If the employer is already a Tier 2 sponsor (many IT firms are), then
it's a quick and straightforward procedure. If not, they need to
become one, which is a few simple steps in theory, but in practice
requires a lawyer.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Smylers wrote:
> Egor Shipovalov writes:
>
>
Egor Shipovalov writes:
> CV below.
>
> Citizen and resident of Russian Federation currently visiting London.
> The employer will have to sponsor a work permit under the terms for
> Tier 2.
What does that involve?
Smylers
--
Watch fiendish TV quiz 'Only Connect' (some questions by me)
Mondays
Raphael Mankin wrote:
It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and then decides not to return to
work. Adding on to this advertising, time to review CVs, time to interview
and so on, the cost of recruitment can itself run int
On 4 February 2010 16:58, Philip Potter wrote:
> get pregnant. I don't know. What I want to see is some real data
> showing what the difference in cost is to hire a woman of childbearing
> age who may or may not have any plans for getting pregnant, compared
> to hiring a woman who one knows for su
On 4 February 2010 18:14, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 16:58 +, Philip Potter wrote:
>> What I want to see is some real data
>> showing what the difference in cost is to hire a woman of childbearing
>> age who may or may not have any plans for getting pregnant, compared
>> to
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 17:11 +, James Laver wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Dominic Thoreau
> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
>
> Some of my over-40 friends assume that a number of jobs they've been
> declined for are about age, but not in the usual manner. People of
> that age bracket tend to h
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 16:58 +, Philip Potter wrote:
> On 4 February 2010 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 15:48 +, Philip Potter wrote:
> >> On 4 February 2010 14:48, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 13:31 +, Bob MacCallum wrote:
> >> >> Under t
On 4/2/10 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and then decides not to return
to work.
Actually, an employer is only obligated by law to pay statutory
maternity pay. There is a legal obligatio
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 05:02:05PM +, Philip Potter wrote:
> On 4 February 2010 16:50, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
> > On 4 February 2010 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> >>
> >> It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
> >> pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and th
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 17:02 +, Philip Potter wrote:
> Statutory paternity leave is up to 2 weeks. There may be more
> generous employers but the law does not require it.
Right now yes, but looking forward, wrong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/28/fathers-six-months-paternity-leave
On 4 February 2010 16:50, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
>
> These days aren't parental leave rights extended to a fairly generous
> degree towards the father as well?
(looks it up)
Ah, right, the govt. *promised* to change it to six months, but never
actually did anything. About par really.
--
Better t
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Dominic Thoreau
wrote:
>
> These days aren't parental leave rights extended to a fairly generous
> degree towards the father as well?
> IIRC if the mother wants to return to work the father can take
> parental leave with very similar conditions (of course, since I h
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 16:29 +, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
> pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and then decides not to return
> to work.
The government is in the process of making it possible for the maternity
and paternit
On 4 February 2010 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 15:48 +, Philip Potter wrote:
>> On 4 February 2010 14:48, Raphael Mankin wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 13:31 +, Bob MacCallum wrote:
>> >> Under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act it's unlawful for an employer to
>>
On 4 February 2010 16:50, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
> On 4 February 2010 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
>>
>> It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
>> pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and then decides not to return
>> to work. Adding on to this advertising, time
On 4 February 2010 16:29, Raphael Mankin wrote:
>
> It's 9 months of full salary more expensive to hire a woman who gets
> pregnant, takes her full maternity leave and then decides not to return
> to work. Adding on to this advertising, time to review CVs, time to
> interview and so on, the cost
Since you are in London now - maybe you could come to todays social?
I don't have much experience here - but I would imagine that it should
be good for networking.
Cheers,
Zbigniew
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Egor Shipovalov wrote:
> CV below. Willing to consider support engineering positio
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 15:48 +, Philip Potter wrote:
> On 4 February 2010 14:48, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 13:31 +, Bob MacCallum wrote:
> >> Under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act it's unlawful for an employer to
> >> discriminate against you because you are married.
On 4 February 2010 14:48, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 13:31 +, Bob MacCallum wrote:
>> Under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act it's unlawful for an employer to
>> discriminate against you because you are married. This means that they
>> cannot ask you about this during intervi
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 13:31 +, Bob MacCallum wrote:
> Under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act it's unlawful for an employer to
> discriminate against you because you are married. This means that they
> cannot ask you about this during interviews, etc.
That may well be so but the fact remains th
Under the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act it's unlawful for an employer to
discriminate against you because you are married. This means that they
cannot ask you about this during interviews, etc.
Your voluntary disclosure of this information makes me slightly
uncomfortable but I doubt there is a law
CV below. Willing to consider support engineering positions if the
company is good. Money isn't the number one priority.
=
Egor Shipovalov
Tel.: +44 07780 211 416, +7 985 233 1841
E-mail: kogdaugo...@gmail.com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/EgorShipovalov
Homepage: http://shipovalo
22 matches
Mail list logo
