Sentences with phrase «employer sees about»

Your resume is the first thing that your prospective employer sees about you and hence you have to be flawless here.

Your resume is the first thing that your employer sees about you, except perhaps for your cover letter.

The résumé may be the first document an employer sees about you.

After all, your resume is typically the first thing that employers see about you.

What will employers see about you when they Google your name?

resume writing Career Coach career goals Find a job get a job resume resume accomplishments After all, your resume is typically the first thing that employers see about you.

Your personal brand needs to be consistent with other information employers see about you and what you say during phone and in - person interviews.

This also means that your personal brand needs to be consistent with other information employers see about you and what you say during phone and in - person interviews.

Social media plays a huge role in 21st - century job searches, so it's common for a LinkedIn profile to be the first thing employers see about you.

Not exact matches

By taking a moment to address the awkwardness, both the employer and potential employee are able to get on the same page about the direction of the interview in order to see if they are a match for one another.

«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.

For more information about the common - law rules, see Publication 15 - A (PDF), Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide.

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...

It's too much to talk about all that here, so I will limit my discussion to how Ava, the robot, seduces and basically destroys Caleb, who was chosen by Nathan, his employer, to interact with her to see if she passes the Turing test, which examines if a machine has consciousness and is indistinguishable from a human.

Meanwhile, a heated debate happened in a Facebook group I belong to for mamas who also happen to be «geeks» about whether or not a husband's request that his wife, the original poster, refrain from putting photos of her and their child nursing, lest his colleagues and employers see these photos and feel uncomfortable.

See how one breastfeeding soldier proactively mapped out a pumping schedule and educated her employer about breastfeeding in the workplace.

NI numbers are required by most employers and can also be used to claim benefits, but a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) memo seen by The Times suggests concerns about possible abuses are being overridden by the demands of tax collection.

Drug safety officer is one you have already considered — but remember that potential employers won't see their vacancy as a stepping stone to something better, so be careful about how you describe your career plans to them!

Indeed, says David Hollinshead, science policy director for AstraZenica, employers see work experience as about developing far greater skills than just the ability to use a coffee machine.

Formerly known as the Comer Kids» Classic and now called the University of Chicago Medicine Comer Children's Hospital RBC Race for the Kids, the event has seen a steady increase in popularity among area runners, employers and families, from about 100 participants in 2002 to more than 1,300 last year.

Each session will be designed to broaden students» aspirations about the opportunities available to them after school and will culminate with a visit to a local employer to see the world of work first hand.

«We advise that you wait to view the applicants» certificate to see the results before making a recruitment decision» This means there is some information on this check about the applicants» criminal history and the employer should request to see the check in order to make an informed hiring decision.

While presenting this video could be seen as a conflict of interest, Metcalfe is transparent about his employer and says he decided to purchase a Project 7 while still at EVO.

Just about the only thing an employer won't see on your credit report is your credit score [source: Kane].

Even so, when an employer has to look at an entire credit report, he or she must see the whole history — and possibly even see a statement you might have included about mitigating circumstances related to negative items on your credit report.

Given Greenspan's inability to see that the personal interests of top bankers do not line up well with the interests of their employers, I don't have much confidence in his judgements about the stock market.

About 3.5 million workers would be covered by 2021 when the ORPP is fully phased in, with those employees seeing 1.9 per cent deducted from their pay and their employers contributing an equal amount.

See related: 6 myths about credit report checks by employers, 10 surefire steps to get errors off your credit reports, Credit reports falsely tag consumers as terrorists, drug traffickers

I've talked before about contributing enough to qualify for your full 401k employer match, so be sure to read that article to see why it is so vital to your financial health.

If you want to take it one step further you now can see more about the individual, their gross income per month, if they're a homeowner or not, their length of employment, their current employer, where they are located, their debt - to - income, and their credit score range.

Sec. 125 plans are not available everywhere and you saw from the outcry about the mandate to offer them imposed on larger employers - quite a lot of employers don't think they should offer them.

Many employers see the value in giving workers paid time off to volunteer, so you might as well take advantage of that and feel good about yourself in the process.

With the right website, a potential employer can learn about you, see examples of your work, and really get a sense for who you are.

Matching Gifts If you have already made a gift or are about to make one, please contact your employer's human resources department to see if they have a corporate matching gift program.

For additional information about internships aimed at for - profit private sector employers, see the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division's «Fact Sheet # 71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act.»

If workers are unhappy about being monitored, they can check their staff handbook or contract to see if the employer is allowed to do this.

You can share personal information about yourself or a friend on a blog, not realizing that it will be there for anyone — including future employers and dates — to see.

Whether you are an employer or an employee, thinking about ending a work relationship to move on to something new inspires a dusting off of employment contracts to see what is there.

As if this employee's employer would not see her complaining about her job, expletives and all.

The most radical statements are the Court's conclusions that «[i] n most cases,... partners are not employees of the firm, they are, collectively, the employer», and that as a partner, McCormick is seen «more as someone in control of, rather than subject to, decisions about workplace conditions.»

Default retirement The most significant alteration in the sphere of employment law is likely to be felt by employers in the realms of retirement as, after much discussion about the wording of the transitional provisions, last month saw the end of the well - known but not well - loved default retirement age of 65.

In an employment context, discrimination can often be seen when an employer fires someone, refuses to hire or promote them, or harasses them because of some protected personal characteristic about them.

If you work in a factory you ought to see, in some prominent place, a poster about your employer's Health and Safety duties.

McFadden concluded, «It remains to be seen how the amendments to the Code and CHRA work in practice, particularly where an employee exercises the right not to undergo testing in circumstances where an employer can establish that requiring information about one's genetic characteristics is subject to a bona fide occupational requirement defence.

Whilst the prospective employer is probably able to see past the vitriol, the decision maker will probably wonder about what their customers and partners will think if less clever and objective.

The judge used this case to make positive comments about justification, reminding employers that the requirement to justify a PCP should not be seen as placing an unreasonable burden on employers or «casting some sort of stigma upon them.»

And see Jack Kapica's take in the Globe addressing some of the same issues (although he is much more complimentary about his employer)-- http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060124.gtjkcolumnjan24/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060124.gtjkcolumnjan24

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-.

The Toronto Star talks to Josh Mandryk about Tim Hortons» employees, benefit clawbacks, and who should be seen as their actual employer.

We recently wrote about new requirements for employers to implement comprehensive policies, programs, and investigative procedures to address workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act («OHSA») see our blog post here.