Category: Employment
Construction employment job search should be such that it lets you get the job that suits your profile the best and also allows you to grow and learn in your job.
You can also look for construction jobs overseasas it allows you to learn a lot. You get to know about the ways and methods employed in other countries and a lot more. Construction Connection is a company that brings you the right opportunities in the construction industry. www.constructionconnection.com helps you build a strong network all over the industry so that you can find a job that best suits your profile and also lets you grow and learn in your job. “>The construction industry is booming like never before. With the world recovering from the recent recession, building and infrastructure are on the prime agenda of every nation. Every developing and developed nation is looking for opportunities to grow further. One primal step towards development is a good infrastructure. With more and more innovation in construction and design, the construction industry now offers more exciting challenges and opportunities than ever.
But unfortunately the job segment for the construction industry is not all that organized. As there is a great variety of jobs in the construction industry, it is required that a proper approach should be taken to reach out for prospective employees. No doubt that there are a number of construction recruitment agencies but most of them do not work in an organized manner. Construction employment job search should be such that it lets you get the job that suits your profile the best and also allows you to grow and learn in your job.
You can also look for construction jobs overseasas it allows you to learn a lot. You get to know about the ways and methods employed in other countries and a lot more. Construction Connection is a company that brings you the right opportunities in the construction industry. www.constructionconnection.com helps you build a strong network all over the industry so that you can find a job that best suits your profile and also lets you grow and learn in your job.
A London Business School degree will give you the edge in today’s competitive world. Located in the heart of London, London Business School offers access to the world’s top recruiters and provides a head-start in forging a successful career in business. Strong relationships have been developed with major recruiters. London Business School’s Career Services team works in partnership with potential employers to identify candidates who are the best match for their job opportunities.
A dedicated team is on hand to support all Masters in Management students to enhance career prospects. The Masters in Management programme is taught by a range of the London Business School faculty, all of whom work at the forefront of global business and produce high-quality research that impacts positively on business all over the world. While a rate of 95% was recorded among last year’s class of 100, the 2011 class of 140 has achieved a rate of 96% – these figures are based on the full-time employment status of students three months after they originally graduate from the course.
Compared to the median salary among graduates in the UK as a whole, the wages of London Business School graduates of this year’s MiM course are around 9,500 higher at 35,000. Breaking down the statistics further, there was a total of 36 corporate sector recruiters, perhaps giving the strongest indication yet of the value of the MiM course across sectors outside of the normal consulting and finance fields. In addition, a grand sum of 22 different recruiters have hired from the programme consistently (i.e. at least one student from each of the last two years).
The release of the 2011 MiM job statistics follows the publication of the School’s MBA employment report last week. It found that within three months of leaving this course, 93% of MBA graduates had found a job. London Business School is consistently ranked as one of the world’s top business schools, and is currently ranked as number one in the world in the Financial Times (Global MBA rankings, 2011). Over 34,000 alumni lead big organisations, run governments, transform communities and start new businesses in over 120 countries. The Masters in Management is a one year programme for recent graduates who are looking to embark on a management-oriented career, but who have limited business knowledge and less than one year of full time, relevant work experience. This programme has been designed following extensive consultation with top graduate recruiters, and provides students with the skills and knowledge to perform in all areas of management across a number of core courses in both academic study and professional development.
Employment contracts and agreements defines the terms and conditions of the working relationship between an employer and an employee.
The contract shows the duties and responsibilities of the employer to the employee and vice versa.
Although each company has its own template, an employment contract usually contains the following clauses:
Parties Involved
This will specify that the agreement is between the employer and the employee.
Position and Duties
The employment agreement should also specify the title of the position that the employee will be holding, together with the specific duties that the employee will perform as set out by the job description that will be attached to the agreement.
Place of Work
This refers to the location where the employee will be tasked to perform his/her duties.
Working Hours
This refers to the required number of hours the employee must meet.
The employment contract should specify the number of hours the employee must work per week and the number of days in a week.
It should also specify the time that his/her job starts and finishes.
Pay
In this part of the employment contract, the employer can specify the equivalent annual salary that the employee will receive.
The contract should also specify the following:
The period that will be covered for each pay day
The day the payment will be made
The method of which the payment will be given
Public Holidays
This part of the employment agreement specifies that the employee is entitled to be paid for the time worked during a public holiday.
Conflict Resolutions
This part of the employment agreement can specify the process and policies that apply in resolving possible conflicts in the future.
This could include the grievance processes that can be used by the employee to report any practices or policies that they feel are unfair or unjust.
This clause may also include the preferred alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process to resolve employment disputes.
The most common type of ADR process is arbitration because it is much more similar to a court proceeding compared to other ADR forms.
Other Clauses
The employer may also include other clauses that aim to protect the operations and the interests of the company.
Some of them are:
Non-compete clause This prevents an employee from accepting employment from a competitor or start their own venture that will compete with your own company.
Non-solicitation clause This clause prevents your employee from soliciting your clients, customers or suppliers.
Non-disclosure clause This prevents an employee from divulging non-public or proprietary information. The contract should stipulate what defines confidential information.
Anti-raiding clause This prevents former employees from soliciting current employees to leave their employment.
Anti-disparagement clause This prevents employees from making statements that opposes the interest of the company.
Employers are advised to seek help from an expert employment law attorney to make sure that all important areas are covered and that no existing laws are being undermined.
So you have a teen on the hunt for a half decent job but what are their options these days. Everyone is telling them to baby sit or get a paper delivery job but both are time consuming and pay third world country rates when it comes to money in their pocket. It is even harder trying to land a job position that has been advertised somewhere as employers receive hundreds and hundreds of applications when advertising in the current job market. A recent study showed that it is now taking the average person 4 7 months to find employment and they expect that figure to lengthen.
So what can I do you say, well thanks to modern technology all this is about to change. The days of searching endlessly for employment are fast coming to an end as the internet slowly takes over and starts filling this increasing need in the teen job market. When it comes to jobs for teens it is now possible for them to land their dream job in under ten minutes no matter who they are. When they take a job online there are no lengthy, intimidating interviews to go through and their application is always accepted no matter where you live or what qualifications they may or may not have. When you compare this to the difficulty of applying for and getting a normal advertised job it is no wonder that thousands of teens are switching to paid online jobs.
Paid online work beats traditional jobs hands down every time. Online jobs these days mostly consist of completing online surveys as these are generally higher paying when it comes to the types of work you can do online and they make fantastic jobs for teens. Most of these places are free to join and once they have signed up they can then start taking surveys and get very well paid for it. Most teens that are doing these surveys are earning at least $10 for a twelve minute survey with the money getting transferred to their account on completion.
The surveys themselves are extremely easy to complete and there is an unlimited number of different types of surveys that can be taken. There are no set times that they have to work, teens can quickly and easily work at their own pace as often or as little as they like each week, its up to them. By just taking 3 surveys per day, 5 days per week, a teen is capable of earning $150.00 per week. Just try finding a job anywhere else that pays as well as this that will hire them instantly.
Which survey companies they end up joining makes a huge difference to how much money they make. Pick the wrong ones and they could end up working for $2 – $5 per hour and getting very frustrated. Out of all the Free To Join paid survey sites online today there are only a small list of survey companies that have the genuine higher paying surveys available on a daily basis. Joining all of these top 7 companies ensures that they have and endless supply of high paying surveys to take every day when they log in.
So the choice is up to them, with the state of the current job market are they going to keep slogging it out looking for a position like everyone else or get hired instantly today and earn more money than they ever thought possible as a teenager.
As we approach the end of the year, we are also approaching the end of President Obamas first year in office. You might be wondering how he is doing, based on actual numbers (rather than political spin).
Obama clearly inherited a difficult situation economically. Only two others in the modern era came even remotely close. One, of course, was FDR, but unfortunately the data from then is rather sparse, and mostly available on just an annual basis, or at best quarterly (good economic data was one of the by-products of the New Deal).
The other who inherited a difficult economic situation was President Reagan. Granted, the type of difficulty was very different under Reagan, and presidents — like quarterbacks — get too much of both the praise for a good economy and the blame for a bad economy.
Still, I think comparing the numbers for the two during their first “year in office could be instructive. The data I used for the comparison are all available monthly (at least, and if more frequently, I used the monthly data). The source of all data is the St. Louis Fed (except for the S&P 500).
The two presidents offered very different prescriptions for the economy. Reagan was all about cutting taxes and less government involvement in the economy. While most of the really big moves of government into the economy in response to the recent economic crisis actually took place under President George W. Bush, Candidate Obama saw them as needed. The Bush Administration was the one that bought the stakes in American International Group (AIG – Snapshot Report), Fannie Mae (FNM – Snapshot Report), Freddie Mac (FRE – Analyst Report) and the banks, while Obamas support for a prepackaged bankruptcy resulted in large government stakes in the Auto industry.
There were no comparable big investments by the government into the private sector late in the Carter Administration, and certainly Reagan did not initiate any. Reagan did not have to deal with a financial meltdown when he took office, but on the other hand, Obama did not have to deal with runaway inflation. Both are serious diseases, but think of it this way: both cancer and heart disease can kill you, but you would not want to give chemotherapy drugs to a heart attack patient. Thus, perhaps it is appropriate that the prescriptions be different.
If one only looks at the unemployment rate (U-3), both did a poor job in their first year, and Obama was significantly worse. The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6% and by November it had climbed to 10.0%. In January 1981, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was almost identical at 7.5%, and by November of 1981 it had climbed to only 8.3%.
Private employment actually rose during the first 11 months of 1981 by 0.55%, from 74.671 million to 75.084 million. Under Obamas tenure so far, private payrolls have dropped by 2.95% to 108.495 million from 111.793 million.
So on the employment front, Reagan is the clear winner so far. However, over the course of 1982 and 1983 the employment situation deteriorated significantly. We do not know what unemployment will do in 2010 and 2011, and thus can only judge based on what we have seen so far and in the comparable period under Reagan.
Advantage: Reagan
Reagan also wins when it comes to real disposable personal income, which expanded by 2.3% in the first 11 months Reagan was in office, while it has only increased by 1.0% so far under Obama.
Advantage: Reagan
The dollar was also much stronger during the first 11 months of Reagan, although I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. During the first 11 months of Reagan, the dollar relative to an index of major currencies gained 9.88%, while under Obama, the dollar has lost 9.70% relative to the same index.
Given that we are running chronic trade deficits now, but really were not back then, I would argue that today a weak dollar is good for the economy today since it will help out on the net export side of things. Inflation is not a big problem today, but was the number one problem with the economy when Reagan took office. The downside of a weak dollar is that it contributes to inflation, so back then having the dollar strengthening was a good thing.
No Advantage to Either
On the inflation front, however, things are far better under Obama. On a headline basis, prices have gone up by 2.39% so far under Obama, while they rose 7.57% during the first 11 months that Reagan was in office. On a core basis (ex-food and energy) the difference is even more stark, rising 8.31% under Reagan and up just 1.51% under Obama so far. Later in the Reagan Administration, inflation fell much more, but even when he left office in 1989 inflation was far higher than it is today.
Advantage: Obama
Industrial production fell slightly more during the first 11 months of Reagan (1.07%) than it has under the first 11 months of Obama (0.68%). Capacity Utilization started out at a much lower level when Obama took the oath than the Reagan did, at 71.1% (an all-time record low at the time) vs. 80.7% when Reagan took office. However, by November of 1981, the total capacity utilization rate had fallen to 77.9%. Under Obama, capacity utilization has actually risen to 71.3%, although it remains at a historically low level.
Advantage: Obama
Interest rates can tell a lot about the state of the economy. For example, the spread between the rate that gilt-edged companies have to pay on their bonds and what normal companies have to pay on their bonds tells a lot about how much bond investors fear companies going belly up. The former is measured by the Moodys (MCO – Analyst Report) Aaa rate and the later by the Baa rate (not to be confused with “junk bond” rates; Baa is still investment grade).
In January of 1981, the best credits in America had to pay 12.81% on their bonds, while normal companies had to pay 15.03%, for a spread of 2.22% (or as a ratio, normal companies had to pay 17.3% more than the gilt-edged ones). By November of 1981, both the best and the ordinary had to pay more — the Aaa rate had surged to 14.22% while the Baa rate had risen to 16.39%, so the spread had fallen ever-so-slightly to 2.17. The ratio had come down a bit more, and the ordinary firms were paying 15.3% more than the best firms.
When Obama took office, the Baa rate was 8.14% while the Aaa rate was 5.05%, for a spread of 3.09. In other words, ordinary firms had to pay 61.2% more for money than the best firms did. Investors were very afraid that companies would go bankrupt, and so demanded a higher rate from normal companies than from firms that seemed to have very little risk of writing a new chapter (the eleventh) in their corporate histories.
Since then, the rate the highest-rated firms have to pay has actually increased slightly to 5.19% while the rate that normal firms have to pay has plunged to 6.32%, bringing the spread down to 1.13% and the ratio down to the point where normal companies are paying 21.8% more for their money than the Aaa firms.
(Given the huge difference in the overall level of interest rates between the two eras, it is important to look at both the spreads and the ratios. Clearly a spread of 2% has a very different meaning and significance if it is between 1% and 3% than if it is between 13% and 15%).
Advantage: Obama
Another important signal that comes from interest rates is the yield curve, or the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates. The curve is measured using Treasury notes or bills, since you only want to be looking at the differences due to maturity, not due to quality (the opposite of the Aaa-Baa spread, which is only looking at quality differences, not maturity differences).
While there are many different measures of the curve, the one that is used the most is the difference between the 2-year note and the 10-year note. Generally speaking, the steeper the yield curve, the better. An inverted yield curve is very bad news, and is probably the best single indicator that the economy is about to go into a recession.
When Reagan entered office, the 10-2 curve was inverted, with the yield on a 2-year note at 13.26% and the yield on the 10-year at 12.57%, for a spread of -0.69. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was providing only 0.95 of the 2-year. By the time November of 1981 rolled around, the curve had returned to normal but was still pretty flat. The yield on the 2-year had fallen to 12.88%, while the yield on the 10-year had increased to 13.39, resulting in a positive curve of 0.51. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was 1.08 of the 2-year.
When Obama entered office, the 2-year was at a very low 0.81% while the 10-year was 2.52%, for a positive spread of 1.71%. On a ratio basis, the 10-year was yielding over three times as much as the 2-year (3.11x to be exact). By the end of November, the curve had expanded even further, with the 2-year virtually unchanged at 0.80%, while the yield on the 10-year had risen to 3.40%, for a spread of 2.60% and a ratio of 4.25x. Again, given the vastly different overall levels of rates, it is important to consider both the spreads and the ratios when making the comparisons.
Advantage: Obama
Mortgage rates were both far higher and moving in the wrong direction early in the Reagan presidency. When he took office they were at 14.90%, and by November they had risen to 17.83%. When Obama took office, the rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage was 5.06% and has since fallen to 4.88%.
Not surprisingly, then, the housing market was far worse under Reagan than it has been under Obama (at least if measured by direction, not levels). In January of 1981, housing starts were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.547 million, and by November of that year they had plunged to 837,000, a decline of 45.9%. Since January of 2009, housing starts have risen from an annualized rate of 488,000 to a rate of 574,000 in November, an increase of 17.6%.
Advantage: Obama
Similarly, single family new home sales plunged by 25.2% early in the Reagan years to a rate of 382,000. Since Obama came into office, new single family home sales have risen by 22.2% to an annualized rate of 402,000. Existing home sales are not particularly important to the economy (just like used car sales are not very important).
Auto sales also fared worse under the early part of the Reagan Administration than they have so far under Obama (at least as measured point-to-point). When Reagan took office, auto and light truck sales were running at an annualized rate of 11.03 million and had fallen to 9.21 million, a decline of 16.5%. Under Obama, auto and light truck sales have risen from an annualized rate of 9.59 million in January to a rate of 10.89 million in November, an increase of 13.6%.
Advantage: Obama
Finally, while people sometimes make too much of the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market, it is a good reflection of the overall health of the economy when you look at longer time periods — and almost a year is long enough to qualify there. On that metric, there is simply no contest. Between inauguration day and Christmas Eve in 1981, the S&P 500 lost 7.65%. Since Obama took office, the S&P 500 has gained 39.9%.
Advantage: Obama
Weighing these different economic indicators is inherently subjective, and thus I am not sure that one can come to a clear-cut case that one has done a better job than the other — at least so far. This is also far from a complete list of economic indicators and I focused on only those that were available at least monthly, and many of the most important economic numbers come out quarterly.
Arguably, the economic mess that Obama inherited was worse than the one that Reagan inherited, although both were pretty nasty — yet very different. The U.S. economy is more of an oil tanker than a speedboat, and does not turn around on a dime, so it really is too early to tell how Obama is doing.
However, the indicators that are most forward-looking and leading for the economy (stock market, yield curve and quality spreads, housing starts) are the ones that favor Obama over Reagan. Overall, 11 months in, one must conclude that Obama is doing at least as good a job on the economy as Reagan did in his first 11 months.