Sentences with phrase «think about the employer»

It's nuanced, to be sure, but when we can stop and think about the employer on the other end, you're much more likely to catch his or her attention and get that interview.

Beyond thinking about the employer, it's worth considering what you would like to gain from the opportunity.

Employers view: When you are writing your cover letter, think about the employer's view.

Once again, think about the employer — they are likely getting hundreds of files with the same name.

Instead, think about your employer has benefited from your performance and how you've gone «above and beyond» your job responsibilities.

Most job seekers don't think this about employers when drafting a resume and ultimately pay a big price for this mistake.

Think About the Employer's Needs.

Think about the employer's needs, stay away from self - serving statements and include your next plan for action.

Think about the employer as you choose which information to include and the order of that information.

Not exact matches

Most employers can not help but think about the potential for conflicts of interest.

Some employers don't think about ways to facilitate this relationship — that's a mistake.

«Some employers have thought about bringing in more prevention and wellness initiatives, as well as dropping high cost health plans.

It isn't because there aren't people without jobs out there, but rather because many of those people, either from birth or from discouragement of being without work, are not thinking about the bigger picture, «making the employer happy» as much as they are following what they are told «fill in that sheet of numbers.»

Many employers want their workers to complete today's problems while thinking about tomorrow's challenges using yesterdays technologies and approaches.

«For those reasons, how employers think about accommodating pregnancy really matters,» Kimpel says.

Employers offering mass numbers of jobs and high - end work moved out of the U.S. much faster than they moved in — 57 percent head out while just 9 percent thought about moving in.

Making the time to ask people what they think about something, or how to do it, goes a long way towards building that bond between employees and employers that helps everyone get through the inevitable ups and downs of working together.

But when most employers start talking about employee engagement, they think of Silicon Valley's classic ping - pong table lounges and catered on - site meals.

It's never too early to time to think about brand guidelines to start to show how the employer brand will come to life.

But the very small employer thinks about that stuff.

Think disparaging comments about the employer or racist musings, as just two examples.

If not, then you should probably have second thoughts about the previous cases in which you endorsed rough justice being handed out by employers.

«What we thought and we had envisioned is the cost of the newly enrolled would end up approaching that of the [employer - insured] group market, but we're seeing in the data we have today it is actually about 20 percent higher than in the group market,» said Alissa Fox, senior vice president for policy and representation at BCBSA, in an interview with Morning Consult.

«I think that the worst thing employers can do is simply say, «Well, it's delayed for a year, I'm going to stop thinking about that part of the law.»

Think About It from the Employer's Point of View.

This means that employers will need to think about ways to allow gen Zers to take ownership of projects and initiatives to satisfy their entrepreneurial nature.

I can't help but think about the current movement of employers to assign open «offices» to employees when I read this quote from Cleese.

The second was terrified about what his parents and future employer might think — he had just secured a job at a leading Wall Street firm.

Top interview tip: Take time to prepare by researching the organization, reviewing your resume, and thinking about examples of challenges and key accomplishments you had with previous employers.

Certainly, investors hear alarming investment nightmare stories about people who held a large proportion of their personal wealth in their employer's stock and lost everything.3 4 While your client may think, «I know this company because I work here,» that thinking can get them into trouble — think WorldCom and Lehman Brothers.

«A lot of employers out there have not stopped to really think about the consequences of those changes that are significant on the long - term,» said Jason Malone, a partner at Aon in Montreal.

One of my good friends Christine is thinking about negotiating a separation agreement with her employer of 6 years.

Judging by the reaction to yesterday's story about a company not allowing religious baubles to be worn outside of the uniform combined with this story, it seems that certain Christians think they should be allowed to dress up as the pope and prosthelytize in the workplace without any possible reprisal from their employers.

Dindac - If you think about it, all of us are «slaves» of something... We are «slaves» of the country we live in, we are obligated to accomplish the laws of the land... We are «slaves» of our employer... If we don't comply with their policy, then we can be fired... It that a bad «slavery»?

Girls Gone Wild videos, Insane Clown Posse photos, and radical political views might be OK with your friends but might cause a respective employer to think twice about offering you a job.

There are, for example, employers that might read this and think twice about hiring a person they presume does not believe in G - D (people are prejudice, sadly).

I think an employer has a moral obligation to be concerned about the welfare of one's employee's — maybe not legally required (to a degree)-- i wish it were simple that people could just quit an employer that had no concern for the people so that enterprise would go under or wise up — i think though employers are actually more upset about money instead of morals — women and doctors should be deciding such issues — i do not know y i even bother posting since i know these posts will not actually affect anything --

The Cameroon international will be trying not to think too much about his former team and to ensure that his current employers make it an unhappy day for us.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

If I was in the place of this boy, I would not think too long about choosing a future employer.

If substantial paternity / parental leave were made available to UK fathers and were paid at reasonable rates and if this were taken up by substantial numbers of fathers this would require a revolution in thinking by government, employers, trades unions and others about the work / care nexus which could benefit not only fathers but mothers and children too (Green & Parker, 2006; Lewis & Cooper, 2005)-- and, ultimately, employers too.

What would your employer think about your social media account?

So let's hope many more employers thinking about how to shape their SPL policies will take a more enlightened route.

Talk to your employer about your plans, ask them where they think you should pump, and come up with a plan together.»

And I think it's better for the employer parents, too, because it gives them a way to get confirmation of their feelings about the babysitter in a more professional way.

Employers may value the benefits of breastmilk, but they need to think about paying salaries and serving their customers.

«The number of women saying they feel pessimistic about their future in the profession and the number saying their priority is to leave teaching must give employers and Government pause for thought about the urgency of the need to create a teaching profession which genuinely values and supports all women teachers.

«Only this terrible government would think that's a bad idea» The pilot area announcement came as part of a package of measures announced employers» organisation CBI today, as Mr Clegg spoke about the «human tragedy» of youth unemployment.

«You don't think it's in Adam's mind that his father having the power to control or influence legislation needed by each of these three employers would be using that and he wanted his dad to use that because he wanted the job and he didn't care about the consequences?»

«Perhaps once again the government need to think very carefully about how they approach this issue, as it is clear there are limits to the effectiveness of relying on employer and landlord checks to address illegal immigration.»