiple of the average worker.  - Profit sharing with all employees by law.  - etc...
Sounds like a trick question.  If it's hired for a limited time, equivalent to an operating lease, then you only pay a running cost as it's used, and it's neither an asset or a liability, but just a running cost like salaries.  If it's hired in a way that fulfils the criteria for a financial lease, i.e. you treat it like it's being purchased, then it's both a liability and an asset. It goes on both sides of the balance sheet. Just like when you buy something on credit and recognize the liability to pay as a debt, and the item owned as an asset.  edit: presuming the relevant company is the one paying.