Sentences with phrase «bad about an employer»

When you find out something bad about an employer on your list (pending layoffs, for example), remove them from your list.

Think about it — if you work there, you must like the place and the people, otherwise, start looking for a new place, rather than write something bad about your employers, because the future ones will take this into account.

Not exact matches

«Once a year we would have one bad meeting about our health plans, and you would watch the price climb and deal with it as an employer,» says Jeff Townsend, a Cerner vice president.

«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.»

Unfortunately, the people behind convincing Brown to jack up the minimum wage are people who are always assuming the worst about deep - pocketed employers exploiting their employees while assuming unicorns when it comes to the consequences of their policies.

Complaining about coworkers, bosses or past employers is also a bad idea.

Worst of all, their employers — snotty young kids who were raised by them — don't care about them.

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»?

surely the fact that Wenger has to get cheap tranafers like Kolasinac and greek guy with only kne big signing per window ahows the budget he has to play with Gazidis is the snake who keeps saying we will spend big and have huge budget to pass all the blame to Wenger who is loyal and wont say bad things about hias employers!

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...

«After a budget process that included unprecedented anti-employer actions — including a drastic increase to the minimum wage and the most expansive paid family leave mandate in the nation — the employers and the communities we represent are deeply concerned about their ability to operate in a state that is consistently viewed among the worst in the nation to start or grow a business by every objective ranking while effectively competing in a global marketplace,» the groups wrote in the letter.

«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.

Reforms enacted in recent years, largely out of concern about Wall Street volatility, require responsible, minimum employer contributions in good economic times and bad.

I'm trying to refrain from early angst because Jensen brought up an excellent point just last week — a bad attitude about your job search will send potential employers running for the hills.

If you're lucky enough to have a 100 % employer - funded defined benefit plan, the only thing you have to worry about is the prospect of your employer going bust — but even then, the news isn't all bad, says Brian FitzGerald, an actuary with Capital G Consulting Inc. and co-author of The Pension Puzzle.

And don't feel bad about it: Some employers actually expect pushback.

Get the facts about how both existing and potential employers could use bad credit against you.

A credit union — especially one affiliated with your employer or one that is community - based — may be willing to look beyond a poor credit history and make a judgment about whether it will loan you money based on your character and your promise to repay, regardless of if you have bad credit or not.

This will help when lenders or employers are asking questions about bad credit when reviewing your report.

I think employers need to worry about many other things than someone having bad credit..

We have seen the Court of Appeal's rejection of the appeal in the case of British Airways and the employee wanting to wear a cross necklace in defiance of the company's dress code (Eweida v BA plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80, [2010] All ER (D) 144 (Feb)-RRB- and also that court's decision in the Buckland case which was widely reported in the press in terms of «Professor wins case about dumbing down university degrees» but which was of much greater legal significance for ridding the law on constructive dismissal of the heresy that the range of reasonable responses test applies to such dismissals, under which the ex-employee could only succeed in showing constructive dismissal if he could prove that the employer's behaviour was so bad that no reasonable employer could possibly have behaved in that way, ie that the employer had not just behaved as too much of an Alan (B'Stard) but as a grade one Olympic standard Alan (Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121, [2010] All ER (D) 299 (Feb)-RRB-.

It reflects badly on you if a prospective employer is trying to contact you (e.g. could raise red flags about your reliability), or, if you are working with a résumé writer or career coach and don't get back to them in a timely manner, it could result in a missed opportunity.

Millennials in particular have come to expect transparency from employers, although Crispin mentioned a study that showed Baby Boomers were the most likely to complain online about a bad experience with a company.

Employers do not want to hear a litany of excuses or bad feelings about a negative experience.

If you're always talking about the good, the bad, the ugly, when the good does come, I think your employer will appreciate those successes more and will then be more open to listening and give you that praise you deserve.

Posting about it on Facebook makes it seem like you hate your job and could concern employers that you would bad mouth them as well.

What Bad - Mouth Barry doesn't realize is that, according to a 2015 survey, bad - mouthing a former employer or co-worker is ranked in the top three worst things a candidate can post about on social medBad - Mouth Barry doesn't realize is that, according to a 2015 survey, bad - mouthing a former employer or co-worker is ranked in the top three worst things a candidate can post about on social medbad - mouthing a former employer or co-worker is ranked in the top three worst things a candidate can post about on social media.

With either being the case, do not talk bad about your former or present employer.

About.com's job search expert Allison Doyle cautions job seekers: «Regardless of why you left, don't speak badly about your previous employer.

He has the skills, the experience and the personality, but he can't stop saying bad things about his previous employers on Facebook and Twitter.

You'll certainly be talking about your previous jobs and your reason for leaving, but be sure that you don't bad mouth your employers as this will make you look unprofessional.

If you have read bad reviews about this employer, take those reviews into consideration.

Employers want to see if you'll talk badly about your former employer — so resist the urge to do so.

The unorganized and sloppy resume will make a bad impact on the potential employer and force him to think that you aren't capable of handling the responsibilities and that you don't care about the quality of your work.

That means don't bad - mouth your former employer or any other companies you've been associated with, or complain about your personal circumstances.

Here's more information on references for job searching including who to ask for a reference, the different types of employment references you can use including personal, character, and professional references, how to list references, when and how to give references to employers, what to do about bad references, reference check policies and procedures, and sample reference letters and lists.

Of more than 2,600 hiring managers surveyed by CareerBuilder in 2009, 35 percent had rejected candidates after finding objectionable material, including photos of them using drugs, bad - mouthing previous employers and lying about their qualifications.

Background Checks expose the truth about candidates, good or bad, and help employers make educated hiring decisions.

It will leave interviewers wondering what you might say about their company behind their back, or worst, what that employer might say about you.

It's a good idea to ask for details about the training on offer at interview stage, and you can also ask what other employees on the school leaver programme have gone on to do after finishing it, but you risk creating a bad impression if you ask about leaving the programme before the employer has even decided whether to take you on.

However, it's also likely his next job will be short - lived and he will have yet another story to tell the next potential employer about how «bad» that work environment was.

Never speak badly about a past employer.

What you don't know about your employer (or a potential employer) can hurt you badly!

Employers sit down with potential employees and over the course of the meeting, both parties try to learn enough about each other to decide if working together is good idea or a bad idea... just without the awkward hug / kiss thing at the end... hopefully.

«Using profanity or slang, mentioning personal or health problems, talking bad about a past employer are all considered unprofessional,» West says.

Any mistakes in your job application documents mean you were not serious enough about this particular opportunity which sends a bad signal to a potential employer.

5) Talk bad about your current employer.

Employers don't expect years of experience when you're a new grad so don't feel badly about that.

Whether you were a good leaver or a bad leaver, whether you got fired or laid off or left for a better job or are in fact still employed, it never pays to talk smack about a current or former boss or employer in a job interview.

What we're talking about here is the value of an employer knowing the reality of a person's history — for worse AND for better.