Staff Data Form

I was hired for a contract at the Municipal Giro. The Giro required us to have accounts there to facilitate payment. No problem, so I opened a new Giro account. About four weeks later I got my first statement.Somehow there was an amount of 43,000 on it, over and above the amount I was to be paid. For 30 seconds I allowed myself to fantasise. I then reported it to my immediate superior, who directed me to the chief cashier. He said thanks, called a colleague, and the error was corrected. Turned out it was an IT error. I was there to program and build in the country’s first ATMs, so I was also part of the IT team. Together we traced and fixed the fault.Fast forward a half year. I had been asked to join the Giro in full employment, rather than on a contract basis. I did so, gladly. The ATM project had developed quickly, and now I was testing the software and tweaking it to make it more secure from abuse (again, so tempting to build in a private ‘back door’). Actually, I did figure out ways to defraud the system, then built in safeguards to prevent it.Time to live-test the machines. This had to happen outside banking hours, for obvious reasons; however, I couldn’t thoroughly test all the machine systems unless it had money in it, so I asked the chief cashier if I could have a few notes of each value, to load the feeder.He told me to come back just before closing time. He would give me some cash, which I would lock in my desk while I got a bite to eat. Once the building was secure and empty except for security (two guys in the cellar), I could retrieve the cash, put it in the machine, run several tests, then return the money to the cashier’s location before going home for the night.So the first evening of testing approached. I went to the chief cashier for some notes. He handed me two large wads totalling about 35,000! He also gave me the key to the main ‘ready-cash’ safe, explaining he had locked the safe with the key, but not with the combination, so when I replaced the money in the safe, I was to lock it with the key, then give the combination lock a spin. Then he put on his coat and went home!After an evening of testing and making notes on tweaks to program the next day, I went and opened the safe, to return the money. There was a huge pile of money in that safe!! I mean MASSIVE! I replaced the pile I had been lent and stood back a little, admiring the vast fortune in front of me for twenty seconds or so. I closed the safe, turned the key, returned the key to the top drawer of the cashier’s desk, then… spun the lock. Then I allowed myself to breathe, lol!The trust I was given — and never abused — was worth a lot more to my life than what I could have done with the maybe half-a-million that was in the safe. Oh, and on leaving the building to go home, the security guards (who became friends), never wanted to check me out, nor look in my briefcase.OK, so I’ve just given myself a pat on the back, but the point is that being honest and trustworthy — and being trusted — is so much more valuable than any money that can be gained illegitimately.P.S. Wow! Thanks for all the upvotes. I guess that supports the idea that honesty is indeed the best policy — it’s certainly the most rewarding.

I've interviewed candidates for both permanent and contract positions.For a permanent position, red flags are:Mr Angry: This may sound cliched, but bad-mouthing your last boss or employer is a big red flag. You don't have to lie about your reason for switching, and everyone knows that sometimes you're stuck with the wrong boss. But a professional is expected to take things professionally - not personally - and the way you express yourself reflects that. I do appreciate someone telling me that their job did not meet their growth aspirations (read as "wasn't getting promoted") - that's OK.Mr Jumpy: This is relative. For a highly skilled candidate (as assessed during the interview), annual job hopping could be OK, but for an average candidate it's not. Hopping jobs voluntarily every few months is a red flag for anyone seeking a permanent position.Wolf in sheep's clothing: One of the open-ended questions I like to ask is for the interviewee to describe one of his/her most challenging projects. If a person I'm interviewing for a hardcore coding role starts talking about cost overruns, then I might wonder if his/her interests align with the role I'm trying to fill.Nothing to gain: I am very interested in learning why someone wants the role being offered. Weak, generic answers such as "I've heard a lot of good things about this company" don't really cut it. There must be something non-monetary and convincing that the candidate can benefit from in the role - and he/she should be aware of what that is. I usually fill roles with slightly underqualified candidates, and very rarely with overqualified ones.Trust me: I've had candidates being dismissive or overly brief when asked to explain the reasoning behind a specific approach. The justification would often be that they're the expert at it, or that they've worked for companies that were far more advanced in that area than us. "Trust me, I'm an expert" is not valid reasoning and the person wouldn't fit in a culture that strongly discourages "because I say so". Flaunting a famous alma mater too often in an interview as a way to establish credentials is a red flag as well. I'm interested in who you are, not where you've been.Sarah Palin: Poor language skills isn't a deal breaker, depending on the role. Nor is being introverted or reserved; some of our smartest coders take time to warm up. But poor listening skills, i.e. repeatedly misunderstanding questions (whether intentional or not), is a red flag and is indicative of someone who can bring down the productivity of the entire team. Paraphrasing a question to make sure you understood it, on the other hand, is encouraged, as is saying "I don't know".Tardiness: Being late for an interview without prior notice (even a few minutes before the start time is fine) is a major red flag for most roles. It is indicative of either a lack of interest, or personal nature. Some brilliant people are tardy by nature, and can be quite successful despite it, but brilliance rarely makes up for tardiness in a team setting. A 'no show' is worse, whether it's for an interview or the date of joining. I'm inclined not to consider such candidates for any future position, even if I switch jobs myself.Unwarranted over-confidence: Being self-assured is generally good for many roles. Unwarranted over-confidence is when you act like you know what to do in every situation, when you obviously don't. Over-confidence is becoming more and more prevalent among junior hires, presumably because self-confidence is constantly ingrained in them in schools and college, so I've had to relax my standards as well. The bottom line is that a candidate needs to show a willingness to learn and adapt.The I-Player: This is relatively minor, but relevant nevertheless. When describing past projects and accomplishments, I expect a healthy mix of 'I' and 'we'. Too much 'we' could indicate a freeloader, and cause me to probe further on individual contribution. Too much 'I' when describing projects that are obviously team efforts can indicate a poor team player who does not attribute credit where it's due.Air-time hog: This one is a personal pet peeve and is hardly universal. I am biased against air-time hogging, i.e. when someone seems overeager to talk when he or she has nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation. This is strictly YMMV - some interviewers interpret this positively as eagerness, but I see it as a waste of time.Fence-sitters: Making a job change is often a major decision, and I can understand that. I'm always happy to explain to a candidate why I think he or she could be a great fit, and to give him/her extra time to take a decision. However, once a negotiation is mutually complete, it's done. Trying to re-open negotiations on receipt of a 'better' offer elsewhere, or repeatedly extending the date of joining with no good reason, is a red flag - I don't consider such candidates even if he or she is worth the higher offer. I'm more inclined to consider such candidates for future opportunities if he or she politely and promptly informs us that he or she isn't joining.

Working there is a lot easier, as far as the amount of thinking, creativity, intelligence, etc required.Once at Google, you’ll likely find yourself slowly going nowhere on nothing in particular, while working long hours. That is, the work is usually pointless, meaningless, and irrelevant.On the flip side, once you’re hired, you can essentially coast for many years, while doing almost nothing. Also, the less drive/ambition you have, the less you’ll be affected by political games, an absence of promotions, being put on a crappy part of a legacy product, etc (ie, you won’t really care when they try to waste your abilities, drown you in endless BS work, or try to have everything lead to a dead end).You’d think at this point you’d be looked at unfavorably, but I kept noticing it was those who politicked or tried to coast that would receive promotions and large bonuses. That is, if you’re just about rising and making money, then if you find yourself doing actual work, you know you’re going to lose.Google doesn’t really get rid of low performers, so if coasting results in little to nothing being done, you’ll probably have nothing to worry about. That is, accusations of low performance are usually only made when management is trying to push someone out for other reasons (see them as a threat, don’t want to pay, want credit for something they did, etc).Eventually, after having done nothing for many years, you’ll likely have difficulties finding another job, as your skills will be out of date; however, those that want to coast usually have no plan on quitting— ever.

NOOOOOOO. You are talking to a military romance scammer. I received an email from the US Army that directly answers your question that is pasted below please keep reading.I believe you are the victim of a military Romance Scam whereas the person you are talking to is a foreign national posing as an American Soldier claiming to be stationed overseas on a peacekeeping mission. That's the key to the scam they always claim to be on a peacekeeping mission.Part of their scam is saying that they have no access to their money that their mission is highly dangerous.If your boyfriend girlfriend/future husband/wife is asking you to do the following or has exhibited this behavior, it is a most likely a scam:Moves to private messaging site immediately after meeting you on Facebook or SnapChat or Instagram or some dating or social media site. Often times they delete the site you met them on right after they asked you to move to a more private messaging siteProfesses love to you very quickly & seems to quote poems and song lyrics along with using their own sort of broken language, as they profess their love and devotion quickly. They also showed concern for your health and love for your family.Promises marriage as soon as he/she gets to state for leave that they asked you to pay for.They Requests money (wire transfers) and Amazon, iTune ,Verizon, etc gift cards, for medicine, religious practices, and leaves to come home, internet access, complete job assignments, help sick friend, get him out of trouble, or anything that sounds fishy.The military does provide all the soldier needs including food medical Care and transportation for leave. Trust me, I lived it, you are probably being scammed. I am just trying to show you examples that you are most likely being connned.Below is an email response I received after I sent an inquiry to the US government when I discovered I was scammed. I received this wonderful response back with lots of useful links on how to find and report your scammer. And how to learn more about Romance Scams.Right now you can also copy the picture he gave you and do a google image search and you will hopefully see the pictures of the real person he is impersonating. this doesn't always work and take some digging. if you find the real person you can direct message them and alert them that their image is being used for scamming.Good Luck to you and I'm sorry this may be happening to you. please continue reading the government response I received below it's very informative.   You have contacted an email that is monitored by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. Unfortunately, this is a common concern. We assure you there is never any reason to send money to anyone claiming to be a Soldier online. If you have only spoken with this person online, it is likely they are not a U.S. Soldier at all. If this is a suspected imposter social media profile, we urge you to report it to that platform as soon as possible. Please continue reading for more resources and answers to other frequently asked questions:  How to report an imposter Facebook profile: Caution-https://www.facebook.com/help/16... < Caution-https://www.facebook.com/help/16... >   Answers to frequently asked questions:  - Soldiers and their loved ones are not charged money so that the Soldier can go on leave.  - Soldiers are not charged money for secure communications or leave.  - Soldiers do not need permission to get married.  - Soldiers emails are in this format: john.doe.mil@mail.mil < Caution-mailto: john.doe.mil@mail.mil > anything ending in .us or .com is not an official email account.  - Soldiers have medical insurance, which pays for their medical costs when treated at civilian health care facilities worldwide – family and friends do not need to pay their medical expenses.  - Military aircraft are not used to transport Privately Owned Vehicles.  - Army financial offices are not used to help Soldiers buy or sell items of any kind.  - Soldiers deployed to Combat Zones do not need to solicit money from the public to feed or house themselves or their troops.  - Deployed Soldiers do not find large unclaimed sums of money and need your help to get that money out of the country.  Anyone who tells you one of the above-listed conditions/circumstances is true is likely posing as a Soldier and trying to steal money from you.  We would urge you to immediately cease all contact with this individual.  For more information on avoiding online scams and to report this crime, please see the following sites and articles:   This article may help clarify some of the tricks social media scammers try to use to take advantage of people: Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/61432/< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/61432/>   CID advises vigilance against 'romance scams,' scammers impersonating Soldiers  Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/180749 < Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/180749 >   FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center: Caution-http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx< Caution-http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx>   U.S. Army investigators warn public against romance scams: Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/130...< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/130...>   DOD warns troops, families to be cybercrime smart -Caution-http://www.army.mil/article/1450...< Caution-http://www.army.mil/article/1450...>   Use caution with social networking  Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/146...< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/146...>    Please see our frequently asked questions section under scams and legal issues. Caution-http://www.army.mil/faq/ < Caution-http://www.army.mil/faq/ > or visit Caution-http://www.cid.army.mil/ < Caution-http://www.cid.army.mil/ >.  The challenge with most scams is determining if an individual is a legitimate member of the US Army. Based on the Privacy Act of 1974, we cannot provide this information. If concerned about a scam you may contact the Better Business Bureau (if it involves a solicitation for money), or local law enforcement. If you're involved in a Facebook or dating site scam, you are free to contact us direct; (571) 305-4056.   If you have a social security number, you can find information about Soldiers online at Caution-https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/sc... < Caution-https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/sc... > . While this is a free search, it does not help you locate a retiree, but it can tell you if the Soldier is active duty or not.  If more information is needed such as current duty station or location, you can contact the Commander Soldier's Records Data Center (SRDC) by phone or mail and they will help you locate individuals on active duty only, not retirees. There is a fee of $3.50 for businesses to use this service. The check or money order must be made out to the U.S. Treasury. It is not refundable. The address is:  Commander Soldier's Records Data Center (SRDC) 8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN 46249-5301 Phone: 1-866-771-6357  In addition, it is not possible to remove social networking site profiles without legitimate proof of identity theft or a scam. If you suspect fraud on this site, take a screenshot of any advances for money or impersonations and report the account on the social networking platform immediately.  Please submit all information you have on this incident to Caution-www.ic3.gov < Caution-http://www.ic3.gov > (FBI website, Internet Criminal Complaint Center), immediately stop contact with the scammer (you are potentially providing them more information which can be used to scam you), and learn how to protect yourself against these scams at Caution-http://www.ftc.gov < Caution-http://www.ftc.gov > (Federal Trade Commission's website)

Depends how specific you want.  I know several small farmers who claim that they now have to spend 2-3 hours a day, every day, collating the data to fill in forms, and filling in forms to confirm that they are conforming to EU standards in relation to animal welfare, food standards etc.   Apparently the EU Nitrates Directive is particularly onerous, but apparently there are hundreds.  None of them sell their goods into the EU.Being Brits, they are meticulous in ensuring that they have the correct data, fill in the forms and submit them on time.  They all say the most exasperating thing is that the exercise is completely pointless.  Nobody ever comes from the EU to check that they are telling the truth.  If they wanted to they could literally invent all of the information they file, and it would make no difference to anyone.My experience running a financial services firm was very similar.  When I worked in that world, I had to spend about 5 days a month with my compliance officer filling out forms or collating data to ensure that our funds all met European guidelines under UCITs 3 and then UCITs 4.  The thing was , we had no European clients.  Not one.  Nor did we want any, or market into Europe.   We could in theory have created funds that were NURs (fall outside of UCITS), but most of our clients had worldwide rules in place that they could only invest in UCITs.  That's not the fault of the legislation per se, but where the legislation almost always goes wrong is that it does not take into account the practical impact of its creation.  I think many Brits find it hard to understand why there isn't more opposition to EU red tape from within the EU.  It may be that there is a huge cultural difference in assumptions of what is reasonable in terms of bureaucracy between the common law based UK (where all things are legal unless specifically illegal) and roman/napoleonic law Europe (where the law defines what is allowed).  It may be that European's simply ignore the rules, or their national governments don't actually implement European directives.  It's a mystery to us.ADDENDUM (I went quite specific in a follow up question, so I've added it to the main answer)Is the paperwork mostly for when things go wrong? Answer: No. Most European regulation is procedure based rather than outcome based.  In other words it focuses on requiring you to define how you operate, and requires you to document your operations thoroughly, rather than focusing on punishing you when your failure to follow procedure leads to a bad outcome.  It is usually the case that the penalties for failing to document how you supposedly operate are greater than the penalties for failing to operate properly. Sounds bonkers?  Yes it is.  This oddity seems to occur because the exercise is essentially bureaucratic.  It is more concerned with covering the back of the civil servant in charge of your area of regulation than protecting the public.  Or to draw a scenario.Minister of energy: "How was I supposed to know the nuclear reactor was unsafe?  Look, the operators filled out 50,000 pages signNowing that their operating procedures were reasonable. It's not my fault it blew up."Moving to your second question, you've actually hit the nail on the head.  Lets take UCITS as an example, as its an example i'm deeply familiar with. Ucits stands for Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities.  UCITS 3 and 4 is the European legislation that covers anything a UK punter would recognise as a "Fund" or a US punter would call a "mutual fund".The deal with UCITS is that all funds sold in Europe must comply with it.  All of them.  Irrespective of where or to who they are sold (i.e. a fund sold to a london based client, with london cased customers may still count as European if somewhere in their ownership structure lies a european subsidiary) .  It requires a ton of ongoing paperwork, which in no way actually protects investors from sharks or frauds.  The supposed quid pro-quo for the paperwork is that in theory it passports you so that you can sell your fund into Europe.  In theory this sounds like a sensible compromise.  In practice it is useless and horrific.  Why?In most of Europe people buy investment funds through their bank.  In the UK almost all customers buy funds from small independent fund managers. So a UK manager has almost no practical access to European markets. In addition all continental European countries have passed local legislation that requires native language documentation and the hiring and appointing of local fund representatives if you want to sell your funds there. So the situation you end up with is that ALL funds sold in the UK, even if they are only sold to UK customers, and the firm in question engages in no European activity must comply with the very onerous paperwork demanded by UCITS.  At the same time in practice UCITs does not actually provide a passport, because access to the local markets is both practically and technically impossible.From what I have heard, in my various conversations with farmers, and the many small manufacturers I interviewed in my previous career, the issues that UCITs present in finance are replicated in their industries.EU legislation tends to be a minor inconvenience for huge corporations.  For them hiring 20 compliance staff to fill out some forms is a financial irrelevance.  For the small businesses that face exactly the same regulatory and filing requirements as their behemoth rivals, it is an absolute nightmare.The grievances of people who moan about EU red tape are very real.

What form does a soldier in the military need to fill out to add someone they are married to in the military data base?The soldier must take a copy of the marriage certificate to his personnel office to get his spouse enrolled in DEERS and fill out a DD 1172. He must update his DD 93 and should (but is not required to) update his SGLI beneficiaries.None of this costs any money at all. Since all of this information is readily available to anyone who is actually in the military, my guess is that you are falling victim to a scammer.Military Romance Scams by Sean Sanders on Posts

I was selected for a summer internship 2016.I tried to be very open while filling the preference form: I choose many products as my favorite products and I said I'm open about the team I want to join.I even was very open in the  location and start date to get host matching interviews (I negotiated the start date in the interview until both me and my host were happy.) You could ask your recruiter to review your form (there are very cool and could help you a lot since they have a bigger experience).Do a search on the potential team.Before the interviews,  try to find smart question that you are going to ask for the potential host (do a search on the team  to find nice and deep questions to impress your host). Prepare well your resume.You are very likely not going to get algorithm/data structure questions like in the first round. It's going to be just some friendly chat if you are lucky. If your potential team is working on something like machine learning, expect that  they are going to ask you questions about machine learning, courses related to machine learning you have and relevant experience (projects, internship). Of course you have to study that before the interview. Take as long time as you need if you feel rusty. It takes some time to get ready for the host matching (it's less than the technical interview)  but it's worth it of course.

Just register on the admission portal and during registration you will get an option for the entrance based course. Just register there. There is no separate form for DU CIC.

Human Resource Management. Dynamic employee code creation is one of the most important features of this HRMS module wherein the code pattern gets generated automatically based on a combination of alphabets or serial numbers.

Click on the Personal/HRMS Login and you will be redirected to the Login Page. ... So enter your 10 digit registered Mobile no, then the next field is your Date of Birth which should be the date recorder in your front page of your Service Book.

An HRMS enables employees to update personal data without having to involve HR for simple tasks. This frees up the time of HR professionals for more strategic functions. Central storage. Because data is stored in one place, this means reporting can be more efficient.

Click on the Personal/HRMS Login and you will be redirected to the Login Page. ... So enter your 10 digit registered Mobile no, then the next field is your Date of Birth which should be the date recorder in your front page of your Service Book.

Human Resource Management System (HRMS) Data Entry Forms.