vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Apply anyway, they can always ask. That doesn't mean they'll get anyone with quantum computing experience to work for $20/hr helping the older staff find their mouse cursor.  Think of the job ads like Craigslist sale item postings. A lot of people, even at companies, have no sense of the market and what they can reasonably ask for. So they'll put up ads selling heavily used IKEA particle board furniture for $500 and other ridiculous demands.  All they know is the labor market is down, so they interpret it as a free for all. Then bitch when they can't fill a position that couldn't be filled even if these fictional candidates did exist due to poor compensation or the organization being a bad place to work at.  When the labor market does improve a lot of these companies that don't have a grip on reality with regards to labor relations are going to be out competed by their more sensible competitors.
It varies highly on industry, regulations and locale. Say you are a US based manufacturer of industrial products in Pennsylvania (as an example), you may only have 500 employees, but to be compliant with EVERYTHING, you might need 12 HR people to track everything, actually do all the required training, followup on the failures, file all the required paperwork for all the various regulatory and legal bodies they are beholden to, etc...  If you are service company out of Alabama that is the same size, you might have a LOT less to worry about and could outsource the entire thing for less than the cost of a FTH.
I think the problem is that for a desirable job you'll often have two equally qualified people but one has a job and one doesn't.  It always looks a little bit better to hire someone away from a competitor than to hire someone out of the jobless pool.  This is why it is important to give employers a tax credit for hiring the unemployed.  It takes that above equation and shifts it a little.  It also signals to society that it is important to get these people back in the workforce.
1) Always treat an internship as a regular job offer.  A) The company will expect you to work just like a new hire. and B) The more you act like a hired employee, the more they will want to offer the job.  2)But it was just the tip
"In its basic form, a corporation is a type of 'privileged democracy'. Instead of every citizen having a vote, votes are allocated on the basis of share ownership. In the most basic form, each share you own gives you 1 vote. In most public companies, very few shareholders vote [because their vote is statistically meaningless, and they have no particular insight into what they want in their Board]. This means that often the Board is voted in by a ""plurality"" [ie: 10%-50%] of shareholders who are actually large institutions (like investment firms or pension funds which own many shares of the company). Now, what do shareholders actually ""vote on""? You vote to elect individuals to be members of the Board of Directors (""BoD""). The BoD is basically an overarching committee that theoretically steers the company in whatever way they feel best represents the shareholders (because if they do not represent the shareholders, they will get voted out at the next shareholder meeting). The Board members are typically senior individuals with experience in either that industry or a relevant one (ie: someone who was a top lawyer may sit on the BoD and be a member of some type of 'legal issues committee'). These positions typically pay some amount of money, but often they are seen as a form of high prestige for someone nearing / after retirement. It is not typically a full time job. It will typically pay far, far less than the role of CEO at the same company. The BoD meets periodically, to discuss issues regarding the health of the company. Their responsibility is to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they themselves do not necessarily own shares in the company.
Maybe if the employers gave their employees a living wage, health benefits, educational opportunities, retirement opportunities, etc. the employees wouldn't be so jaded about their jobs.  Their attitudes stem in large part from the fact that they make so little money for the work they do that is valuable to the company.
And that is only if you start at Full Time, which is next to impossible. In a lot of cases, it can take employees 5-10 years to even get in a full time spot, especially in an older store where nobody leaves.
"Why the heck are they employing these poor people if they aren't making a profit from their services? Just ""giving"" people jobs seems suspect. It's more likely that employers simply need employees in order for their businesses to function."
"&gt;One key aspect of that is that -- via the ""in the door ahead of time"" -- even IF the company requires the HR process to be followed, the job spec can be ""constructed"" to match the pre-qualified candidate, and his/her resume can go to the top of the stack (already being in the manager's hands with a hearty recommendation/endorsement from one of his critical team members: i.e. ""HIRE this guy/gal!"")  I've seen that happen many times. It happened with the position I'm in currently. I started out as a temp. Originally the job ad  was some aimless posting about needing a new accountant, the accountant didn't even need a college degree if they had equivalent work experience. Then all of a sudden one week the posting changed to a copy-paste job of my work and educational experience (much more demanding than the previous ad)."
It's all about keeping your employees happy and ensuring they feel like they're part of something other than a job. Make them feel like they're part of a family and support system. Throw in other things besides pizza parties once a month. Have corporate parties at your house on a weekend, or frequent happy hours. Have an employee of a month kind of thing or recognize your employees for the hard work they do. BUILD, SUPPORT, and SUSTAIN.
"I've seen ""temp to hire"" once, and that was with a large gov contracting company after they realized they kind of messed up the contract and would have to let me go if I didn't switch to working direct for them, and they really really wanted to keep me.   For the most part in tech what I've seen follows this rule if you're a contractor your a contractor, and temp to hire just means they want a cheaper contractor and will not hire."
Actually not with this company it's not a regular temp to hire gig like with administrative or whatever. It's literally all temp work.  If our regular dental hygienist was out sick we can call the temp agency and they send a temp over. They never do temp-to-hire. So it is quite a bit different.
I'm surprised this isn't higher up. Your resume is for your qualifications, they will review this in the interview so be prepared but it'd simply a review. The rest of the interview is to determine if you will fit the company culture, be able to work with, and get along with everyone for 8+ hours a day...
There's a company in my town that is notorious for refusing to hire people over 35.  They prefer to hire 20-somethings, work them them to exhaustion, and then dump them by the side of the road, career-wise, with the 20-something clutching a good reference letter in their hand if they're lucky.  I would love to work 3 days a week.  In truth, as a Veteran with chronic pain I sleep so lousy, and I'm so poorly integrated socially, that work is the primary place where I interact with people, so I keep on with it because the alternative is me sitting at home listening to my neighbour's dog howling the song of the damned for hours, or hearing their blaring telly as they drink themselves into a stupor and then leave the damned thing on all night after they eventually pass out.  I really thought retirement age would be better, but I closed on this place and I'm stuck here for a while.
"This quote kind of shocked me:   ""A well-run organization turns over 10% of their organizations, including senior leadership.""  I'm not in management, but I have *never* heard anyone say before that employee churn is a good thing. And wanting fully 10 % of all employees to resign every year? That sounds completely insane to me. Is that really normal? Am I not getting something?  My current employer works hard on trying to retain employees. When employees quit, we need to train the replacement, it's probably going to take 6 months until the new employees is reasonably productive. Employees are actively encouraged to find new positions within the company and we have actually rehired several employees that quit to do something else and then decided they want to come back. This all seems logical and normal to me.  The mindset of wanting to push a significant portion of your workforce away each year is utterly alien to me. Would somebody elucidate me?"
If I apply for a job at my hedge fund's PB, how likely is it that will come back to my firm through sales contacts and such? It's not a job within the PB business if it makes a difference. Do banks have policies against hiring from their PB clients? What about from S&amp;T customers?  This would be at the associate level if it matters.
Corporations started dumping pensions in the 80's and 90's.  I noted at the time that that while the original hiring incentives had been to take lower wages in lieu of the promise of a pension; they did not raise wages after they dumped the pensions.  I think that the move was in part because corporate interests realized that through their pensions were about to control corporate America.
Impossible to tell.  When companies merge, they generally seek to eliminate redundancies.  Some people will probably be laid off.  Just because you're low on the totem pole doesn't mean you will be laid off.  For example, if you work in maintenance, the homes will still need to be maintained - but the company might not want double the maintenance managers.
- Do your homework. What are others at the same company getting for the same job? At different companies? Can you slice the data by years of experience? - If you nail the interview you can leverage another offer with the HR staff post interview - Try to get the interviewer to offer the first number if that's not possible offer a range. Psychology tells us that people don't like to be outside a range so you could put your lowest offer at the bottom of the range and the top +10%
What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.
Let me try to explain my viewpoint on this, because to come right out with it would lead to an onslaught of downvotes immediately without consideration.  Suppose you have a Methodist church that needs a new pastor. The qualifications would include, among many other things, a basic understanding of and belief in Chrisitianity. Hiring someone who didn't subscribe to their religion would defeat the purpose of the job. You could say that religious beliefs are inherent to the position, which is accounted for in our legal system as an exception.  On the other hand, imagine an atheist organization of some sorts wants to hire a new chairman. Other qualities aside, what do you think would be the one trait required of said position? Atheism, obviously. Would it be wrong to deny someone this job if they were a strident Baptist? Not really. The organization is promoting atheism, so said candidate's beliefs would cause an issue with their overall goals.  I guess what I'm trying to point out is that if you're specifically a religious company (or specifically *not* a religious company), it would make sense to hire along those lines.   This lightbulb company has chosen to organize itself strongly around Christian employees. In a way, they've dug their own grave by limiting their pool of applicants to, it would seem, rather zealous adherents. It's one of those situations that's unfortunate, but I don't necessarily think there's a basis for it to be *illegal*.   If he was a long-term employee of theirs and they had wrongfully terminated them, that'd be a different situation altogether. This was just a job interview.
Thanks for answering!  So given that the HR recruiters wouldn't know much about the role in-depth, what would be the best way to make some sort of impression on them, and what sorts of questions should I be asking if not technical ones?
I think it really works for some people.  They got a couple days off work, some meals at a fancy hotel, free booze, free shit.  Most are probably the kind of people who don't really care about the company or their job.  Then, the people who are in charge of doing this kind of junk go on about how successful it was, etc.  That gets reported in the meeting.  What the higher ups don't see are the people hanging out in someone else's office shooting the shit about how stupid things are.  Then there's this question as to why company morale is so low, and no one can figure it out for the BS they've been shoveled.  Too much middle management and layers of corporate BS (overstuffed 'communications' departments, HR people, meetings upon meetings filled with people trying to make themselves look good whatever the cost, etc) and everyone thinks everything is golden.  So many worthless people involved, making themselves look valuable by spending money.
That's just one type of strong culture. Take an investment banking firm. Super strong culture - you wear a suit and tie, work long hours, and has formalized hierarchy. This is the other extreme of strong culture. Companies do it because it becomes a self selecting group of individuals, and plenty of research shows that these employees tend to stick around longer and are generally happier. Employees that don't fit that culture eventually weed themselves out and find a better fit somewhere else. We can also compare companies like Facebook to Amazon, both are tech companies, but both have strong but different cultures. The employees that last longer and get promoted are the ones that best fit that culture.
I'd be find with smart contracts that were a requirement with each new hire.  This would also eliminate the legal fiddling that goes on where employers screw employee right up to the amount that it would take to litigate so they just walk away.
To some degree, it affects every organization that wants a foreign worker.  Is *that* why you don't get interviews? No. There are plenty if reasons, which are probably your résumé and cover letter, and/or how you present your skills and experience
"Hopefully you forgot the ""/s"" at the end of your post.  You mean the [special skills that Disney](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/judge-says-disney-didnt-violate-visa-laws-in-layoffs.html) requires?  Really the only special skill is doing the same skill for a lot less and being tied to a specific company.   [More here](http://fortune.com/2017/05/03/h-1b-visa-infosys/)"
This kind of thinking is a typical example of 19th century outdated economic theory. This might have been true for the factory workers back then but those kinds of jobs aren't even in western countries anymore (outside maybe some low level positions in the service industry). In the vast majority of modern western jobs firing and hiring someone else does not result in someone of the same effectiveness anywhere close to immediately.
This is excellent advice. I would make sure that you arm yourself with some solid questions about the company including reformatting some of the questions that they ask you. Interviews should be a two way conversation, the more you get them talking, the more comfortable they'll be to recommend you. Some questions to ask: 1. Tell me a bit about your (interviewer) background? This gets them talking a bit and allows you to relate with them 2. Where do you see the company moving in the next 5 years? 3. Why is this job opening available? 4. Can you tell me a bit about the corporate culture? 5. How can the company invest in me? 6. What are the qualities that will make me successful in this job? 7. Tell me a bit about our competitors (you should know some of them) and what sets this company apart? Make sure you're armed with as much information about the company as possible. One of the things that set me apart when I interviewed at the company I'm working at now was I came into the interview with the company's financial report and started asking specific questions about details on that report. Also, MAKE SURE TO GET A BUSINESS CARD OR CONTACT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU LEAVE. Thank you letters are an annoying formality, but it is necessary, don't rely on the recruiter to give you that information.
They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of ""we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year"". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, ""We just don't have the budget to give you a raise"", the key question is, ""Is that true?"
I read a great article on LinkedIn that claimed (with some stats) that a huge amount of employees are chosen before the job goes to advert. I'm not saying that's the case here, but i think having an 'in' is definitely useful! Is there a contact for an informal discussion? Hope i'm not too late in replying, and good luck!
The reality is that for labor is cheap for software startups. A couple of founders can usually take a prototype to the point where they can get the seed capital to hire labor at market rates, so why would they give up significant equity to employees? Plus, if they need cheap employees, there are always contractors and naive new grads who will gladly take below-market salary for 0.1% of the company. (in options, vested over four years, of course)
"First of all, many employees (past a few years in particular) are *always* looking for new jobs. It's how they make sure that they're always getting the best value for their services. This is doubly true for ""star"" employees.  I don't know if this is some cultural thing, but I can tell you my own experience as an employer of roughly 40 people in Sweden over the last half decade. The business is web development. My take from this infograph is that   1) people who are about to leave do worse work  2) people who are about to leave act differently  re:1) I just don't agree with in any way, in fact quite the contrary. People who have left my employment have done better in the last 3-4 months than they have before, just so that they can 1) get a good reference letter and 2) leave my employment on good standing, so that noone feels slighted. Rational, intelligent people do not burn bridges, they build networks.  re:2) People who are looking for other jobs act just like they always do. All the ideas for behavioural change presented in this infograph are completely circumstantial.   In my experience, the best way to identify employees who are very close to leaving, or seriously considering it, is listening to what they have to say. They'll make sure new messages get through, such as ""this job isn't challenging enough"" or ""I'm not having fun"". If they DON'T make those messages and still leave, it means they didn't think you would be able to change those circumstances. But, of course, that is more or less [equity theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory#Equity_theory_in_business) in practice. (edit: just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make here is that star employees have no problems voicing their discontent with current affairs)  (edited out some details that could be used to identify the business)"
"And this is how you end up with shit code, shit policies, shit thinking, shit morale and generally piles of shit everywhere, under every rug and in every corner.  Your employee's don't just hate you, they seem to actively look for ways to steal from you or otherwise hinder your progress.  And finally worst still the person that is MOST likely to take ""We live in an economy where, unfortunately, there is a ready supply of labor to take the place of those who quit or otherwise leave the company. This brings the value of your current employees down."" as a serious threat and fear for their jobs are almost always the LEAST skilled and the largest idiots of the bunch. So you end up with C-man syndrome in a business filled with people that would punch you in the kidney and steal your wallet if they knew it was you that had made all those shitty choices. /experience."
"According to the article, I think the operative word is ""train,"" not ""push.""  Essentially companies are looking for ""unicorns"" that don't really exist. They expect the market to offer up people with an exact certain skillset, at a certain price, at a certain time. And *free* markets simply don't work in that manner.  Another thing that I did not see this article address is that there really is no loyalty within companies any more. Companies view people as a commodity (but yet don't believe in the free market principle surrounding a commodity), instead of treating people as a resource. Hence people are ready to walk away when they spot a better opportunity."