Example collocations logo

Employers in sentence

572 examples of Employers in a sentence

For US employers, it is much easier to purge workers from the payroll – or, as Robert Gordon of Northwestern University puts it, to toss out every deck chair – than it is for German employers.
Germany’s labor code bars such layoffs, but German employers also are presumably less inclined than US employers to shed workers, because they have invested more in their companies’ human capital.
In France, the so-called Posted Workers Directive (which allows employers to pay seconded workers no more than the minimum rate in the host country) may not be implemented.
And they can promote qualities like perseverance, teamwork, and leadership – the kinds of soft skills employers seek in job candidates – while even supporting gender equality.
But on the few occasions when he was called in for an interview, employers first told him he was “too expensive” or “overqualified.”
We need an immediate contingency plan: invest to finance job training, improve educational opportunities, and, crucially, create incentives for employers to hire young people.
Northern Europeans with money to invest were willing to lend on extraordinarily easy terms to those in the south who wanted to spend, and ample pre-2007 spending made employers there willing to raise wages rapidly.
Recent reports suggest that there are more than three million unfilled job openings, and about 49% of employers say that they have difficulty filling positions, especially in information technology, engineering, and skilled trades.
This has fanned speculation that a “mismatch” between workers’ skills and employers’ needs is a significant factor behind the elevatedunemployment rate.
In their experiments, subjects, acting as employers, were asked to choose among types of employment contracts and then observe the outcomes when other subjects, acting as employees, responded.
The employers initially trusted the employees to work hard without specific incentives, and quickly learned that, without such incentives, many employees would shirk.
But the employers also quickly learned that the best kind of employment contract is one that offers employee not just a fixed contract, but also the possibility of a bonus, a sort of gift for good performance that is outside of any contract provisions.
Employees learned in the experiments that employers largely could be trusted to give such bonuses as a reward for hard work, even though no one could hold them formally accountable if they selfishly refused.
For example, in a rapidly globalizing world, people may have to leave their long-term employers, with whom they have built a sense of trust, or it may be their supervisors who will have to be replaced.
Some credit the so-called “Polder Model” of social cooperation between employers, unions and the government.
Regular full-time employees are almost impossible to sack under Dutch law, but employers can fire part-time workers and not renew temporary contracts when they expire.
There is an “iron law” of employment: If employers can’t fire workers, they won’t hire them.
An extraordinarily high proportion of the labor force - 12% - is officially classified as “sick” or “invalid” because putting a worker on disability is practically the only way Dutch employers have of ridding their firms of unwanted full-time employees.
The movement of workers from low to higher productivity uses - whether from firm-to-firm, sector-to-sector or region-to-region - is thwarted if employers do not have the power to sack.
The Dutch retain the job-killing laws that make it impossible to sack regular full-time employees, but allow employers to sack part-time and temporary workers.
When the French changed their labor law to mandate the 35 hour work week, heavy restrictions on the use of part-time and temporary employees by French employers were removed.
Upgrading skills on a large scale will require coordination among parents, educators, governments, employers, and employees, with a focus on lower-skilled individuals.
Subsidies that SaveWas France’s recent wave of protests against an amendment that would have increased employers’ freedom to fire young workers a blessing in disguise?
Advocates of greater labor-market flexibility insist that paying employers to hire young people is the wrong approach.
Allow employers to fire workers more easily, they argue, and employers will hire them more readily.
In the United States, the pay of less qualified workers is so meager that, if their situation is not dire, they find it emotionally difficult to keep a job for long, or they become too demoralized or distracted to be adequate employees, or minimum-wage laws make them unaffordable to law-abiding employers.
The best remedy is a subsidy for low-wage employment, paid to employers for every full-time low-wage worker they hire and calibrated to the employee’s wage cost to the firm.
With such wage subsidies, competitive forces would cause employers to hire more workers, and the resulting fall in unemployment would cause most of the subsidy to be paid out as direct or indirect labor compensation.
People could benefit from the subsidy only by engaging in productive work – that is, a job that employers deem worth paying something for.
India’s huge number of daily wage workers can’t find employers with the cash to pay them.
BackNext