vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I worked in hr recruiting software for 6 years,(job applications web sites). While this all sounds heavy handed, our experience was that this was an individual problem not a corporate problem. In other words if you can show the hiring manager they are being racist, and educate them both on the their bias and on the tracking capabilities, people changed their hiring bias or they were fired for cause. Yes big companies wanted the data to prove they were not being racist, but even small companies benefited from having the data. If a company wants to be racist in their hiring I am ok with that company going away.
I met with the hiring manager, then the Vice President of the department. The VP told me that she'd have HR send me an offer. They are old-fashioned and will be sending this out via US mail. It should come in soon.   There are plenty of jobs around here!
Absolutely do research on the company and come with questions. Make sure you send followup thank you emails as soon as possible after your interviews. You have a short interview (two hours is nothing) so unless you interview is with a group of people you will likely have a few to write. Make each thank you individualized. Remember key points from those people and reiterate positive parts of the interview or special things that came up that make you stand out. If you don't have all of the email addresses ask the recruiter or HR contact for them or to pass on your thank you messages. Take two copies of your resume with you, a notebook and pen. Good luck!
If unqualified decision makers in HR are trashing resumes of talented people then that company will always be shit to mediocre and will likely always be hanging by a thread on survivability when it comes to their dev team (aka your best person leaves and your team is set back 5 years).
Well, he can prove that that hiring manager asked the questions by testifying that he did.  Sure, the company may counter the testimony if the hiring manager testifies that he did not ask the questions.  Then, its up to the jury to decide whether to believe the plaintiff or the hiring manager.  But, that's not an impossibility, that's a difficulty.
I believe it.  I'm in IT in a company that I've been trying desperately to push to go 100% digital.  We're being cockblocked by several board members and one of our accreditation firms is saying it's a no-go.  The accreditation firm still makes us respond to letters by filling them in with a typewriter.  It's not on special paper or even any sort of letterhead.  It doesn't make any sense.  Our HR director that was fired several months ago was solely advertising job openings in newspapers.  They were hiring people that don't even know how to copy and paste or add two cells in excel.  Then they wonder why important billing gets fucked up after these people handle those documents.
Um, no?  The business pretty clearly laid out what it expects out of its employees, and what it expects is illegal. You can't hire on the basis of religion, period. It's not even a he said/she said, the business already admits what it does, and based on its members it's quite easy to prove. If this were an atheist that was just trying to ping the business because they hire on religion that's one thing.  But this guy WAS a Christian, he just wasn't Christian ENOUGH. That's excuse enough in my book to nail them.
"Can an employer force a person to take a stock?   From what I understand an employer can only offer stock options, doesn't that mean that the employee has to exercise that option in order for the stock to be valid?  Would it be legal to fire me for refusing a bonus?  Furthermore would owning stock necessarily make you an ""owner"" for the purposes of said law?"
yeah i totally agree with the title.  but unions are nearly management there, germany really started the idea of [co-determination.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination), if your corp has over 500 people, 1/3 to 1/2 the seats on board have to be saved for labor.
"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a ""customer"" and not an ""owner"" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions.
Large employers are tracked to insure their hiring is not bias based on race. Perhaps it is time to apply bias checks against companies of every size. It would also be helpful if the states had resources to train small company HR folks and hiring managers. Many of these biases can be dramatically reduced just by educating employers what the percentages are in the workforce.
"I've seen the same happen with several companies, with programmers engineers, salespeople, managers, etc.  Both companies end up paying more, and in many senses (because it *always* takes time to get ""up to speed"" in a new company) losing out because of it.  It's inane, really, how little most managers/owners really *value* their employees.  Probably one of the scariest things I've ever heard is in privately-owned companies where they say ""we treat all our employees like family"" -- which I always want to laugh at, and say ""My God, I would hope you can do better than THAT... [because, hell, most 'families' are dysfunctional and pretty much screw each other up/over at just about every opportunity]."""
I had an internship and they hired me afterwards. Honestly sounded like a good way to break in. I also learned a whole new language for the internship and wanted to continue using it instead of any of the languages taught in school. Not sure if the company would be considered good or bad. I ended up being solo for a long time but also building three applications ground up. I felt like I was improving a lot, especially on projects they gave me lots of leeway on because they were low priority (they just wanted features, no emergency bug tickets, etc). But no peers for most of my work and all the software was privately made and privately licensed/sold. I also had difficulties leaving because I'm an idiot. With no backup me leaving basically meant they would be fucked, and they were my only reference. I was fine taking that salary because I had zero experience (no job. Ever. Not even volunteering. My mother wouldn't let me because of snobbiness), however once I was more valuable to this company and they even praised me for it in the assessments -- they gave out 2% raises. Later my bonuses decreased as my hours and responsibilities increased, too. I asked to be taken off the stressful project, thinking I could salvage this, and they hired a replacement for me to train 3 months later. I got the high leeway project again for 6 months and my job satisfaction was phenomenal by comparison so i stayed. However, then my replacement was fired... So they asked me as a favour to work on the stressful project again and said they would replace me in a month and a half. They didn't. I worked on it for 8 months, I kept asking about it too. Their job posting was also terrible and they roped me in on it at the end and I gained the responsibility of recruiting and vetting (yay for that one actually...). We hired another replacement for me, I trained them too, and left immediately. Actually I regret staying there as long as I did. They gaslit me and I shouldn't have tried to make up for their incompetence.
HAHA you think they care about quality of life?  they care about who they can recruit and how easy that will be.  Your quality of life will be shit while you work for them and that's not their concern.  Their concern is extracting value from human capital.
I hired our copywriter from linkedin last month. after 2 failed CL ads, 1 monster and 1 careerbiulder that gave us 90% crap candidates, I scouted some people on linkedin. I emailed 6 on there, 2 came in for an interview and we hired 1. They werent even looking for a new job, but it worked out well.
"Generally speaking no one is ""irreplaceable"". I have watched someon with ""irreplaceable"" skills and business knowledge  leave and I have been that someone. Both times it didn't matter. When it does matter it is typically the exception and not the rule.   When that person leaves, someone will step up. People don't know it at the time but the knowledge has been passed on or there is someone will be able to pick up the slack. They just don't know that until it happens.  Lastly, being irreplaceable breaks the one of the rules to being promote-able. Someone, anyone, should know how to do you job. If not you are less likely to be promoted.  You want to keep you job and maybe get a raise. Be the value add employee and more importantly be able to prove it."
Only in foreign ports. For example Cathay Pacific is based out Hong Kong, it will employ staff to do everything from check in to cleaning. When they fly into overseas ports they will contract other airlines or menzies etc to do their ground handling.
There has been no poaching of employees. The employees are not being hired away- they are being called out for short rides that waste their time. Call for a 1 block lift- it takes a driver out of action for the time it takes to get there, carry the passenger, then get to the next dispatch.  So I retract my statement and replace it with a caution to ensure you comprehend what you are reading before you reply.
They did.  This was a tech company.  Turnover's high especially for strong employees.  Management expects this so that doesn't really change their approach.  One of the layoffs was open ended.  They just announced there would be layoffs throughout the company.  Usually there was a single day when everyone was cut.  This one dragged on and on.  If your group wasn't hit yet, everyone was stressed wondering when it was coming.  If your group was already hit, the manager would say you still weren't safe cuz it could come around again (which did happen to some groups).  Managers either didn't know when the layoff was over or weren't allowed to tell.  After a few months we were sure it was over but then another nearby group would get hit.  It was horrible.  Productivity was way down.  Finally after about 3 months, they announced the layoffs were over.  (And then had another layoff later that year).  So, yeah, it sucked.
How would you even go about firing someone for voting?  You couldn't possibly know how they voted -or *if* they voted.    No, no, you'd have to fire them because their political opinions led to irreconcilable differences in the operations of the company.  Doesn't seem to be any law against that.    Anyway, all that is just foolishness.  Why bring up politics at all?  You just take mental notes, wait a  while, then lay them off at the end of the next quarter.  Problem solved.
What do you mean another one gets no job at all? There is more than one job in all of costco all across america. And there are other companies and jobs too. Some of which also pay a livable wage, that guy can apply to those instead of waiting for a handout.
I think it's impossible to work for an evil company without realizing they're evil, just as it's impossible to work for a sinking ship without realizing just that.  Any worker with half a brain would be able to tell the store is going under (open for business and nobody home?  More employees in the store than customers?).  If I worked at any of those places, I'd be sending my resume out day and night looking for a way out.  However, for most of the people on the actual store floors, they're McJobs anyway, and as much as it sucks to axe them, those jobs come and go by the dozen anyway.
This could help the firm find the perfect match for you in their own bucket list. Listing down everything clearly would make a good impression and you might get a chance to take advantage of the vast network the executive search firms have. A recruiter could easily refer you to some other executive where you could be a good fit.
Tata does outsourcing for Megacorp X where I live. Here's how it works: Megacorp X lays off 5,000 workers, gives the contract to replace them to Tata Consulting. 4,000 people get hired back by Tata at about 80% of their old pay and benefits, or as a contractor.
As someone who provides PR services to startups, I may be biased but I can shed a little light.  Those who do not hire PR firms, mostly need to get lucky, have connections or hire a marketing intern. If you do not have connections, it makes sense to hire a PR firm with a database and contacts with journalists. Or the PR firm can do manual outreach for you instead of an intern.
"Is there anything I need to ask or consider during my negotiation   process based on the fact that they probably will soon be own by   another company? Very tricky situation. You are being hired by one company, and one hiring manager. But you already know that there are big changes ahead. What you don't know is how all those changes will actually play out. You will at least end up working for a different company.  I've worked for several companies in the past that were acquired, and some that acquired other companies. After each acquisition, the nature of the company changed significantly. Some teams were let go completely (often ""overhead"" departments like accounting, marketing, etc, that were handled at the corporate level), some teams were moved to a different location, others stayed the same. Sometimes management changed. In one case I was working for a new boss who worked out of the home office in another state. The time frame for these changes ranged from immediately, to several years after the acquisition. For me at least, some of the things that made the job appealing earlier typically were gone.  Try as best you can to ask questions about the acquisition, and about the nature of the acquiring company. If they are allowed to tell you the name of the company that is acquiring them, do some searching. See if you can find out how the company typically deals with acquisitions - do they immediately let almost everyone go (keeping only the ""essential"" few), or do they run new acquisitions as separate divisions and leave them alone for at least a while? Try to find out from your hiring manager what their expectations are for your specific team post-acquisition. Try to find out if anything within your offer is subject to change, post-acquisition. Are you being hired under the old, pre-acquisition rules? Or under the new, post-acquisition rules? The fact that you even know the company is being acquired is good. Often, companies cannot even divulge that fact until very near the end. On the other hand your use of the phrase ""probably will soon"", makes me wonder how much is definite here. Here's something you might wish to read: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20357/a-coworker-beat-me-to-resignation-how-can-i-resign-in-a-professional-manner"
Employment background check is an essential step for the companies before including any new member to their business. The process of employment background check is somewhat long, stressful and intense but the peace of mind it proffers to the employers is worth pleasurable since it is better to be safe than sorry. https://aretheysafe.co.uk/
Naturally none of them *suit* me. If I was in a situation like that, I'd probably calmly stand up for myself, maybe talk to HR.  I would like to point out that (a) I make a point of getting explicit instructions, (b) I'm good about making sure people know well in advance when I'm going to be out (c) I'm salaried, I don't have a time sheet, and if the boss didn't mention the missing time, I would, and (d) there's only one other person there who knows anything about web programming, and she's my assistant.  I can accept a certain amount of abuse *if* the pay is good enough and I have recourses. If not, lets just say that the recruitment company I was with took all of two weeks to find me this job after I was let go from the last one (and not because my previous bosses didn't like me either, but because they couldn't afford me any more. They kept me on as a contractor until I found this job)
Is it really that good of an opportunity? I kind of just applied through linkedin, sent my resume and they emailed me back to schedule an interview.   Also, I did do research. but I only found superficial information such as their linkedin &amp; wiki page. I don't **really** know what this position entails or how the company functions.
&gt;Growth requires adding employees  Citation needed. Employees offer diminishing returns. What happens during mergers? Layoffs due to redundancies and efficiencies.  How big is Apple, and how many employees do they have?  The growth -&gt; employees link is not 1:1, and has high variance. If the goal is employment structure incentives to reward that. If the goal is growth, be honest about the expected impact to employment.
Yep.  Also, some research will help you understand which companies target which schools.  Linkedin, Google, etc can show you if companies are HQed near certain schools, as well as where current employees went.  Companies will also sponsor/host events on schools' campuses.  Searching the school website would be useful.  But networking helps a ton (easier to fact-check a butt-load of research someone else already did that they shared via conversation)
There are business that exist by harvesting leads and selling them to other companies.  These leads can be access to resumes they sell to business looking for employees; they can be eyeballs that view their adds; they can be list of people that meet a specific credit profile. All are legitimate business and many are growing businesses. But in all these cases they are upfront with the things they are doing. They all have escape mechanisms for you to either stop them from selling your info to other customers, or to restrict the ability of those customers to contact you. There are also companies that are less honest with their collecting and selling of information. They are not honest about what they are collecting, and they have no care about how others use it. There are also cases where when a company buys another company, and  one main item in the transaction is the current and potential list of customers. Business with a legitimate product to sell, protect that customer list, that is the keys to the kingdom. They are the likely people who will buy the next version; they are also the ones that their competitors would love to target to convert them to another product.  In some businesses, the company that develops the platform will sell to developers of add ons access to the marketplace. They may charge a flat fee for access, or charge a percentage of sales, or both.  What you can do, and how you are allowed to do it, and what mechanisms are in place to protect people, are dependent on the country you operate in.
I don't know what benefits they are offering you, if any, and what equipment they will provide you with, if any. I also don't know what taxes, if any, a U.S. company has to pay when hiring a remote employee in a foreign country. If anybody on here knows the answer to that, please chime in. Balanced against that, the company likely sees disadvantages to hiring a foreign remote employee, too. Communication will be more difficult, which may result in inefficiency. My previous employer used some contractors in India and while there were certainly advantages, the language and time zone issues caused difficulties. There are almost certainly some international bureaucratic inconveniences they will have to deal with. Etc. So while you should certainly calculate what it would cost them to have a domestic employee doing the same job, that's not necessarily the end of the story. And ultimately it all comes down to negotiations. Even if the company knows that by the time they add in taxes and benefits and whatever, a domestic employee will cost them $100,000 a year, if they are absolutely convinced that they should be able to hire an Austrian for $60,000 a year, that might be the best offer you will get. You can point out the cost savings, and maybe they will concede the point and maybe not."
"In addition to moving to another company, youre gonna have to play the friend game, at least in my opinion. You will need support from your fellow executives both to get the job and succeed in the job. So get on a golf course, become a church member, etc of c suites youre targeting. You will need a network and the ""in"" to get a real advantage."
&gt; Costco choose to employ less ppl with higher pay but the trade off is that they hire less ppl.   Is this an assumption or fact? I don't imagine that any company hires more people than they absolutely need, and it's hard to believe they can get the same work done with less people even if they paid them less.
They previously had a 42-year-old guy as CFO so evidently they think this '29 years old kiddo' could do this job. It's mostly cost cutting anyway. Since the deal closed in 2015 KraftHeinz has eliminated 10,000 jobs or 25% of its workforce. older workers were the ones who were more affected.   3G also promoted a 33-year-old 'kiddo' to become CEO of Burger King three years ago.  Promotion based nepotism may be more common in family owned companies like News Corp (which doesn't have to care too much what minority shareholders say). But 3G is a private equity and their sole job is to maximize IRR. If the KraftHeinz investment is going badly Im sure the LPs will force 3G to replace the management.
Outsourcing/offshoring.  The idea is that you give away all work that is not core to cheaper staff who do not work for you. Sure, they are cheaper but it means that the basic knowhow is sitting outside your company making it much more difficult to build up the expertise and management background for tomorrow.  I work as an independent consultant in trading systems. Companies use me because they do not want to build and retain in-house knowhow. Some of the bigger consultancies will be pleased to take the juniors that you trained and to sell them back to you at 5x the price when they become senior.