Sentences with phrase «anyone at her employer»

Accept the payment as income and be glad you got something because according to the very public IRS rules, the FSA funds were already well out of your grasp no matter what anyone at the employer said, this is how I would deal with it if I was in this situation.

Not exact matches

While many states are so - called at - will states, where employers can terminate freely for all sorts of reasons, anyone who has ever hired and fired knows you need a full paper trail documenting poor performance to shield yourself against a host of workplace - discrimination or wrongful - termination claims.

Others said they were actively looking for their next jobs — a task made more difficult because of the taint of failure that potential employers sometimes associate with anyone at the struggling company.

Also, as an employer myself I would likely fire anyone who came to work, clocked in and then demanded I stand quietly by as they loudly prayed at me.

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...

Yes, it would be a «loss» economically to the government or employers, but has anyone ever looked at the cost - benefit analysis for Canadian maternity leaves?

Many employers have at - will employment where they can fire anyone at any time for any reason.

Anyone who doesn't receive their raise by Dec. 31 should contact the state Labor Department at 1 -888-4-NYSDOL to report their employers.

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires employers to ensure the health and safety of all employees and anyone affected by their work, so far as is reasonably practicable, which means balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the risk in terms of money, time or trouble.

Unlike 401 (k) and similar plans, which require employer participation, anyone can invest in at least one type of IRA.

As you will see below, whether you or even your spouse are covered by an employer plan at work could easily befuddle anyone who is trying to prepare for retirement.

The man who would like more than anyone to know the answer to this question is David Whitehouse, Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a former science editor at the BBC (till the point when his skepticism became too much for his employer).

The Court of Appeal was of the view that the prevalence of such behaviour at the employer's workplace did not make it tolerable, rather it showed the extend of the supervisor's dereliction of duty: «A supervisor who permits such an atmosphere as the trial judge describes to develop, and then participates in the exchanges as much as anyone else is a supervisor who is not performing his duties».

We should make it clear at the outset of this Judgment to anyone who expects the conclusion to amount either to a ringing endorsement of an individual's right not to be required to work on a Sunday on the one hand, or an employer's freedom to require it on the other, that they will both be disappointed.

Thus, on the facts of the case (dismissal of a disabled employee for long - term sickness) an SDA / RDA approach would have meant no discrimination because the employer could show that he would have dismissed anyone off for that long, ie for a non-disability reason, but it was held that the proper comparison was with an employee who had not been off sick at all.

Anyone can work from anywhere these days, while social media has become an important tool for finding new clients and for employers needing freelancers at short notice.

Often in a small or family - owned business the employer will approach his / her own network to see if someone knows anyone who is good at «whatever.»

People who do background checking for a living or who work in HR departments are skilled at obtaining information from untrained employees - maybe more than you want the employee to share with a prospective employer - or anyone.

Ask your current contacts (friends, family, colleagues, other job seekers, etc.) if they know anyone working at your target employer.

These are things that recruiters and potential employers look at when considering anyone as a potential candidate.

When I was a recruiter I was trained to not call anyone with fewer than nine months of job longevity at previous employers.

You big yourself up and try to come across as appealing as possible, potential employers take a look at all the applications and essentially swipe right on anyone they want to interview.

If more cities and states ban the salary question, at some point «employers will reach a tipping point» and stop asking anyone, Ebbink said.

Does anyone in your network or your networks network know someone who works or has worked at your target employer?

Asking anyone about their disability and hiring or nor hiring on its basis at an application stage is illegal and an employer can easily be sued.

In a tough economy, it's an employers» job market, which means that anyone hiring can afford to pick and choose from the glut of applicants — and make wild demands (see, for example, the companies that ask for your Facebook password at the interview).»

Whether you take this advice or not, before you ever send your resume to an employer, send it to your mom, your girlfriend, your English major buddy, anyone who will look at it and tell you why it is ugly and what you need to do to fix it.