Indeed deals with employers and prospects. Don't believe I would want do involve myself in that kind of posting unless I'm the actual employer or someone looking for a job. Vibes like a scam, Beer.
Confirming Gawdzilla's / Exchemist's posts. "Bricks and mortar" refers to a business with a physical location (as opposed to just a place on the internet). A business without one might be a red flag. Thus: bricks and mortar have their value.
ticking boxes to get an idea of where you would legally sit 1. acting as an agent for advertising something(jobs) 2. acting as a advertiser(legal distance for a front company to avoid human rights laws etc) 3. off the books clearing hous for money laundering as you take payments from the applicants and then pass the money on to the scammer(this one might get you jail time & lose your family home at the worste end if your proven guilty of knowing it was illegal and under the proceeds of crimes acts internationally some countrys will take your house, car, college funds for your kids, anything they can get their hands on that you have put money into from that income stream and leave you with a legal bill potentially 100k) 4. general sucker for anything they can get you to do,(unknowlingly) become a porn hub for child porn and slavery through your home computer.... imagine the worste... 5. best possible outcome, you are an employee to the person(as a personal assistant), you spend their money and your not an independant contractor, that gives you protection from having to audit them and everything they do. as long as you not knowingly doing anything illegal and evetything seems ok. your in luck(statistical chance of this being the case is probably around 0.0257% chance. thats 3 people out of every 35,000 scammer(sounding) adverts (roughly) how many scammer sounding adverts have you responded to soo far ? LoL ! NOTE: if you act in the manner of an employment agent and refer people on. your in one heck of a lot of liability. it could be a very expensive mistake unles your an employment agent profesional and know all the laws(have all the correct insurances) and contracts required to adhere to all the laws for tax, acting as an agent, privacy, handling fees, etc etc etc.
As a general principle, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. They are offering $250 for 45 minutes work, which is $333 an hour. For posting a few ads on the internet. What is it that they are selling that is going to earn them more than the $333 an hour that they intend to pay you and their other similar employees? This is assuming that it isn't a scam in the first place, which it most likely is. Already they are asking for your banking details. Calling them on the number they have given you is likely to be useless, because if they are organised they will have somebody answering the phone who can be whatever name they have given you. You're better off trying to trace the address they gave you. If it traces back to a post-office box, a non-existent address or the address of something else, that's just another indication that it's a scam. But based on the pay they are offering, alone, to somebody whose qualifications that they don't know and they they made unsolicited contact with, the chance that this isn't a scam is next to nothing. P.S. Oh wait. Did they even give you a business address? As far as I can tell, they didn't. There's probably a reason for that. P.P.S. If you know you can trust this indeed.com.ca website (I have no idea what that is), you could try contacting them directly to ask about Sentry Investments. P.P.P.S. Also, do they have registered business numbers or something like that where you live? Where I am (in Australia), they are used for tax purposes, and there is a government regulator that registers businesses. If this kind of thing exists, you could also give them a call and ask whether (a) the company is real, and (b) whether there have been any complaints about it.
The company looks real and does offer an address: https://sentry.ca If this is a scam, I'm wondering if someone has hijacked the name and is pretending to be them. If not, then they have gone to some trouble to create a real-seeming facade on the web.
indeed.ca has been around a very long time. It is as trustworthy as the next guy. (Though they might not vet their communications quite as thoroughly as the next guy.)
"They" wanted banking info before I knew what I was to do. I didn't call or respond via email very shortly; they asked me my name. *** This is the internet, internet things happen.
i've used indeed my self and from what you've described its sending up way to many red flags. i've walked away from legit companies because their ads were shady. not saying they aren't legit but honestly i doubt it. ecspecially if you don't recall applying to them first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company) this looks like alloy & steel & concrete ... lol i hope amazon paid all these employees an appearance fee for advertising and using their private image for promotions. and pay them royalties every time the video is played on youtube Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Amazon is well known for its staging and manipulation of news reports - and suppressing unstaged or candid cooperation with journalists. Depending on what documents were signed, etc, those employees may well be entitled to royalties or screen actors minimum rates or the like.
3 of the men profiled are showing signs of extreme stress with passive agressive indicators. the group behaviour shows a prison gang feudal system in place. body language of the group shows normalised fear as part of the group behaviour model. what is also concerning is the body size of many of the employees. for a packing wharehouse around half of the group are dangerousely over weight. generaly that is not an issue with safe work practices, HOWEVER the reality of the danger i see is in the employer exploiting over weight people who say they wish to get more fit by working them until they injure themselves while exploiting the employees desire to suceed.
this is probably theft by amzon stealing wages and hours off the employees there s probable grounds for emotional damages based on the implied shame and lack of group co-operation by not being in the video. it is also taken at the time of an information distribution which is exploitative by suggesting emotional damages incured by missing the critical information. using coersion to make employees exercise on video and then publicising it for personal gain is not what i would call "a millenial morals company"
