 |
|
|
|||||
Calling all pizza loversso, yes, everyoneyour dream job awaits. Pizza Hut is hiring someone to eat free pizza for an entire year. Not only that, but the company will pay you $31,415.92 to do so. Math aficionados might notice that the Pizza Hut salary is actually the first seven digits of pi. Pizza Huts hiring of a Hut Crust Connoisseur comes ahead of Pi Day on March 14. The $31,415.92 is a significant jump from the 5,000 ($6,700) that Pizza Hut Delivery offered for a UK-based Chief Crust Taster in 2021. But then it pales in comparison to Wendys $100,000 offer for a similar job last week. Still, its not a bad deal. Heres everything you need to know about Pizza Huts new Hut Crust Connoisseur role. What does being the Hut Crust Connoisseur entail? Pizza Hut announced the Hut Crust Connoisseur position alongside a new platform called, fittingly, Hut Crust, celebrating the chains recognizable crusts. Its also launching a new crust, the Garlic-Parm Hut Blend. The company is pitching the Hut Crust Connoisseurs role as guardian of the Hut Crust platform. This isnt a role where you need to know what synergy means, you just need to love Pizza Hut. Youll taste, test, and review our crust innovations, Pizza Hut states. Be prepared to create content, though. According to the fine print, Pizza Hut will pay you the $31,415.92 and provide two $260 Pizza Hut gift cards upon making a specified number of videos/posts and other deliverables as set forth in a contract. How do you apply to be the Hut Crust Connoisseur? Interested in being the companys Hut Crust Connoisseur? There are a few steps youll have to take: Purchase and try Pizza Huts new Hand Tossed with the Garlic-Parm Hut Blend crust finisher Film a video reviewing the new Hand Tossed with the Garlic-Parm Hut Blend crust finisher Go to www.pizzahutcrust.com and complete the online entry form Answer two application questions Follow the prompts to submit your entry Pizza Hut also has specific guidelines for the entry video, such as being in English and under 60 seconds, with the applicant appearing on camera and saying Hut Crust Connoisseur. The company will judge all entries based on: Creativity & Originality (35%) Food Passion & Personality (50%) Social Presence & Comfort with Sharing (10%) Practical Fit (5%) Entry is available to any resident of the United States aged 21 or over. However, individuals living in Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories and possessions are not eligible. You can apply for the position from now until Wednesday, March 25, at 5:00 p.m. ET. The contests full rules are available here (including a notable class action waiver). Judging will likely occur around Friday, April 10. Pizza Hut is facing hurdles Like many restaurant chains, Pizza Hut has struggled in the face of reduced consumer spending and rising operating costs. In February, the chain announced that it would close about 250 underperforming U.S. locations in the first half of 2026. That figure represents about 3% of its locations nationwide.
Category:
E-Commerce
In 1960, 72% of adults were married, and over 90% would go on to marry. HR policies and management practices back then catered to nuclear families with a lone, male breadwinner. Today, dual-career couples and working mothers are common, largely due to the growth of women in the workforce in the second half of the 20th century. To recruit and retain talent, businesses have expanded family-friendly policies by offering flexible work hours, paid parental leave and subsidized child care. These are much-needed improvements, though many employers still lag in offering them. Today, another demographic shift also demands employers attention: the growing share of the workforce that is single particularly those without dependents. About 1 in 3 American adults havent gotten married by midlife. More adults arent married The workplace has always included recent grads, never-married professionals, divorced empty nesters and widowed retirees. But these categories now represent a far larger share of the labor force than they did a generation ago and people move in and out of them throughout their lives. As a behavioral economist and business school professor, I study what I call the Solo Economy how institutions and markets are adapting, or failing to adapt, to this shift. Workplace policy is one area where the gap is especially wide. A growing mismatch Today, 46% of U.S. adults are unmarried. Half of these unmarried Americans arent interested in dating. Population forecasters project that about 25% of millennials and 33% of Gen Z will never marry. Around 29% of U.S. adults live alone the most common household type in the country. Compare that to 1960, when the median age of first marriage was 20 for women and 22 for men, and single-person households were relatively rare. The average age of getting hitched for the first or only time has risen by nearly a decade since then to 28.4 for women and 30.8 for men. And yet, many HR policies have not adjusted to this new normal. Of course, theres a word for this: amatonormativity. Its the assumption that marriage and family are the ideal relationship model. Amatonormativity underpins more than 1,000 legal benefits for married people, from tax breaks to Social Security payments. These disparities extend into the workplace when family-friendly policies dont take the needs of the family of one into account. In one survey, 62% of single workers reported feeling treated differently from married colleagues with children and 30% said the disparity reinforced the message that their lives mattered less. I believe that employers can do better by singles with no kids at home without putting anyone at a disadvantage. Scheduling can seem unfair Workers with spouses or who are raising children have real obligations that deserve support. But too often, single employees without dependents are expected to pick up the slack by working on holidays, traveling more for their jobs and taking vacations at less desirable times. My manager asked me to take on an extra responsibility, saying she couldnt ask the teacher who handled it before because she has four boys, Sarah Brock, founder of Sarah Bee Talent, posted on Linkedin. I felt like my life didnt have the same value because I wasnt raising a family. Brock received hundreds of similar stories in response to her post. Researchers have found evidence that confirms these patterns: Single, childless employees are more often expected to travel, work longer hours and take less desirable vacation times than their married colleagues. Krystal Wilkinson, a British human resource management professor, has written about finding that children and child care are considered far more legitimate reasons for placing boundaries on work than engaging in hobbies, fitness or dating. Even with policies such as unlimited paid time off, singles may hesitate to take vacations, fearing that their managers will see their reasons for taking time off as illegitimate. Better benefits for married employees Employee benefits often favor married workers not by design, but by default. The total compensation package is typically worth more for a married employee dong the same job as a single one. A 2021 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 95% of large employers extend health coverage to employees spouses, with employers subsidizing part of the cost. This is entirely reasonable but single employees typically receive no equivalent value in return. This gap extends to many life insurance policies, retirement plan features, wellness programs and employee assistance programs. Leave policies reflect a similar pattern. The Family and Medical Leave Act grants up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a parent, child or spouse. Bereavement leave is typically limited to deaths of members of your immediate family. Yet singles without kids at home often have broader support networks that include their close friends and members of their chosen family whom current policies dont recognize. This tends to be especially true within the LGBTQ+ community. The issue isnt that married employees receive too many benefits. Its that the system was built for one kind of lifestyle and hasnt kept pace with how many people live today. What employers can do Employers can close these gaps without taking anything away from married employees and in many cases, benefit everyone with these approaches. Flexible benefits: A cafeteria-style model lets employees allocate a budget based on their own needs, covering everything from child care to gym memberships to pet insurance. Netflix already does this by offering up to US$16,000 per employee yearly to cover medical, dental and vision premiums regardless of marital status with unused portions partially refundable. Broader leave policies: Bereavement leave could cover close friends. Employees might exchange one type of leave for another, based on need. Fair scheduling: Rather than assuming single employees are more available, companies can adopt first-come, first-served vacation systems with seniority breaking ties. Or companies could adopt a points-based system, giving every employee an equal budget to bid on preferred time slots ensuring those who value certain dates most get priority, regardless of relationship status. Inclusive language and culture: Small changes signal who belongs. When employers use wording like you and your loved ones instead of you and your family in their communications with their staff, it acknowledges relationships beyond traditional structures. Organizational values: Just as companies affirm diversity in age, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity, they can explicitly commit to valuing employees regardless of relationship status. A simple test If employers want to see whether any of their personnel policies could put their married or single employees at a disadvantage, I suggest they use this litmus test: Would this policy harm a married employee who gets divorced? If so, the policy needs to change. Many people shift between singlehood and partnership throughout their lives due to breakups, divorce and the death of their spouses or partners. A workplace built for a family of one is built for everyone wherever they happen to be in their life journey. Peter McGraw is a professor of marketing and psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense is quickly becoming a broader test of how far the government can go in policing AI companies policiesand how much support those companies can rally from the wider research community. A fair showing of top AI researchers had already signed a public letter backing Anthropic. Now 37 of them have taken a more formal step, signing an amicus brief filed with the court Monday. The filing underscores how the clash is evolving from a narrow contract dispute into something bigger: a test of whether the government can effectively blacklist an American AI company for setting limits on how its technology is used. The outcome could shape how much independence AI companies have to impose safety guardrails, especially when those limits collide with national security priorities. The group behind the amicus brief includes Google chief scientist Jeff Dean, along with 19 researchers from OpenAI and 10 from Google DeepMind. The researchers filed the brief in their personal capacities, not as representatives of their respective companies. The brief is intended to support Anthropics lawsuit against the government. Anthropic is suing for harms incurred from the Pentagon naming the company a supply chain riska designation normally reserved for companies in adversary countriesmeaning that the AI company can no longer do business with the government or its contractors. The Defense Department (or the Department of War, as it now calls itself) was angered by Anthropics refusal to drop its policies against the use of its AI for targeting autonomous weapons and for synthesizing data from the mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. In the suit filed Monday in a federal district court in San Francisco, Anthropic called the DoDs designation “unprecedented and unlawful” and alleged that the government is retaliating against the company for exercising its First Amendment rights. Anthropic believes it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in business. The amicus brief argues that the Pentagons move could affect not just Anthropic but the broader AI industry. We wanted to make sure we were arming the court with an understanding of the industry’s perspective, Nicole Schniedman, a Protect Democracy attorney whose name appears atop the brief, tells Fast Company. Its critical [that] the brief acknowledges that the use of this authority by the defense department is extraordinarily concerningit is unprecedented to label a domestic [company] a supply chain risk for taking a stand on safety guard rails. The brief was filed on the researchers behalf by the AI for Democracy Action Lab at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, which describes itself as a nonpartisan, anti-authoritarianism group. Schniedman characterized the group of signees as a convergence of different stakeholders who both saw the urgency and just what’s at stake . . . with this escalation and threat tactics that Anthropic has been encountering, and what it means for our democracy to have a private company that is putting forward pretty widely aligned-on industry best practices and guard rails around two very high-risk and concerning applications of AI. The industry support for Anthropic seems to be expanding. Microsoft filed a separate amicus brief in support of Anthropic with the court on Tuesday. The tech giant urged the federal court to grant Anthropic the temporary restraining order it requested, which would delay the DoDs supply chain risk designation while the court hears the case. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon AWS, the three biggest cloud services providers, have all said they will continue distributing Anthropic models through their platforms, though not for defense-related work. Schniedman says that the Defense Department has yet to clearly explain why it considers Anthropic a national security threat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseths announcement on X of the Pentagons intent made no attempt at a legal argument. Earlier in the day President Donald Trump said in an angry Truth Social post that government agencies should cease all use of Anthropics technology, but he didnt go so far as to call Anthropic a security threat. Nor did Hegseth present a legal argument in the formal letter he sent to Anthropic last week making the supply chain risk designation official. As more AI companies and researchers line up in support of Anthropic, the chance of a major rift between the tech industry and the Trump administration increases. Many tech industry titanspeople like Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Tim Cook and Jensen Huangsupported Trumps bid for reelection in 2024 and have continued their support, including financial support, during his second term. In return, they expected four years of minimal government oversight as the industry rolled out trillions of dollars in AI infrastructure and services. Perhaps the Trump administration thought that, since Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei didnt fund Trumps campaign or attend his inauguration, it was OK to label the company woke and then set out to seriously harm its business. After all, other Trump-supporting AI companies like OpenAI, xAI, and Google were ready to provide their AI models to the Pentagon. OpenAI signed its new Pentagon contract just days after Anthropic was ejected. Still, the administrations treatment of Anthropic has now drawn in major AI researchers, cloud providers, and some of the industrys largest companies. What might have been a narrow contract dispute is starting to look more like a test of how much leverage the government has over the companies building the next generation of AI systems.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||