vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It depends on your situation. Take the job only if you really need the job and there's no job close to your experience and salary expectations. IMO $70K is not much in NYC given the cost of living there, even if you stay in Jersey City, NJ and take a train. However, it does depend on your lifestyle. Also, if HR is not willing to keep their commitment now, they generally won't keep any other commitments like negotiated perks as part of the job offer. However, sometimes you may have to compromise because of other factors that make the job desirable: the team, the work, and enthusiasm for the business.
@littleadv is right, this depends on your country. Furthermore, this is likely to depend on the type of business you own (in the US: LLC, S-corp, C-corp). In some countries you have to provide yourself a minimum wage if you are classified as a major shareholder and work for the company. When there is a minimum level of wage you have to pay yourself the tax rate on wages is typically higher than on dividends. The wage you then receive is taxed in line with normal wage taxation rules. Above the minimum wage you can pay yourself in dividends.
"Assuming you are paying into and eligible to collect regular Employment Insurance benefits for the job in question, I don't see how owning a side business would, by itself, affect your ability to participate in the workshare program.  Many people own dormant businesses ($0 revenue / $0 income), or businesses with insignificant net income (e.g. a small table at the flea market, or a fledgling web-site with up-front costs and no ad revenue, yet ;-) I think what matters is if your side business generated income substantial enough to put you over a certain threshold. Then you may be required to repay a portion of the EI benefits received through the workshare program.  On this issue, I found the following article informative: How to make work-sharing work for you, from the Globe & Mail's Report on Business site.  Here's a relevant quote: ""[...] If you work elsewhere during   the agreement, and earn more than an   amount equal to 40% of your weekly   benefit rate, that amount shall be   deducted from your work sharing   benefits payable that week. [...]"" The definitive source for information on the workshare program is the Service Canada web site.  In particular, see the Work-Sharing Applicant Guide, which discusses eligibility criteria.  Section IV confirms the Globe article's statement above: ""[...] Earnings received in any week   by a Work-Sharing participant, from   sources other than Work-Sharing   employment, that are in excess of an   amount equal to 40% or $75 (whichever   is greater) of the participant's   weekly benefit rate, shall be deducted   from the Work-Sharing benefits payable   in that week. [...]"" Finally, here's one more interesting article that discusses the workshare program: Canada: Employment Law @ Gowlings - March 30, 2009."
Pensions in the UK are a real free-for-all. A few years ago, the government introduced stakeholder pensions to try and simplify things, but if anything it's just made things more complex. To give you an idea, everyone has access to a Basic state retirement pension, but there's also SERPS (state earnings related pension scheme) and the State second pension provided by the government. Then in the private sector there are the aforementioned Stakeholder pensions, Self Invested Personal Pensions, Final salary occupational pension schemes and Money purchase occupational pension schemes. For a good summary, take a look at this excellent Times article and for more details, have a look at the Pensions in the United Kingdom Wikipedia page or browse around the Which? retirement section or the moneysavingsexpert pensions pages. The main things to look out for are whether your company offers a defined benefits scheme, or a money purchase scheme where they offer pay additional contributions or offer to match your additional contributions. Either of these are likely to be better than just buying a money purchase scheme pension privately.
I'm not mad at anyone, I am aware of what a business large and small have always done and will always do.  This is why we need to make some changes to the law.  If your company turns a profit at some level, you must be required to spend X dollars on your peoples benefits be it through direct compensation or healthcare/whatever.  I don't see a problem with a private company picking up the tab for their employees if they have the means to do so.  Why should you and I pay for Walmarts employees?
almost all unions want the business they are in to survive. Most of the stories you hear are such an extreme outlier or just plain made up.  Believe it or not, everyone in the union, wants the corp to survive to pay them retirement benefits. They dont want to rape the corp like corps rape resources.  They want fair pay. They want pay to go up when the company does better, just like companies tend to demand pay cuts or fire people when the company does worse.  quit treating people like a commodity and instead treat them like actual people helping your actual corp to actually grow.
What's relevant to whether you accept the offer should be the compensation package (including salary and benefits) they're offering, the work you'll be doing, and the conditions in which you'll be doing it. The communication history between you and the recruiter isn't really that relevant, since you probably won't deal with the recruiter once you're hired. So, if this is a job you want to do at the level of compensation offered, accept the offer. If not, don't. If you suspect that they actually could be willing to negotiate for a higher salary despite already saying that they aren't, you could test this by declining the offer and saying that that last $5K is the only sticking point, but only if your intent really is to walk away from the offer as it stands.
I would ask your HR or benefits department to be certain, but here's how I read that without any specific knowledge of the situation: What is right to receive the RSU consideration? Company A was bought by Company B.  You had unvested Restricted Stock Units in A, which is now gone.  B is saying that you now have the right to receive consideration equivalent to the value of those RSUs in A. Since B is private, there's no publicly traded stock, so it will likely be in cash, but read the rest of the paperwork or talk to HR to be certain.   For example, if you had 100 RSUs vesting next year and the price of stock in A was $50 when the company was bought, those RSUs would be worth $5,000.  B is give you the right to consideration for those RSUs, hopefully for somewhere around $5,000.  That consideration is unvested, meaning you must stay employed until the vesting period in order to claim that right. If you are fired without cause (i.e. laid off), you will receive those unvested claims as compensation.   I assume the same will be applicable if employee leaves the company  Probably not.  In any situation, if you voluntarily leave a company, any unvested stock, RSUs, options, etc. are forfeited.
Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining.  The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale.   A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.
If a deal is struck, you're part of that deal because you own shares.  If someone offers $10/share for the entire company, you'll get that.  If the stock price is $1.50 and someone offers $2/share, you'll get that.
Hence new employer pays a part of the salary as per diem compensation   along with regular salary and says that per-diem compensation is   non-taxable. Per-diem is not taxable. But that is not what you're describing. It appears that either you or the prospective employer, misunderstood what per-diem is. As per US law is it legally allowed non taxable per diem compensation   to employees? Yes. What are the pros and cons of having per diem compensation? Per-diem is not compensation. It is not part of your salary. It is not part of your employment contract. If I have to report my salary to any one like banks, insurance   companies, do I need to include Per diem compensation or not? No, because it is not compensation. Back to the first item: Per-diem is paid to you during business trips when you're away from your (tax) home. It is not part of your compensation, and is only allowed for business trips. Contract work on site for any prolonged period of time (1 year or more, as a definitive rule, but can be less) is not a business trip. For that period of time your tax home becomes that location, so you're not away. You're home. You should discuss it with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), but it seems to me that either you misunderstood something, or your prospective employer is trying to evade taxes (both yours and his) by disguising part of your compensation as per-diem. It is very likely that when you get caught, the employer will just issue you 1099 on the amounts and leave you hanging.
Unemployment is meant for people who were laid off, not terminated.  Also, the employee who claimed unemployment did so even after they had worked for another company for several months between working for me and making the claim.  If I actually laid someone off I would be the first to personally help them fill out paperwork for unemployment benefits.  If those benefits go to those who shouldn't receive them it hurts everyone.  That 3% increase in unemployment insurance is 3% that isn't going into paying my actual employees.
To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary.
"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question."
The companies give jack shit about what the taxpayers have to pay. They only lower their own expenses. Without collective bargaining power, and forcing competing companies to have the same expenses, the employees will quite simply be screwed. Systems setup by the government on the other hand supply both.  Also, what about those without earned income... What do people deserve if they do not (currently or ever) contribute to the economy?  In part it depends on what kind of society one wants to live in, I guess, and whether the people are willing to keep the government functioning for the common good.
If you are referring to salaried employees, the overall salary generally is higher if overtime is required on a regular basis.  All hourly paid employees in most jurisdictions under normal rules are entitled to over-time pay if the work more than 40 hrs, even highly skilled positions.
I have had pension programs with two companies.  The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations.  If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.
"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to ""buy out"" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to ""buy you out"" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say ""I'm on track for $2M this year"", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them.
"Part of your first link has this statement that I suspect you are missing: However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both   minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide   executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Note that executive is in that list. As for the additional note: To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests   regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less   than $455 per week. Generally which means, ""in most cases; usually."" is not a universal qualifier and thus exceptions can exist. I'd imagine that restricted stock could be a way around some of the rules as there would be a monetary value there in the case of the stock for companies of a particular size."
My floor has a lot of very fit people and my company is very fit in average. But they really emphasis a healthy life outside of work and the city I work in is known for having a young fit population so all those things definitely contribute.
"I probably wouldn't turn down a raise, but there are some circumstances in which you might hesitate. Having a disproportionately high salary for your type of role or the value you are providing to the company makes you an attractive layoff target in an economic downturn. I've heard anecdotally of lots of corporate lawyers getting laid off because they were getting raises every year, and ended up with such ridiculous salaries that when the economy went south, the company basically asked ""why are we paying these people so much?"" Same thing happens in lots of places - Circuit City lays off the experienced, highly-paid salespeople and brings in cheap-o high school students (that didn't work out well for them, but they did it anyway). Still, even knowing that, I'd accept the pay raise. You're making more money the whole time you're employed, and prior salary is the biggest predictor of the salary you can negotiate at a new position."
This is an interesting discussion. I've never been a part of a large corporation, but aren't these functions good for morale. If they gripe about saving money, and then cut all the employees functions becoming the most uncaring and dispassionate company in all of companydom, wouldn't that also kill productivity?
"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (""ownership"") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not ""ownership"" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"".
"No, it doesn't look like you can use the employee benefit to pay for parking near your home. The definition for ""qualified parking"" is in the Internal Revenue Code Section 132 (""Certain Fringe Benefits"") (f) (5) (c): (C) Qualified parking The term “qualified parking” means parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work by transportation described in subparagraph (A), in a commuter highway vehicle, or by carpool. Such term shall not include any parking on or near property used by the employee for residential purposes.  Parking near your home is explicitly excluded. Your employer's human resources department can probably provide information on the details of where you can park and get reimbursement."
"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings.   That portion is taxed at an individual rate.  The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits.  If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial.  A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a ""board"" of advisors."
The benefit of paying into a pension is that the payment is effectively made from pre-tax money. Either you pay from your own pocket and then you get income tax relief on the payment, i.e. your gross salary is reduced by the gross pension contribution and income tax is recalculated with the excess either refunded to you or put in your pension (the details are a bit more complicated depending on your marginal tax rate, but the end result is the same). Or your company pays, and then you are never charged tax on the payment in the first place. From the company's point of view, the two are roughly the same. Either it pays you who then pays into your pension, or it pays straight into your pension. Either way the money going out from the company is treated as a cost that is offset against the company's revenue, reducing the amount of corporation tax the company has to pay. There are some National Insurance advantages to paying directly into the pension; neither you nor the company gets relief on NI if the payment goes via you, but no NI is paid in the first place if it goes direct from the company. [EDIT: your question is actually worded to suggest that you want to lend your company money from your own pocket, and then have that loan directly discharged by the company paying into your pension. That's no different to you just paying into your pension directly, and wouldn't have any better tax implications. For the rest of my answer, I assume that the idea is actually to lend your company money that it uses to make an immediate contribution to your pension (as part of your pay from that company), and then the company will repay the loan later by returning the money to you personally. Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever.
Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter.