vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The standard is actually 30 hours a week over a given period of time (3-12 months of the previous taxable year).   The interesting problem for the prototypical employer who wants to offer benefits to as few employees as possible is ERISA Sec. 510. According to the above poster, companies want to avoid hiring full time positions. However, based on employer needs, only hiring part time workers will not be feasible for many businesses. Furthermore, if employers restrict hours for the purpose of denying access to benefits, they may be violating ERISA Sec. 510, which would lead to a major lawsuit for that business. As ERISA is an opt-in class action statute, as well as a generous attorney fee statute (it's easier for plaintiff's lawyers to make the defense pay their legal fees, see ERISA 502(g), CIGNA v. Amara), it would be unwise for employers to simply refuse to hire any more full time employees.  Of course, companies will be looking to avoid ""overpaying"" for benefits in any way they can. But simplistic conclusions, such as vexu gave, that they will not hire full time workers fails to grasp both the complexity of PPACA and the consequences of a given employer's actions."
"&gt;these jobs aren't meant for adults with families.  Says who?  You?  Society?  Just because people _think_ that's how it should be doesn't make it correct.  A job is a job.  Yes, it's requires less skill to work at Subway than most jobs but that doesn't mean you should be be forced to live below poverty because you have that job.  They shouldn't be making surgeon wages, but no one is arguing for that.  People want to live like a human being.  They want to pay their heat bill so they're not freezing in the winter.  &gt;They're part time, no-responsibility positions that pay beer money  Want to know why?  Because companies choose that.  They could easily cut their employees by a third, pay a livable wage and full time status to the remaining employees and STILL grow/expand and hire back the people they cut.    Aldi's isn't doing bad.  Costco is doing pretty well.  QuikTrip is growing like a weed.  All these places are ""beer money jobs for teens and students"" yet they've found success in paying actual, livable money to their employees.    People think that if companies raise their wages they'll go bankrupt and they've done a good job convincing everyone that.  It's been shown that [raising the minimum wage doesn't affect employment](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf).  If anything it helps because less turnover = more efficiency = more money for the company.    TL:DR Ya'll motherfuckers need empathy."
"Good save, love how you're walking back toward the positions I've taken previously, but you said you would not consider someone with a music or communications undergrad degree for a security position, full stop. Diversity hire? Nice person? Stop putting words in my mouth because I said no such thing.  And stop putting words in my mouth about what I think of HR; their role is to hire the best talent and protect the company, not to protect employees, and if you read back, you'll see I already said that.  ""Not long in the corporate world"" lol okay believe what you like."
Walmart is one of the biggest low wage employers. Let's say $1B of the $2.66B is spent on subsidizing Wal-Mart employees.  That's &gt;$3 per US citizen, that we all pay and cannot put back into the economy how we wish. I don't even shop at wal mart and I'm forced to subsidize their employees. IMO, that is not fair. This just incentivizes walmart to hire more cheap government-subsidized employees, rewarding walmart's  on my back.  So let's do this: For every government dollar spent on helping low-wage employees subsist, we tax the employer the same dollar.  From this I bet we would see walmart building housing for their employees, maybe even cafeterias, to get them off section 8 / food stamps. That is more efficient than sending money to the IRS, it makes its way to HUD, then to some government employees who are overburdoned, then we pay out section 8 money to landlords. That's inefficient. I know of walmart employees who rely on $1400/month in section 8, so walmart's tax bill would increase substantially, costs would rise, but tax receipts that we all have to currently pay would decrease by the same amount. So overall costs stay them same, but the finances are more efficient and where they should be vs spread around.
Hah.  So, public employees get less rights as employees than private ones?  What about private employees of companies with public contracts?  I'm guessing that you don't think private employees should have the right to bargain either.   How is having collective bargaining rights holding the public hostage? Hyperbole much? We're bound by the same arbitrators.  Cops and Firefighters can't strike.
"Holy shit its people like you who can't be won over and complain about everything.  ""Costoso pays its employees well"" You: Fuck them, they don't employ enough people!!!    ""Costco reduces pay to hire more employees"" You: Fuck them they're literally Walmart!!!!"
You know, we may have the right to strike in this country, but there's no law that says a company can't hire replacement workers, indefinitely. The force of government prevents companies from refusing to collectively bargain with a labor union. &gt;Threat of violence? Violent strikes? This is a straw-man if I've ever seen one. Who is threatening violence here? This existed before government laws were created that made legal threats on behalf of employees that want to keep unionized employees employed and force companies to collectively bargain with a union. Now of course the strikers themselves are not directly threatening violence, since they are backed by the force of government. &gt;Objectively, when you look at the wealth disparity in this country, it's pretty hard to argue that the right to collective bargaining has resulted in an unfair advantage for workers. Collectively bargaining doesn't benefit workers in general. It benefits in the short-term, those workers who are employed and unionized, at the expense of long-term wage growth and employment opportunities for the unemployed and non-unionized employees."
If Trump close loopholes for big corporation not paying taxes, while also reducing taxes, it will work.   Any ideas how much taxes Apple paid last year? How much of Apple's money is off-shore?   But your plans are good too! Really. They also do not involve raising taxes.  You have no idea how many people are not audited by the IRS, how big is the under-the-table payments, black market, etc.  Just fix the system.  And when you close loopholes, to save tax money, companies will need to spend more capital and hire people to reduce their taxable profit.
they rather import than hire low quality local. that's pretty much what all US companies do right now. remember Cisco firing 1800 (5% of staff)? at the same time they are about to hire over 2000 abroad at new Cisco offices.
Amen brother. Same here.  I don't consider labor from 3rd world countries my competition.  Their work is down right shit.  Companies hire me at 10x they paid some shitty indian worker who botched their whole system just to try and save a few dollars per hour.  Ends up costing them 10x that in the long run.
Marijuana should be decriminalized. It would stop giving insurance companies loopholes to deny claims, and would let the government hire better cybersecurity experts. Digital forensics agencies have been complaining for years that they can't fill positions fast enough because so many applicants don't want to comply with their marijuana policies.
&gt;Much of the evidence in support of a skills gap could be explained by employers who are no longer willing to train their employees **or raise salaries**, and instead want to be able to hire people with exactly the right skills–and on the cheap.  I think we might have just stumbled upon the problem.  If the salary is right, people have a knack for finding the training.
"There are a lot of business reasons why the H1B abuse is a bad idea.  When it's used for it's original purpose, importing skilled workers from abroad, is good, but that has become the small minority of it's use now.  Instead it is being used in a ""race to the bottom""  type of approach to maximize short term profits.  Good people cost good money.  There are engineers in India that are AMAZING.  Guess what?  They are just as expensive as amazing engineers in the US.  When you hire cheap employees you get cheap work. Doesn't matter where it is.  It doesn't matter though, senior management just plays the game.  Cut costs, bump up the stock, collect your bonus, find a new job where you can tell them all about how much money you saved your last company and repeat the cycle there.  Meanwhile 2-5 years later all of these companies start [suffering huge problems ](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/27/british-airways-says-computer-outage-causing-global-delays.html) because their IT has gone to shit."
Being an ex-banker, I agree, and I'd add that they were scared shitless to hire on again and we're very happy to grind everyone to death until the employees screamed uncle. I was on the corporate credit side, which is not automatible
Unless your bosses are total assholes and want their employees to miss a once-in-a-century event, they'll probably let everybody take a break to go out and look. I imagine your colleagues will bring their glasses. I read many companies will be closed tomorrow, for the eclipse.  If you're interested, here's a good tutorial video on how to make your own eclipse viewer, with a cereal box: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9L24AHM3is
&gt;We actually had to request a few of them to come back in part-time since it is rather difficult to find experienced machinists.  That's the scary part.   There's no entry path into these jobs.   A lot of companies only seem to want to hire people who somehow earn these skills through osmosis and don't want to hire people on straight out of school.  Some career paths are easier than others, but it really feels in some cases like it's a closed loop.    Teachers for example are clinging to their career long after they should.
"&gt;Much of the evidence in support of a skills gap could be explained by employers who are no longer willing to train their employees or raise salaries, and instead want to be able to hire people with exactly the right skills–and on the cheap.  I saw this play out at my previous job. Literally no one got COLA raises, executive management got 10's of thousands of dollars in retention bonuses each year. They would only hire staff that fit the exact roles they were looking for, for the least amount of money through temp agencies... then bitch about the workers behind their backs because they weren't miracle workers doing 200% of what was asked of them. It created a very negative environment that got downright perverse when my boss would claim we're a ""family""."
Companies have this weird view of what their workers are doing: if you don't care that your employees get on Facebook at work, then you shouldn't care if they do it at home.  As a consultant who travels around I always laugh when companies only want you to keep track of what you work on when they are at home.
The implication is she built it so good that it didn't suffer these fates. It took on a life of its own in a way she wanted/designed and then it sort of maintained itself through the employees and processes she built with new people fitting into the puzzle without her. Most places the culture does need to be maintained as you hire outside and they bring their own ideas and own ways of doing things but it seems Netflix hired under the assumption of do it my way in our existing system or GTFO.
&gt; This is further supported by the fact that when I go into a Costco it's nearly impossible to find anyone to help me, and when I do, they are just about useless.  All part of the business model. They'd have to hire more people if you were expected to get easy help from employees.
I don't think they were planning to fire everyone and hire chinese engineers, it's a profitable business so the chinese wanted it.   It sucks for the guy who built the company from the ground up (and all the employees who worked for equity), they aren't going to be able to cash out like they had planned.
3G capital is one of the major holding companies of Heinz.  They own (co-own) many major bands, such as Burger King.  They are known for completely gutting the core values these companies were built on.  All the matters to them is cost cutting (often food/product quality, salaries, wages, benefits, company perks, company celebrations, etc).  They promote a zero based budget meaning every organizational expense is tirelessly scrutinized in the search of slimmer costs to increase profit.  They embody all the is wrong with capitalism when it comes to society-at-large.  So how does this guy play into it?  They are also known for promoting their young employees quickly.  It effectively allows them to pay young employees less for more work.  I know first hand, it creates a culture of young people working long hours for low pay with the hopes of being the next rising star.  People like this 29 year old CFO may be compensated well, but likely has most of the compensation held in bonuses for short-term results.  The result is very quick employee burnout and turnover, and zero work-life balance.  All i can say to finish this rant off is that in the short-term, the system 3G is putting into place for the companies they are absorbing is effective for trimming costs and increasing profits for shareholders.  Long-term, the low pay, long hours, and zero family values is and drain on society.  They are a cancer in the business world.  Read some articles about their takeovers of Heinz, Burger King, Tim Hortons.  Their treatment of employees is horrific, again I've seen it first hand.  Head over to /r/Canada and read how Canadians now view the products and values of their once beloved Tim Hortons.
Cost talent innovation all go hand in hand.  I can hire 2 skilled labor at cost of one. So companies may hire 1.5 replacement and pocket savings.  Are you going to say we should ban excel? Cause of jobs??  Like I said stop Visa and they will just have office set up off shore...
"No.  It's mainly because:  1. Immigration is allowed in large numbers, especially of white collar people, who are willing to work for less.  2. Outsourcing to foreign countries, cheap labor.  3. Any idiot can finish high school and get a bachelor degree from college, so there's no shortage of ""qualified"" people.  4. Robots and AI doing the work of many people, and will even much work, instead of people.  5. Companies have to pay and give more ""benefits"" to employees, so they are reluctant to hire and simply can't pay so much. It's more than $10,000 a year in health benefits for each employee in the USA."
"FOX is staffed by a lot of ""men rule the world"" thinkers. They don't respect women there. They choose women for their broadcasts based on which ones are the prettiest for TV. It's got nothing to do with journalism, and their male broadcasters are all pigs.  Frankly everyone with critical thinking skills is surprised that it took as long as it did.  MSNBC is just as bad as FOX. The particulars of their offenses might be different, but both organizations are corrupt to their cores. Punishing a few of their employees is not going to teach the other hundreds of people in their organization to suddenly learn right from wrong.  And in the case of sexual harassment, even if the company spends millions on forcing employees to go to seminars and take special training, it's not going to change who they are. They're going to go home each night and return to being stupid sexist pigs. They'll just put on whatever mask and act is required of them in the workplace.  The solution is don't hire people like that. When their behavior becomes contradictory to their survival under the law of natural selection then, and only then, will they change their ways."
&gt;I'm an athiest. Why wouldn't I hire an athiest first given that I work in such close proximity with my employees and is much more like a family or a close group of friends?  Mainly because it's illegal.  That being said, if you don't make it blatantly obvious that that's what you're doing, you likely won't get in trouble.
Businesses aren't a charity - they pay for work and exist for profit. They aren't supposed to have feelings. So austerity and getting the most out of your employees causes the company to become lean and efficient.   A lot of companies run with a lot of fat - just organizational bloat and inefficiency. I don't take issue with changing the culture of complacency at a company and laying people off to make the company run without unnecessarily paying a bunch of people. You wouldn't hire 3 or 4 companies to mow part of your lawn and pay them all for mowing the whole thing, you wouldnt go out to eat every day if you were on a tight budget, so why would a company carry extra employees to do the same job, and why would you expect that a company should not use a zero budgeting system?  You wrote everything to seemingly suggest that 3G is a cancer to the business world, that they do things in all the wrong ways. But they've owned Burger King for almost a decade now. They earned a 46% return over a two year period and continue to own a majority stake in burger king. I think Burger King has a better reputation now than it did then. Tim Hortons was only acquired 3 years ago. People have been bitching about how they no longer make fresh donuts since before 2010. In other words, Canadians have been becoming more skeptical of Tim Hortons since **before** the buyout from Burger King and 3G. 3G didn't significantly change the values and product, they cut costs and made it a less cushy environment. The ill will toward Tim Hortons was not caused by 3G, as you suggested.
WE're talking about companies. Cooperate companies.  What cooperate company is issuing bounced or fake checks to their employees that can also issue debit cards as payments? None.   You're trying to split hairs between personal cashed checks and pay roll checks. They aren't the same at all. Payroll checks don't require a 3 day waiting period before the balance is moved to your account, personal checks that don't have a history of bouncing do.
Successful technology contractors* make far more than employees. The contractor market is getting oversaturated because more people want to do it and employers like it less and less. Problem is, the only time big employers are willing to hire contractors are when they're really good, so you really only get well paid contractors who find consistent work, and then a flood of contractors that have to get whatever work they can find.
The report I linked to appears to disagree with you about the numbers. But if you said that the number of contractors exceeding the number of government employees wasn't in and of itself hugely meaningful I'd not disagree. The point is that the military do outsource their work to various degrees, which was the point I'd been making, and so we're largely agreed.  I wonder how it works out from a budgetary perspective for the professional mercenary companies, who I've read get paid massive amounts, which, I imagine, must irritate those doing similar work for government pay. People like Blackwater and their ilk.
And suddenly everyone starts outsourcing their janitorial work to other companies... Let's be honest. This will simply encourage them to figure out ways to get rid of their employees, not pay them more. Walmart will just become a solely-owned subsidiary of some management company, which is where all the executives live.
Come to Oklahoma they can fire you and not hire you for what reason they please. Call at will state and by the way. I don't know about your state our country but here companies do not have to provide leave due to pregnancy.
Publix is another employee owned massive chain, grocery store but also in Florida. Have known someone work their way up to GM and be sitting on quite a load of stocks.  Some insurance companies in Florida are also privately held and give employees stock options.
This article is hilariously wrong.  They studied companies that are already structured in such a way that they pay far less than statuatory rates.  The VAST majority of companies do not have sprawling international operations and cannot benefit from these types of structures, thus they are paying tax rates far closer to statuatory rates.  The study is looking at the WRONG companies and drawing a false conclusion from them.  It’s simple math.  Reducing tax rates makes companies more profitable, providing more capital for expand and grow.  Growth requires adding employees.  Only a moron would argue that companies are better off and will grow faster when more of their profits are taken from them via taxation.
"Research on drugs should be publicly funded in universities. The private sector only invests when the ""hard work"" has been done. The internet it's a good example.. massive public funding in the beginning, when there were profits to be made, suddenly the private sector woke up.. the researchers that work in those pharma companies were mostly trained and educated in top universities with a mix of their tuition fees and public money. Then the pharma companies hire them and make billions off of their knowledge. Fuck that. Universities should do the research, own the patent, price it fairly according to a public/Democratic decision, and let any compan y produce the drug, competing on how efficiently it can produce it. Besides, there is too much of a vested interest for making profit for private pharma, so they continuously push drugs that are detrimental to society like opioids. Only the public sector can ""afford"" to loose money in dead end research and make up for it later."
Are you aware that you are not beholden to Walmart? Are you aware how much profit, not just revenue, but outright Walmart posts every year? Do you know how much of that profit goes towards the employees who made it possible? Are you aware of the anticompetitive business practices they use? Are you aware that your tax dollars are subsidizing the food, shelter, and medical care of Walmart's employees?  Walmart makes plenty of profit, they owe it to their employees to pay a fair wage. But you seem to think people dont deserve to be paid fairly so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It seems like all the companies on their scale treat their employees like garbage. However, I try not to shop at those places. The invisible hand of the market impacts Wal-Mart, but it has little real impact. Look at this thread, some people praise Wal-Mart because of this, but they've been treating them badly for decades.
You linked to an article about 1 QUARTER in 2010 -  &gt;If companies pay their employees more for the same amount of output it will just drive up the cost of goods leaving us with the same shitty demand.  &gt;Also, how do you figure this?  I figure this because it is the simplest economics. The cost of goods sold is based on 3 things  1 - raw materials 2 Labor, including associated costs such as payroll taxes and benefits, and 3 - overhead  If #2 is increased with NO INCREASE IN OUTPUT the cost of those goods is going up.
If this were a business owned by an atheist who didn't want to hire religious fanatics Fox News would have a week of programming covering the persecution. So I wonder how much I'll see this story on their channel today?
their only real competition at this point are places like Amazon.com, which treat their employees just as shitty, but people like deliveries where they don't see the workers wallowing in their misery.   I'm not saying never shop at places, but we should be pushing for workers rights reforms. Its clear the invisible hand of the market is not able to force companies to be ethical when there aren't enough jobs for people to run to that are.