Is it legal and ethical to fill out HR-related forms on company time?
In California, it is “actionable” to be required to do that on your _own_ time.In short, if a company requires work that’s unpaid and you’re not on salary (are an hourly employee, but not being paid that hourly rate for said work), then you could sue them and/or bring it up to your state’s labor board as a potential violation.Meaning, any company that requires this sort of work to be done without payment as such would do well to review that policy with legal counsel.Note: We (SwiftCloud ) have legal staffing firm clients and attorney clients, but are not an attorney. Laws for your state or jurisdiction will vary.
Why does HR block charge me extra to fill out certain forms?
H&R Block is a business. Basic Forms are easy, require less time and less expertice. Thus, they cost less. As forms increase in complexity, they require a tax pro with more education (thus more expertise) to complete, thus a higher cost. Several forms require more “Due Diligence”, meaning the tax pro must interview the client and determine if that tax credit/deduction meets the IRS rules. Those form require a comprehensive understanding of the tax law and the ability to determine what is happening with the client.Tax laws are very complex. There are volumes of books filled with tax law, court rulings and classes on handling certain transactions and situations in life. How could they all be priced the same?
Why do patients have to fill out forms when visiting a doctor? Why isn't there a "Facebook connect" for patient history/information?
There are many (many) reasons - so I'll list a few of the ones that I can think of off-hand.Here in the U.S. - we have a multi-party system: Provider-Payer-Patient (unlike other countries that have either a single payer - or universal coverage - or both). Given all the competing interests - at various times - incentives are often mis-aligned around the sharing of actual patient dataThose mis-aligned incentives have not, historically, focused on patient-centered solutions. That's starting to change - but slowly - and only fairly recently.Small practices are the proverbial "last mile" in healthcare - so many are still paper basedThere are still tens/hundreds of thousands of small practices (1-9 docs) - and a lot of healthcare is still delivered through the small practice demographicThere are many types of specialties - and practice types - and they have different needs around patient data (an optometrist's needs are different from a dentist - which is different from a cardiologist)Both sides of the equation - doctors and patients - are very mobile (we move, change employers - doctors move, change practices) - and there is no "centralized" data store with each persons digitized health information.As we move and age - and unless we have a chronic condition - our health data can become relatively obsolete - fairly quickly (lab results from a year ago are of limited use today)Most of us (in terms of the population as a whole) are only infrequent users of the healthcare system more broadly (cold, flu, stomach, UTI etc....). In other words, we're pretty healthy, so issues around healthcare (and it's use) is a lower priorityThere is a significant loss of productivity when a practice moves from paper to electronic health records (thus the government "stimulus" funding - which is working - but still a long way to go)The penalties for PHI data breach under HIPAA are significant - so there has been a reluctance/fear to rely on electronic data. This is also why the vast majority of data breaches are paper-based (typically USPS)This is why solutions like Google Health - and Revolution Health before them - failed - and closed completely (as in please remove your data - the service will no longer be available)All of which are contributing factors to why the U.S. Healthcare System looks like this:===============Chart Source: Mary Meeker - USA, Inc. (2011) - link here:http://www.kpcb.com/insights/usa...
How to fill the apple U.S tax form (W8BEN iTunes Connect) for indie developers?
This article was most helpful: Itunes Connect Tax Information
How would the SF Bay Area be different today if they'd used some of the gold-rush money to build a dike, reroute the rivers, pump out the water and fill it with dirt up to ground level?
So many problems with this question.First: Scale. Do you have any idea HOW LARGE the SF Bay is? 1,600 Square Miles! How on earth do you fill all that in?Second: Flooding. The bay is there because three major rivers (Sacramento, American and San Joaquin) come together here. That plus innumerable other smaller waterways means that you have millions of gallons of water coming into the bay every day. Where would all that water go?Third: The port. The real reason why San Francisco exists is because of the bay. There is really nothing terribly interesting about San Francisco during the gold rush. Except for the fact that it was on the way to the gold fields. The Bay made this possible. In this time period, water was the major transportation mode. Filling in the bay would have been a disaster for them economically.Fourth: Environmental impact. There are several major ecosystems represented by the bay. We did huge damage to them during the first part of the 20th century and are just starting to set them right again.Fifth: Aesthetics. The bay is beautiful and our lives revolve around it. Why on earth would we fill it in?You get the idea.Filling in the bay would have pretty much ended San Francisco as we know it. Perhaps the city would not be there at all.BTW, the opposite of what you ask actually happened. During the ice age you could walk to the Farallons because the sea level was so much lower: