vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I've heard this story over and over.  It's heartbreaking to hear of people (men and women) who slave to start a company, scrape together the wherewithal to take on 2 or 3 employees, back up the payroll from their own personal money when times are tough and then.. just get stabbed fully in the back by women who milk every last minute out of their entitlement before not coming back.  I know they aren't interested in the business and I accept that their first priority is the child.  But that doesn't make it any easier on the business owner.  Would you take on somebody if you seriously thought this was going to happen?  Would any small enterprise ever hire anyone?  Equality is a nice idea but it will stifle small and slow growing businesses to the point where the only way to get started will be to take a big loan.  And that is not in the interests of the economy at large.  There should be a second class of job, which you as a company have to fulfill certain requirements to offer.  Low turnover (not profit) for example, maybe under 5 employees too.  Basically, a company with little reserve with which to deal with an uncertain absence of a large percentage of its workforce.  This second class job should carry with it either a waiver on the sexism discrimination policy (although this is completely insane and unfair to women who aren't interested in babies), a waiver on the ability to dismiss people for falling pregnant (which we kind of have in the UK given that in theory there's no unfair dismissal if it's in the first two years, although woe betide anyone who tries this out and immediately hires a man) or - and here's a wacky fucking idea - *some kind of increased government support in the case of pregnancy*.  Stifling small companies by forcing them into penury just because someone wants to have a baby - arguably the most natural thing in the world - is in nobody's interests.
We're pretty small about 20 employees. He refuses to allow me to get a second office person claiming he does not get along with other people. The issue is I've had him for such a long time I don't wanna break an 8 year employer relationship over something like that.  I also believe there are ways around money tracking. For example he can add extra hours on employee time sheets and have it cashed and then keep the extra money after employees are paid. He always puts emphasis on how much good he does for the company when he's just doing his job.  I'm looking for any kind of bait I can throw or some kind of trick.  My friend was telling me what he did is give his employee an unexpected paid vacation and she had no time to cover her trail. Are there other things like this I can try?
So do I. I am wondering if there's a pretty huge paycut by getting your benefits early. In any case, the company might reallllly want to do this, so they can hire new blood and pivot more quickly to react to some of their global competition.
There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense.
&gt; It would be very difficult to maintain in any large organization, and I would imagine that it makes recruiting good talent much harder.  Well, it works well enough for the US military and its 1.5 million employees.  And they still manage to pull some of the best individuals in the country in.
Keep eye contact throughout the interview and prepare answers to questions like: what is your greatest weakness, why are you interested in this company, how can you add value that other candidates can't. I'd suggest doing thorough research on the company's mission statement, vision, and product history. The more you can lace in info about their company during the interview, the better they'll like you.
I believe temp agencies get a payout if the employer decides to hire on the temp full time usually. So it would be to prevent a temp from quitting and going to work for the employer as a way around that payment. The idea is to set a term long enough not to make it worthwhile for the employer to wait rather than paying the fee.
I agree about irresponsible pay at the top level, but disagree about a company hiring on workers just to be a good citizen of the country.   We should be doing everything we can, as a country, to educate our citizens for these higher level jobs and promote entrepreneurship and growth of new industries to generate jobs. That is how we can get everyone employed.   Just asking corporations to hire on dead weight for the hell of it on a macro level is harmful, not helpful, and could lead to more unemployment when the next recession hits as entire companies are taken down for being irresponsible.
Exactly.  That's one of my biggest issues with my company.  People seem to think they have a guaranteed job for life and only learn their narrow little task.  Many of them push buttons and have no understanding of the task they are performing...they just follow the instructions someone gave them and don't think beyond that.  I work in accounting and the woman who sits across from me knows nothing about using Excel.  When I suggested that she take a class or read a book, she threw a fit.  In her opinion, if the company wants her to use a program, they should hold her hand and spoonfeed the training to her.  These are the ones who will be out of a job sooner or later and find out they have no skills that will transfer to another position.
And the Board will hire a CEO that they feel can carry out those interests. If you hold a majority of the shares in a company, you could elect enough Board members that you could control the BoD, and you could then be guaranteed to be hired as the CEO. If you own, say, 10% of the shares you will likely be able to elect a few people to the Board, but maybe not enough to be hired by the Board as the CEO. Short of owning a huge amount of a company, therefore, share ownership will not get you any closer to being the CEO."
Please stay on topic. I haven't said anything about negotiation power.   But to answer your question, the employer is the one that needs a position filled, not the potential employee. If a potential employee doesn't like the wage offered, he can go apply elsewhere. How is this unbalanced?
Why do they hate teen workers, people with serious disabilities, and those who never had an opportunity to complete high school?  Every employee must produce goods and/or services at least equal to the cost of their employment.    Edit to add that people in these situations CAN and DO contribute to their employer and society.  They also benefit from employment.  When the bar is set artificially high, they lose the opportunity to do so.
I disagree. Compensation is linked to a lot of factors, many of them too intangible to quantify in a simple 8-step chart. Maybe this works fine in a (very) small company. It would be very difficult to maintain in any large organization, and I would imagine that it makes recruiting good talent much harder.  I can see certain benefits too, but look - as an employee, I want to work in an environment where I can advocate for myself and, occasionally, negotiate for better compensation. Some people aren't good at these things, and frankly, that sucks for them. I'll eat their lunch if they let me.
First of all, don't be rude-I'm trying to help here.   Second, picture this scenario-  a company manages an offshore oil rig.  The employees by law have to be paid in a certain period of time.  To send paper checks to the employees who work on the oil rig would cost thousands of dollars and the employees can't cash them anyways. Thus the company requires it's employees to have direct deposit.  One of the employees can't or won't get a bank account (yes there are people like this).  How do you pay him?  A prepaid debit card solves this problem.
This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you.  Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation.  However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.
There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company.  The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps.
"Yeah most employers will say that their employment is ""at will"" and they can fire for anything but that's usually not true. If someone gets fired there has to be a reason. Those agreements that people are often required to sign when they start a job are not legally binding in any courtroom at all.  Employers will usually lie about it because they are breaking the law and they know it. The only situation where they could get away with not having a reason to terminate someone is if they do not replace that person, which is a lay off. Basically any other circumstance they had a reason and they are responsible for that reason."
Setting up the new company can often be scary, especially if you never run a business or company before. We have the excellent and experienced team of professionals who are very helpful for you with the Free company formation process. We are also proud to maintain that our special personal touch in order to deliver the best service. This is very important to launch and Incorporating your business on the right footing. Your trustworthy relationship with us need not end at the services of the company formation. You also avail many benefits from our company professionals in all matters.
Try and bring with you a folder full of evidence about your skills and accomplishments, many of the top blue chip companies do what's called evidence-based interviewing and it means you provide evidence to back up your assertions about how great you are. So for example, the interviewer asks how you get on with your colleagues and you provide an email thanking you for being a great team player, or they ask you about research and you show them a piece of research you did. Of course this is harder when you go for your first job, but bring what you can. As an alternative and/or alongside this you can use stories (as someone else said) as a kind of evidence if you don't have any physical evidence. Your story should show systematically how you handled a situation to get a good outcome.  If they are a very conservative company they will want you to show that although you can kind of think outside the box, you are not prone to emotional reactions or knee-jerk responses and everything you do is carefully thought out and wouldn't bring them into disrepute if it got covered on the front page of a newspaper.  Good luck.
Actually it's much cheaper to just keep employees in the dark so they don't see the inequity. The more expensive option (in the short-term) is to do what this article suggests, so the company can keep employees happy, which makes us more productive and reduces the costs of constantly hiring new people. Unfortunately I think most employers would rather gamble that their employees will never find out (because it's taboo to ask how much your co-workers make), or are too scared to look for new jobs anyway.
Well to enlighten you a little STUPID people can figure out how to pass a drug, just like drug addicted loosers. So who would pick if you had to choose to hire an employee who was a raging emotional moron with a low IQ or just someone who was a weed smoker? Whats the risk of refusing to learn there could be a better way of doing things?
Let's not forget, the context is here is money.  Whatever the reason someone might have for being an employee instead of an employer, the fact remains that they don't owe anyone anything for their job: they are earning that paycheck, or they'd have been fired.  This idea that their paychecks are in any degree largess from the company is hooey.
"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee.  I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as ""contractors"" but make them work under rules that fall into employee.   The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing."
"It's called ""rebadging"" the staff. Take them into the new outsourced company, cut benefits and have them train their Indian replacements, then layoff the us staff. I managed 66 developers around the world. India was the worst. They charge about $25k/for fully loaded fte, replacing someone at $100k all in."
This sort of thinking is one of the problems with economics. It's way too simplistic, and unrepresentative of how a company works. No company increases the price of a product because they hired a more expensive employee, unless said employee is dead weight.   It might be a process engineer, that right now costs the company a bit more, but 12 months down the line will improve production efficiency by at least the value of his salary. And if they improve it more, by say 200% of their salary? Product price stays the same, he gets a pat on his back from the boss, and the company increases it's profits.   And what usually happens when you nickel-and-dime your employees? They lose engagement and interest, or worst, they hire a shit employee for a shit salary and get little to no benefit from hiring.
An employer also needs somebody to show up on time, be reliable and can take written instruction.  A college degree also means that they can find different classrooms throughout the day, listen for 50 minutes and DO THAT FOR YEARS.  Nearly anybody can do something for 5 minutes.  I've employed people and those two are most difficult to suss out in less than 90 days.
Microsoft doesn't do salary negotiations...  The way the salary structure works at Microsoft is similar to how it works in many other huge companies. You have a rank/level/title (eg. developer, Senior developer, Principal developer, and upwards) and your salary is based solely on that. For example, every new college hire starts at a certain rank (whether foreign or not) and every new college hire starts at the same level of pay. When you get a promotion you get a new title and a corresponding pay increase. You can't negotiate for bonuses or salary increases, it's set in stone for everyone.  This is for engineering positions, obviously sales/marketing/etc. all have different structures.
Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation.  Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.
Tried that, got asked how I filed taxes by the _hiring guy_! What the fuck! How is that any of his business? He wanted to see a business license! What if I'm advertising availability and _nobody is hiring me_, how did spending money on a license help?
If you 'took' redundancy, then it generally means you've accepted to resign after being offered a package. Firms will try to offer people redundancy before forcing mandatory redundancies. It reduces your employment rights, as you can't immediately claim things like Job Seeker's allowance, but it also means the firm can fill your position sooner than if they had made you redundant.  In this case, they were mandatory, and they'll probably only get the statutory and contractual payout their union had agreed to previously.
"Basically if the execs in your company are too stupid to understand the concept of limited resources and prioritization, then the chargeback model is what's necessary to deal with the situation.   Ideally, execs should back the IT manager, and once everyone's booked on an internal project, then when a new project comes in, the IT manager says ""Sorry - can't get to yours until October.""  When PM of new project throws a fit and says they need it by July, then the IT manager looks at the portfolio of projects and picks one or two candidates. He then contacts the stakeholders for those projects and says ""Joe the PM says his stuff is more important than yours"" and escalate the two of them to a common executive to deconflict the mess (which, believe it or not, is one of the primary reasons executives exist)"
Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit.
These Sears employees can go work at Khols or Panera Bread for very little loss in income. Can you give me any evidence of your claim? There are five job searchers for every open position in the United States. Businesses are not expanding, why would they be hiring unskilled labor? They're sitting on large piles of cash, waiting for the recession to end - and if it doesn't, why, they now have a guaranteed pool of labor at near-slavery prices. Even if we had enlightened businesses, which we do not, the logical thing to do during a recession is not to hire unskilled labor and have them sit around all day, but upgrade the training on your skilled labor force, modernize your infrastructure, streamline your processes, so when the recession lifts you have a modern company that can outcompete others. Look to Germany for a guide. The German Model, where businesses, the unions and the government _cooperate_ to keep their companies efficient and their jobs profitable, has _worked_ for two generations. The fact that they can compete aggressively in the world markets, provide a social safety net for their citizens, while also paying at least part of the costs for the kleptocracies in the EU (we're looking at you, Greece) shows how effective it is."
Are you under the assumption that an employer gives vacation because of laws?? I'll assume you are European and inform you that in America there are no laws requiring vacation days. It's up each individual company to set their policies on it. They can take and they can give if you don't like it your only option is quitting.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK this is common practice, even required in some situations, and not sketchy at all. It's perfectly legal, saves you tax, and protects you from a legal standpoint. (i.e. what if you break something and your employer wants to sue you?) This is what companies are for, they are legal entities that are separate from an individual. There is no requirement for a company to have more than one employee.