The phrase "attack employment" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to describe a situation where employment is being aggressively pursued or challenged, but the phrase lacks clarity and context.
Example: "The company's strategy to attack employment opportunities in the market has raised concerns among job seekers."
Alternatives: "aggressively pursue employment" or "challenge employment opportunities".
By October 2001, right after the attack, employment in this sector had dipped to 250,000.
So why do so many boards and managers, supported by politicians, systematically do the opposite – run companies as top-down dictatorships, pursue growth by merger, destroy teamwork with runaway incentives, attack employment rights and conditions, outsource customer service, treat their stakeholders as resources to be exploited, and refuse wider responsibilities to society?
"Rather than attempting to deal with the problem as it affected Jews alone," said Representative Jim Clyburn in a 1997 tribute to Aronson on the floor of the House of Representatives, "he decided to attack employment discrimination per se, no matter the victim".
Having recently positioned themselves as "united" with trade unions against Tory austerity and attacks on employment rights, they're now accused of ducking the issue when it most matters, and hiding behind EU legislation.
The Journal itself already ran an op-ed attacking gainful employment authored by former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) and private equity man Jeffrey Leeds, without disclosing that both have financial ties to the industry.
The fiscal austerity plan set out by George Osborne, the Tory chancellor of the exchequer, last June entails a three-pronged attack on state employment costs, through a two-year pay freeze, job losses and pension reform.
Could a 16-year-old white German who has never looked for employment attack a black asylum seeker who has never had the opportunity to work because the German believes the African "is taking our jobs?" "Absolutely," Mr. Schlafert said.
The safety net was shredded, unions were brutally attacked and demonized, employment training and jobs programs were eliminated, higher education costs skyrocketed, and the nation's infrastructure, a key to long-term industrial and economic health, deteriorated.
A recent survey by the National League of Cities found that the impact of the attacks on local employment and tourism could lead to a 4percentt decline in revenues for cities, the equivalent loss of $11.4 billion.
In attacking the gainful employment rule, Cox discussed how a formulation in the rule came from a research paper by "two gentlemen named Baum and Schwartz".
APSCU still has options for attacking the gainful employment rule, and using expensive lawyers, lobbyists, and campaign contributions, it is likely to pursue them: (1) seeking review of its lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court; (2) pressing Congress to overturn the regulation; and (3) pushing to make the President of Trump University the President of the United States.
