vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"An employee costs the company in four ways: Salary, taxes, benefits, and capital. Salary: The obvious one, what they pay you. Taxes: There are several taxes that an employer has to pay for the privilege of hiring someone, including social security taxes (which goes to your retirement), unemployment insurance tax (your unemployment benefits if they lay you off), and workers compensation tax (pays if you are injured on the job). (There may be other taxes that I'm not thinking of, but in any case those are the main ones.) Benefits: In the U.S. employers often pay for medical insurance, sometimes for dental, life, and disability. There's usually some sort of retirement plan. They expect to give you some number of vacation days, holidays, and sick days where they pay you even though you're not working. Companies sometimes offer other benefits, like discounts on buying company products, membership in health clubs, etc. Capital: Often the company has to provide you with some sort of equipment, like a computer; furniture, like a chair and desk; etc. As far as the company is concerned, all of the above are part of the cost of having you as an employee. If they would pay a domestic employee $60,000 in salary and $20,000 in taxes, then assuming the same benefits and capital investment, if a foreign employee would cost them $0 in taxes they should logically be willing to pay $80,000. Any big company will have accountants who figure out the total cost of a new employee in excruciating detail, and they will likely be totally rational about this. A smaller company might think, ""well, taxes don't really count ..."" This is irrational but people are not always rational. 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.
You are right. This is an oil and gas construction company. Honestly speaking, I have very little information concerning their procedures for hiring and interviewing candidates. The only thing I know is that they have a department of financial analysis and modeling. As you said, that lacks specifics. I would be more interested in development in corporate finance.
Unfortunately, I'm not the guy that makes the call about hires.  You should talk to the institutional guys - get to know them, find out where they go for drinks and show up and just shoot the shit and chit chat. Be outgoing and joke around.  Mention you'd like a shot and to keep you in mind if something opens up. I can tell you that in this industry the first thing people look for is if the candidate is a good fit for the team - both in terms of attitude, culture and overall fit.   Leverage what you have.  They already know you.
I have made a few contacts but generally we are hired precisely because the client doesn't want to take on full time staff.   I need to make some contacts in the hedge fund or the trading business  but I can't figure out how.
"Loved this...  &gt;A Philadelphia-area human-resources executive told Mr. Cappelli that he applied anonymously for a job in his own company as an experiment. He didn't make it through the screening process.  ---  And crap like THIS...  &gt;Neal Grunstra, president of Mindbank Consulting Group, a temporary-staffing company, calls this ""looking for a unicorn."" Mr. Cappelli's favorite email came from a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified. One job seeker said ""he had been told he was perfect for a given position—except for the fact that his previous job title didn't match that of the vacancy,"" a title unique to the prospective employer.  Is the reason why -- even 2 decades ago -- I refused to let ""HR"" do any filtering or ""pre-qualifying"" of resumes for me when I hired. (Because they have no idea of the *degree* of importance attached to any specific hiring ""requirement""; and that many of said requirements are not requirements at all, but rather ""it would be great if the candidate had XXX, but YYY will do just as well, depending..."")  Also, this is why the BEST way to get hired (or to hire) is to do an ""end run around"" the HR department and get resumes into the hands of the hiring manager via networking -- preferably avoiding HR and the whole ""classified/listed job"" altogether -- HR can handle the paperwork around hiring AFTER qualified candidates have been interviewed."
There is an element of, hiring a new person is expensive to do, and involves various commitments with respect to that person (space for them to work, equipment, healthcare, etc.) - which can make it more sensible to pay employees overtime instead of hiring extra staff.  On the other hand, if it really is running like that for years, someone's an idiot.
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. Often the BoD is broken up into several committees, such as an investment committee [which reviews and approves large scale projects], a finance committee [which reviews and approves large financial decisions, such as how to get funding], an audit committee [which reviews the results of financial statements alongside the external accountants who audit them], etc. But arguably the main role of the BoD is to hire the Chief Executive Officer and possibly other high level individuals [typically referred to as the C-Suite executives, ie Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, etc.] The CEO is the Big Cheese, who then typically has authority to rule everyone below him/her. Typically there are things that the Big Cheese cannot do without approval from the board, like start huge investment projects requiring a lot of spending. So the Shareholders own the company [and are therefore entitled to receive all the dividends from profits the company earns] and elects members of the Board of Directors, the BoD oversees the company on the Shareholders' behalf, and the CEO acts based on the wishes of the BoD which hires him/her. So how do you get to be a member of the Board, or the CEO? You become a superstar in your industry, and go through a similar process as getting any other job. You network, you make contacts, you apply, you defend yourself in interviews. The shareholders will elect a Board who acts in their interests. 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.
In this kind of search setup, the firm offloads the executive employment work to the executive search firm. They charge a set percentile of the chosen candidate's yearly wage. Usually, it pays in three instalments. This is one of the most popular in one bulk types of choosing such employment firms. Many people find paying in instalments more preferable than paying amount.
To get the company to change their behavior for future people?  To help foster an environment in which companies in general won't behave like this?  Presumably also to compensate the guy for not getting the job when he should have been qualified to get it had they not acted illegally?  From another direction... what's the point of making something illegal is there is no enforcement?  Why would anyone sue a company for not hiring black people if they that was just going to lead to a hostile work environment?  Because it is meant to change things, not perfectly resolve that one particular incident.
The cost of making a bad hire depends very much on what country you're in. In many European countries workers' rights are very strong and the cost can be enormous as it is difficult to fire people. Much less so in the USA.
Actually I found companies hire based on experience, if you jump around you have more experience even if your work is average.  Companies pay what the job is worth now, i.e. market rate - why pay more.  Thus the real issue is many employees are not moving up with out moving out.  But you can look at it as people are mediocre (less than average) which would be true ~50% of the time.
My firm has more than five thousand employees globally, and this is how we pay people, except for the very top directors. We were one of glassdoor's top firms to work for last year, and have scored extremely highly on lots of other rankings for being a top place to work. So clearly it works well, and trust me we have no problem recruiting.
"I mean, best of luck for this company, but there are empirical reasons why many companies do not strongly favor very old employees.  From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense to hire someone unless they are the best for their job. Anything else is not really ""business"" and is more on the charity/socialism side of things."
"So, you only want people who are ""perfectly prepared"" to fit into your unique job opening...  Oh, and you want them to have a very specific set of ""Pre-Approved Stamps""; and for them to have been trained through their ""apprentice/journeyman"" years by *someone else*.  And, of course, you would like to hire these ""perfect candidates"" at entry-level wages.  **Good luck with that.** (Even if you do manage to GET such an employee, I can predict that you will generally NOT be keeping them long.)"
That's just not how it works. I'm in Europe by the way, and am actually in the process of hiring someone for my company. We know how much we are willing to pay them (the pay is pretty good).     What we care about: the job being done quickly and well.     What we couldn't give less of shit about and what would get you laughed out of a conference call: the person's life circumstances, their heating bill, their three kids, or anything not strictly related to their role.    You put an inordinate amount of value on comfort for the employee, but none on the risk that the employer runs. Employers don't just drop out of the sky to gift people jobs and money. Particularly in the case of a franchise, which are typically run by small-scale businesspeople and whose risk rises as employees are paid more and are harder to fire, strong labor laws are a disincentive to hiring.
Interns are not hired to do work, they are hired so that people at the company can get a look at their abilities in a real situation (not an interview) before hiring them for real. This way instead of 30% of your new hires being a dud, it's more like 5%, because the bad ones were filtered out in the intern process. If you are self-motivated and good enough, then it's quite possible that you will start getting real work while you're at the company, as opposed to throwaway assignments that nobody cares about. Once you're in that position, it means they trust you to actually accomplish something, and you will be viewed as a hopeful hire. Assuming you like the company, getting into that position is half the value of the internship. So I'd take it as-is with one caveat - ask them about schedule flexibility ahead of time, explicitly for the purpose of making sure your class schedule works. If they're a decent place to work for they will probably grant you that point outright. EDIT: One more note. If you've got a favor to burn, save it. Use it if you like the place and need to ask them for an H1B sponsorship, or any other kind of immigration assistance.
"Never understood why any company would want to be beholden to complete strangers that you would never hire to begin with. I cringe when I watch shareholders' meetings and people talk about ""Well, as shareholders, we're worried about/what are you gonna do about xyz"""
Why train a new employee when you can just work your existing employees harder?  ...and then when you can't make them work any harder, hire someone on an L1 or H1B visa for 2/3 the salary of an American worker, on the grounds that you couldn't find an American to do the job.
"Based on my experience ~~making hiring decisions~~ [working with a fortune 500 company legal team to make hiring decisions] I don't believe anything illegal *necessarily* happened.  You're allowed to discriminate against that list all the time like when hiring a model, an actor, or a pastor that have to be a specific age/gender/ethnicity/religion, etc or other jobs that require it.  And yes, any public facing position at an explicitly christian organization does require it.  If I call a christian plumbing company I would expect them to send a christian plumber.  You can also discriminate against the degree to which someone is religious as well.  Imagine if you couldn't use answers like ""Do you go to church regularly"" when interviewing a pastor.  I worked previously for a christian organization that required many positions to be christians like salesmen and board members.  All other internal positions like accountants, etc. they would not even ask ""are you christian"" for legal reasons because it wasn't required for the job.  So it was either explicitly required in the job description or they couldn't ask or take it into account when hiring you."
The problem is that most recruiters don't know what they are looking for either. They don't have the background or experience to match someone to a job. Or they ignore transferable skills. The talent acquisition department at my company had such a bad reputation everyone says to just email the hiring manager.
Many times, specific CEOs are hired by the board in part because the board members will also at times in the future possibly be in the running to be the CEO of a company, and the previous CEO's they voted for in may wind up being on the board of the company they want to be CEO of. So one hand makes damn sure it's washing the other.  It's a very incestuous process and not uncommon for CEOs of one company to be sitting board members on another.
"Most businesses do not hire interns for most positions -- especially ones that require an advanced degree.  However, there is no harm in contacting HR and saying ""I love what I'm reading about your company, here are my qualifications, is it possible you might create an internship position to work with this group?"""
Companies will keep their wages as low as possible and would rather sacrifice the quality of people, hiring incapable/ ill-suited people. Then in order to further reduce costs many corporate offices will pass down that payroll needs to be reduced, so those people who couldn't do one person's job then do the job of two or three. Then burn out quickly and the cycle repeats. Been in service too long. You see this everywhere.
The name as it indicates is a company which helps companies to find appropriate applicants for the position of executives. Every year there are numerous specifications for executives, in various companies. But the process of choosing becomes more difficult if the company straight tries to search for applicants through a standard marketing method.
if employees are difficult to fire, it make it difficult to hire to begin with. It is well proven phenomenon in South European countries. Making union powerful simply create two tire system whereby the system only protect those who are already employed.   North European countries, instead, adopt flexible system whereby business is free to fire but redundancy pay increase by the number of years of employment. Also, this is backed by robust unemployment benefit.
One question I have is what to do about hiring. I know of some guys I can hire, but I couldn't hire them full time because I don't have enough work yet. Is it common for plasterers or construction workers to work for multiple companies part time?
A private company certainly has the right to make hiring decisions based on whatever criteria they want. The article strongly implied this company was incorporated, which makes it a public institution and that changes things.  My understanding is that laws about discriminatory hiring go into effect once a company reaches a certain size (for example, over 15 employees). It can be strongly argued that once a company reaches a certain size it is more of a public institution than a private endeavor. I like very much that companies like Koch Industries cannot discriminate in hiring, even if they aren't a public company. To allow this would enable the systemic economic persecution of any disliked minority.  Your blathering about half-witted leftist whiners is unnecessary and takes away from the valid point you were making.
The top 3, and 5 of the top 10, H1-B sponsors are [India-based outsourced IT companies](http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/here-are-the-25-biggest-h1b-sponsors-of-2016-117013101018_1.html). The core  business model of these companies is to displace employees, typically Americans, with much cheaper labor. Their claims that they can't find qualified US workers (an essential part of the H1-B process) are patently fraudulent, as they could hire the people whose jobs they eliminated. These companies undeniably depress IT salaries.
We're going through this at my company right now.  The billing/accounts receivable office near us has largely been automated and they are trying to find positions for all of the displaced employees.  There are a few open positions in my office and if these employees can pass a skills test/interview, they will get to take one of our spots and stay with the company.  If they are unable to pass the skills test (Excel and basic accounting concepts), they will be laid off.  Some of these people have worked for our company for over 20 years but since they didn't bother to upgrade their skill sets over the years, many of them will be out of work.  My coworkers think I'm crazy for continuing to obtain certifications and take classes but I'm thinking towards the future.
If I own shares of a company, am I entitled to apply as position of   CEO? Sure, but anybody else can apply too. Who decides? The corporate board of directors, who are nominally chosen by a vote of the stockholders. I say nominally, because in practice they are nominated by the current CEO and it's very rare for stockholders to veto the CEO's choice. Once in a while a group of stockholders will nominate their own candidate for the board, but they rarely win. I'd like to think there's some socio-corporate or investor-relationship advantage to working or having the option to work in certain positions in said company -- especially by privilege or total outstanding share ownership numbers. Why? Simply holding a large number of shares doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about running the business.
AFAIK, in the USA, as long as you're beneath a staff threshold of something like 13 people (correct me if someone knows the exact number), you can willfully discriminate in hiring however you damn well please.   Makes sense to me. If you have a tiny business, one person being out for 3 months can have a massive impact. Not simply one fewer maze rat in the cube farm at GE.
This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public.
That's a disgrace.   Companies can get rid of an employee with no notice, and then those employees can't find a job using the skill set they earned.   Companies are trying to win your skills. That's last step before slavery
There are lots of groups of people that are avoided for various reasons, health is one of the biggies. Mind you, nothing is documented and it is done in the gray area to avoid lawsuits...  Young married women - pregnancy Women with small children Obese people Smokers Older people Minorities  Pretty much depends on the job market, in a buyers market companies can pick and choose. Other considerations, turnover. Some companies only hire young or entry level through temp agencies, but will hire experienced workers (lower chance of turnover) directly.
Lawful recruiters make it simpler for lawyers to navigate the employing procedure by giving a specialized employment acquisition facility. With a lawful recruiter, a lawyer attains access to structural benefits and relations that would otherwise take several hundred’s - if not tons - of hours to tend on their own. However prior using any employment agencies check for their bcg attorney search scam.
Can you explain this to me? I'm under the impression that the CEO is generally hired by the board because he/she is supposed to be the expert, and the board provides broad guidance as to where the business should go. There is no one really above the CEO in the traditional sense as I understand it, but I would like to see what you mean if you don't mind explaining.
This sounds like a wonderful concept going up (a lower level employee contacting, say, a VP), but it works terribly in reverse. If you were a lower-level worker, do you want to field questions from random managers, directors, VPs and the CEO on something? I worked at a company like that, and it was horrible. It made you stop everything you were doing to answer nonsense questions because the person was too lazy to find something out on their own or through their own normal channels. It intimidates lower-level employees and makes them feel like they have 100 bosses. But then again, Musk's companies are said to have very high-stress, cutthroat cultures, so this would make sense.
I think you have just explained why it impossible for me to find a job. I have the skill set that matches the job description and hardly ever get asked for an interview. Do you have any further information about how widespread this practice may be. What size organizations does it affect?
&gt; As an employer, why would I not want to hire someone who is philosophically similar to me?   Because you've got that covered. You already think like you, you don't need everybody else to think like you *too,* any more than you need a whole company full of people with skills you already have. Sure, having *some* people who think like you can help spread the workload of thinking like you around, but unless you have plenty of people around who *don't* think like you, the company will never think of the things *you'd* never think of. And, obviously, the more different ways your company can think, the better.
It's a terrible company to work for in north America. I'm not even surprised.  A buddy of mine worked for then in Canada. They would hire you for a contract. By law you can only have a person in contract for 5 years. After that they must hire you full time. So what they do is tthey fire/let go ppl around the 4 year mark and re hire them shortly after (restarting the whole contract process, Cutting benefits along the way).