Is jobbridge really a good thing?

Strokesfan

I have a job at the moment, I know I'm very lucky to have one but I don't want to sit in the same position for the next ten years (never really had a pay rise and took a paycut some months ago) - there is no particular route for progression in the company I'm in.
What annoys me that looking through all the vacancies for my area, the VAST majority are jobbridge positions that will pay Eu50 on top of the dole, unless they're highly specialised positions like programmer jobs etc...
It looks to me that jobbridge is counterproductive and ruining the jobs market? I don't know if all employers are actually struggling or just being greedy! What are your thoughts?

Markcheese

Job bridge was supposed to be so an entrant could gain work expierience in their field/ create a position for themselves. Allow companies a low cost way to see if extra qualified staff would pay for themselves.... A kind of suck it and see approach.......
In theory it's great, but if all it does is lead to a continuos round of "free"interns, or gets abused by employers replacing paid workers then it's a bit ****e .... Personally I think the employee should almost be "interviewing" the company ie. What are you going to give me (experience wise) if I come to work for you ....

MariMel

Personally I wouldnt know if they are a good thing or not.....applied for 8 of them in the last 6 months and havent even gotten back any acknowledgement that I even applied for the job.

purplepapillon

Markcheese wrote: »

Personally I think the employee should almost be "interviewing" the company ie. What are you going to give me (experience wise) if I come to work for you ....

Completely agree. Depends on the company entirely. I know three people doing them at the mo.

One has a great one and a job offer out of it. Theoretically how it's meant to operate. Two other friends like their well enough and are getting experience in their respective industries.

It's meant to apply to professional jobs, yet you see deli assistant and sales assistant ones on offer everywhere. These companies are absolutely greedy whilst highlighting the chink in the system, where this can actually happen. Ridiculous.

allibastor

I personally know three guys who work for a town council. they are on job bridge and had replaced 4 guys last year who were contract employees. all these guys has 6-10 years experience in what they do, the lowest being 6 years. they are doing the full time work and all that as if they were on a contract or full time. all these lads know exactly what they should be doing, one of them was actually employed by the same council 5 years ago at a paid junior position and left over family reasons.

How can they justify this kind of rubbish. i have seen many roles in companies which i know to be well able to pay for staff using this system and then leaving the employee off at the end. it is just completely cutting off this in this country who have less than 5 years experience for a job as they will just be replaced by a job bridger

cricketfan

allibastor wrote: »

I personally know three guys who work for a town council. they are on job bridge and had replaced 4 guys last year who were contract employees. all these guys has 6-10 years experience in what they do, the lowest being 6 years. they are doing the full time work and all that as if they were on a contract or full time. all these lads know exactly what they should be doing, one of them was actually employed by the same council 5 years ago at a paid junior position and left over family reasons.

How can they justify this kind of rubbish. i have seen many roles in companies which i know to be well able to pay for staff using this system and then leaving the employee off at the end. it is just completely cutting off this in this country who have less than 5 years experience for a job as they will just be replaced by a job bridger

And the mainstream media aren't very keen to report situations such as this. Begs me to ask, how many internships are there at the Irish Times, RTE never the mind the wider charities sector as well as the PS.

allibastor

cricketfan wrote: »

And the mainstream media aren't very keen to report situations such as this. Begs me to ask, how many internships are there at the Irish Times, RTE never the mind the wider charities sector as well as the PS.

I would imagine a lot. I know for a fact that Limerick council has had two interns fill the same role in the last while. I know the person doing the job now fairly well. Was told by an older lady who worked there that she was the second person in that job, first one did the 9 months then given the door.

I wonder is it easier for councils and such to get access to interns.

does make me wonder how in earth the government wants young people to be part of this smart economy. Should they just give yoga plane ticket attached to your college degree.

Eod100

I think the Job Bridge system is being exploited by companies who use it to replace paid staff with interns. I know that interns are paid 50 euro per week on top of their social welfare payment but the fact remains that not everyone who is on Job Bridge is even receiving welfare payments (some are signing on for social insurance contributions which mean they do not receive any money).

Also, I'm not sure how long the 50 euro p.w would last considering the intern has to pay for food, work clothes, transport etc. However, I don't know if the host companies pay for any of this so I'm open to correction.

The defense of the system seems to be the argument that people who carry out a Job Bridge internship may be hired by the company that took them on or by a different company. Unfortunately, the stats don't back this up. 38% of interns who completed their internships found work immediately after their internship ended.

Granted, this figure does not take into account those who found work in the weeks and months after their internship, but regardless this figure is not exactly excellent. See this link for http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/05/16/00113.asp source of this figure.

There is also no indication that these interns found work because of their internship. Some interns may have as their host company hired them after completing the internship. But unfortunately the Gov. has yet to provide a break-down of the figures in relation to interns who found work in host organisation and those who found work with another company.

It's important not to confuse causation with correlation. I don't know if individuals who completed their Job Bridge internship were hired because they had done so. And neither does the Gov. so it seems foolish to assume it was the completion of a Job Bridge internship alone which made them more employable..

Another flaw I see is that J.B is used by organisations such as government bodies which currently have a recruitment embargo. So the chance of an intern being kept on in a paid position by one of these organisations after their internship is virtually nil.

That's my thoughts on it anyway and sorry about the essay! :P

Rainbow_Bright

For me , personally, the internship scheme is making things increasingly difficult. I am currently seeking full time employment but a lot of the posts I would like to apply for e.g. in admin etc are being advertised under the internship scheme. It's a no-brainer for the employers - get the work done by an intern ( or a few over a long period) for €50 a week or an experienced person like me for e.g. €450 a week...

allibastor

To be fair, the company don't actually pay the 50 a week. it is a BONUS for your social to cover costs associated with going to work. Who here spends less than 50 a week on getting work clothes, food, Travel etc.

AnnyHallsal

I've always been extremely thrifty but with the best will in the world working as an intern costs a LOT more than 50 euro a week. I'm dipping into my savings to keep up. Just hope it pays off.

Boscoirl

I started a JB position recently after a year of searching for a position after graduating. It's almost 5 weeks since I put the paper work in with the Social Welfare and I have not yet been approved for the scheme, even though I started the job almost 3 weeks ago, so have yet to receive the extra 50, and I have been told it won't be back dated either( I even had to go sign on too)
I have had to front up a lot of money in he first few weeks, buying clothes etc for work.

So far the it's going well for me, worst case scenario I'll have 6months experience, and it'll fill the gap on my cv, but all going well I have been told there will be a FT position for me.

christmas2012

no - its a job blocker and it creates unemployment - it hogs/occupies what could have been paid jobs advertised on websites,and in local newspapers,instead you see jobbridge or fas attached to it,it spells disaster,especially in a recession,the last thing we need is semi state agencies creating unemployment,i notice it creates unemployment blackspots with the most vunerable in our communities they proport to help..

for example tescos could instead of taking on paid workers,turn around and use jobbridge workers - thus bringing no real employment to the area.. whats worse, in turn these schemes are abused by employers to bump up savings making marginal profits due to the fact they only take on free workers.

jobbridge have said they train people up,and make them job ready,what about all those who are already qualified,do they really need to be trained up again???

what about 9 month internships for wiping tables and not paying a penny??? - its a jobs scam.

RacoonQueen

Boscoirl wrote: »

I started a JB position recently after a year of searching for a position after graduating. It's almost 5 weeks since I put the paper work in with the Social Welfare and I have not yet been approved for the scheme, even though I started the job almost 3 weeks ago, so have yet to receive the extra 50, and I have been told it won't be back dated either( I even had to go sign on too)
I have had to front up a lot of money in he first few weeks, buying clothes etc for work.

So far the it's going well for me, worst case scenario I'll have 6months experience, and it'll fill the gap on my cv, but all going well I have been told there will be a FT position for me.

Go to your social welfare office and lodge a complaint. The administration for this scheme is very poor.

D-Generate

I have known two people on the Job Bridge internship scheme. One has now been given a permanent position on a grad programme within the firm they were at. The other leveraged their internship into a permanent position at another company. Both would agree that the JobBridge scheme got their foot in the door towards obtaining a permanent position.

There is the belief in Ireland that it is Us Vs the Employer when such a mentality can be extremely damaging to both an individual and the country itself. The JobBridge scheme in my viewpoint offers a mutually beneficial relationship to both an individual and the employer, even in instances where people think that it is being abused (i.e. shelf stacker).

Regardless of who you are, the JobBridge scheme gives the employee more experience than they otherwise would have earned living on the dole. It is a hugely beneficial thing to show that you were active during difficult times and it is something i certainly look upon in a favourable light when I am interviewing candidates.

For employers, the JobBridge scheme allows them to pursue a growth strategy without over-leveraging their internal resources. On a national level, it is much more beneficial to the State for an employer to pursue a growth strategy by hiring someone for minimal cost rather than having a stagnant growth profile. The employee would be on the State's payroll regardless of which route is taken so the State might as well benefit from additional tax on profits and trade achieved through the Company's growth.

Ultimately, the more folks that are hired under JobBridge schemes creates a more competitive environment for new hires as resources shrink. The upside of this is that eventually employers need to make their positions attractive by advertising them for a wage.

Ophiopogon

D-Generate wrote: »

I have known two people on the Job Bridge internship scheme. One has now been given a permanent position on a grad programme within the firm they were at. The other leveraged their internship into a permanent position at another company. Both would agree that the JobBridge scheme got their foot in the door towards obtaining a permanent position.

There is the belief in Ireland that it is Us Vs the Employer when such a mentality can be extremely damaging to both an individual and the country itself. The JobBridge scheme in my viewpoint offers a mutually beneficial relationship to both an individual and the employer, even in instances where people think that it is being abused (i.e. shelf stacker).

Regardless of who you are, the JobBridge scheme gives the employee more experience than they otherwise would have earned living on the dole. It is a hugely beneficial thing to show that you were active during difficult times and it is something i certainly look upon in a favourable light when I am interviewing candidates.

For employers, the JobBridge scheme allows them to pursue a growth strategy without over-leveraging their internal resources. On a national level, it is much more beneficial to the State for an employer to pursue a growth strategy by hiring someone for minimal cost rather than having a stagnant growth profile. The employee would be on the State's payroll regardless of which route is taken so the State might as well benefit from additional tax on profits and trade achieved through the Company's growth.

Ultimately, the more folks that are hired under JobBridge schemes creates a more competitive environment for new hires as resources shrink. The upside of this is that eventually employers need to make their positions attractive by advertising them for a wage.

Fantastic post.

I'm on a Jobbridge in an industry that I was finding extremely difficult to get into. I've worked my arse off to produce the work that will now insure I have a permanent job.

Otherwise I could've sat at home on the dole moaning about no jobs/job blockers.

Saying that if a company cannot afford to hire then they should just go bust is ridiculous. A small company could have up to ten full time workers, this company is struggling and could use an intern to hopefully get them through a bad patch. If they don't use the intern and just wrap up then that's 10 people out of a job. Makes loads of sense.

stayback

can i just say on the jobbridge. I was umemployed for 3 months. found a position on jobbridge in my area. went for the interview and he offered me a full time job after the interview. i'm there a month now and loving it. So i would have to give thumbs up for jobbridge....

NakedNNettles

Ophiopogon wrote: »

Saying that if a company cannot afford to hire then they should just go bust is ridiculous. A small company could have up to ten full time workers, this company is struggling and could use an intern to hopefully get them through a bad patch. If they don't use the intern and just wrap up then that's 10 people out of a job. Makes loads of sense.

WHAT????? This is such crap. You have it all ar*eways.

The job bridge scheme was set up to help the unemployed get experience in their field not help struggling companies.

If I was an intern I wouldn't join a struggling company, what kind of training or experience is an intern going to get from a company that can't even run themselves efficiently?

One poster makes a great point, shouldn't it be the intern interviewing the company, after all the intern is giving their unpaid time to the company.

Personally I believe it should be working both ways, if I was an intern, I would want the best experience possible on my CV and I wouldn't be looking any further than the best companies in their field, this is where one will benefit most from an internship, everything else is a waste of time.

starlit

NakedNNettles wrote: »

WHAT????? This is such crap. You have it all ar*eways.

The job bridge scheme was set up to help the unemployed get experience in their field not help struggling companies.

If I was an intern I wouldn't join a struggling company, what kind of training or experience is an intern going to get from a company that can't even run themselves efficiently?

One poster makes a great point, shouldn't it be the intern interviewing the company, after all the intern is giving their unpaid time to the company.

Personally I believe it should be working both ways, if I was an intern, I would want the best experience possible on my CV and I wouldn't be looking any further than the best companies in their field, this is where one will benefit most from an internship, everything else is a waste of time.

Its possible that due to not enough profits or funding a company cannot afford new employees so free labour ensues by hiring an unpaid intern to cut and reduce costs. Saves the company money whether or not they are a struggling company.

Then again I agree that its worth taking into account that a potential intern should interview the company or visit it and get detailed information about the company before embarking on an unpaid internship with them. Yes they can ask questions at the end of their interview but that wouldn't be enough to get the information they need to make a decision about going ahead with an internship with the chosen company.

Its a lot of time, commitment and effort on behalf of the intern to complete an internship once its worthwhile and that they would benefit from the work experience is what really matters and how much it help them in their career.

Mully_2011

Out of interest is it the full dole and 50 euro or whatever your dole payment is and 50 euro and how easy is it to get on one when say compared to a job ?? If i was unemployed I'd rather do the internship and get something outta it then sit on my hole for 9 months.

The state pays the dole & the levy on private pensions pays the 50 euro extra a week.

The state and those pensions should be getting a % of profit from the companies or taking a stake in their ownership if they are being propped up by jobbridge.

But really this should be going to the workers in the form of pay. Probation & minimum wage is enough to evaluate an employee and give them experience. No need for government interference.


If a company does not have to pay staff then they have a competitive edge over other businesses. Other businesses will need to stoop down to the jobbridge level to compete. Unintended consequences that are ruining the labour market.

Mully_2011

Mully_2011 wrote: »

If i was unemployed I'd rather do the internship and get something outta it then sit on my hole for 9 months.

Short sighted when these internships decrease the number of real paying jobs effectively making it harder to get off the dole.

Sure a few people will be lucky and land a job by getting a foot in the door but the scheme is overwhelmingly negative on a macroeconomic level.

To sum it up in plainly...why would a company pay staff if it doesnt have to?
You have hundreds of thousands of desperate people who are trying to get places on the jobbridge scheme. Some people dont even hear back from the applications.

starlit

Deleted User wrote: »

Short sighted when these internships decrease the number of real paying jobs effectively making it harder to get off the dole.

Sure a few people will be lucky and land a job by getting a foot in the door but the scheme is overwhelmingly negative on a macroeconomic level.

To sum it up in plainly...why would a company pay staff if it doesnt have to?
You have hundreds of thousands of desperate people who are trying to get places on the jobbridge scheme. Some people dont even hear back from the applications.

If they could afford to take on staff and pay them why should they bother with a jobbridige makes no sense different if they trying to cut costs and reduce costs or if they struggling financially its understandable that they hire someone on a jobbridge.

They don't exactly chase after interns though.

christmas2012

I find it hilarious that 2 + posts on this thread have happened to find jobs after the jobbridge thing,it stinks of bs..

the likelyhood of getting a job is 400/7000,only 38 pc have found a job after the jobbridge scheme,meaning most of the jobbridge schemes are being abused,and you are not likely to find a job after.

its a job blocker because it hogs up what could be a paid job advertised on a website or in a newspaper,for example if tesco turned around and decided to sign up to jobbridge as opposed to look for paid employees what does that make it?

and why would any employer turn around and HIRE you when they have you for FREE??Wheres the logic in that,companies work by profit margins and if joan burton is offering freebies,well there going to take it,and there is NO obligation to employ said free workers.

ive been on one of these schemes(a fas one actually,but its pretty much the same type of scheme),anyway it took at least 2 - 3 ce workers to push a perm worker out of their job,and the 2 - 3 workers didnt get a job after it,as it wouldnt have been cost effective for the company in question.most companies use job bridge for cost effectiveness,do not be fooled by the other 2 posters ,they probably have some vested interest,maybe they have a relative working on the jobbridge thing as a job bridge or fas supervisor..and are trying to talk the scheme up i would be wary of their motives..

dev100

D-Generate wrote: »

I have known two people on the Job Bridge internship scheme. One has now been given a permanent position on a grad programme within the firm they were at. The other leveraged their internship into a permanent position at another company. Both would agree that the JobBridge scheme got their foot in the door towards obtaining a permanent position.

There is the belief in Ireland that it is Us Vs the Employer when such a mentality can be extremely damaging to both an individual and the country itself. The JobBridge scheme in my viewpoint offers a mutually beneficial relationship to both an individual and the employer, even in instances where people think that it is being abused (i.e. shelf stacker).

Regardless of who you are, the JobBridge scheme gives the employee more experience than they otherwise would have earned living on the dole. It is a hugely beneficial thing to show that you were active during difficult times and it is something i certainly look upon in a favourable light when I am interviewing candidates.

For employers, the JobBridge scheme allows them to pursue a growth strategy without over-leveraging their internal resources. On a national level, it is much more beneficial to the State for an employer to pursue a growth strategy by hiring someone for minimal cost rather than having a stagnant growth profile. The employee would be on the State's payroll regardless of which route is taken so the State might as well benefit from additional tax on profits and trade achieved through the Company's growth.

Ultimately, the more folks that are hired under JobBridge schemes creates a more competitive environment for new hires as resources shrink. The upside of this is that eventually employers need to make their positions attractive by advertising them for a wage.

It's all well and good for people with college education etc . It gives them a platform to acquire work experience all well and good. Probably at this level job bridge works well . I know of two cases where people have been laid off and been told they are being replaced by job bridge candidates because it doesn't cost employer anything .

christmas2012

there are instances of abuse with these schemes which is all too common,nobody is keeping a watch of the supervisors and company staff that actively allow this to happen on the schemes,nobody wants to complain the other for obvious reasons..

joan burton didnt think this through properly,if she was serious she would have had a pre requirement of hiring x amount of paid workers to qualify for the scheme,which they are under no obligation to.

and the very nature of the scheme as well is a job blocker,it blocks what could have been a paid job advertised in a newspaper or a website,they in turn go on to create unemployment,something we dont need and certainly in a recession.

the whole thing needs to be scrapped,its a huge cost to the exchequer,its used and abused in a lot of 'work' situations.and used to massage the dole stats when it suits the government to do so,this is falsely misrepresenting information to the public.

it is also under the cost of social welfare,making our social welfare bill huge,which is probably half the reason why a lot of us got our dole cut.

i would rather see this scheme cut dead,and have real jobs freed up to be advertised..

Ophiopogon

christmas2012 wrote: »

I find it hilarious that 2 + posts on this thread have happened to find jobs after the jobbridge thing,it stinks of bs..

So it didn't work out for you, that means that I'm lying?

christmas2012

So you were one of the lucky - 400 out of 7000 that got a job on the jobbridge thing and the other poster,whats the name of the company youre working for by the way,wouldnt you like to give them some credit?

Ophiopogon

christmas2012 wrote: »

So you were one of the lucky - 400 out of 7000 that got a job on the jobbridge thing and the other poster,whats the name of the company youre working for by the way,wouldnt you like to give them some credit?

Why would I give out personal information?

If I don't say the name of the company does this now prove that I am lying?

christmas2012

A lot of people can allege things on here,ive seen regular boardsies say there employed and have thier own business when there on here..Anybody can be anybody on here,so dont give out the info,no big deal..

nacimroc

Its legal slavery!!!!!

Amazed at how many of you think employment is "created" with this muck. Most of the jobs that eventually become paid positions should have been paid initially. Its just a way of abusing staff and worming out of paying someone.

I know 3 employers using this scheme and hired people who they ordinarily would have just paid a full wage. One of the people who took up a position is all excited that "maybe" someday they will get paid. I feel so sorry for them. Its just abuse!

Ophiopogon

christmas2012 wrote: »

A lot of people can allege things on here,ive seen regular boardsies say there employed and have thier own business when there on here..Anybody can be anybody on here,so dont give out the info,no big deal..

haha you're so right Christmas, I get my kicks from pretending to have a job on the internet.

Anyway, I think I may bow out of this conversation. Paranoid ramblings are not really my thing.

Off to do some "work".

allibastor

Ophiopogon wrote: »

haha you're so right Christmas, I get my kicks from pretending to have a job on the internet.

Anyway, I think I may bow out of this conversation. Paranoid ramblings are not really my thing.

Off to do some "work".

To be fair i think mr Christmas is getting a bit carried away,
But the point remains the same, Most companies who hire workers are doing so to either replace a paid worker, and i genuinely know of 10 people on the scheme who are actually in jobs that they used to do up until a year ago for a full wage. They have complained but they say there is very little done.

If the scheme is so good why do employers not bother answering back requests, or why is there such a low rate of retention. Surely if this was indicative of our labour force in general we would have many many reports of companies with high turnover of huge volumes of companies letting people go before their first year.

All the statistics to point to a ver flawed system. I know some people have gotten a job from it, but were these role which would have to have been filled at some stage. I see some construction companies taking on Assistant site managers and engineers for 9 months, many construction project would not really last that long anyway.

i have alson seen many employers looking for people with a good deal of experience or else experience in a very Niche skill set. Both of which to my understanding should not be on Job-bridge.

The scheme was set out in the good faith of trying to get those with little experience into a job, but it is more and more becoming the victim of use by companies who want to use free labour to make the balance sheet look better

Chuchoter

Businesses use job bridge and work experience as an excuse to get grunt work done free. What used to be extra assistant positions in shops during the sales are now just unpaid. Its complete bull****.

The outlaw

Like most people I was surprised that the company's do not pay the €50, but the Jobbridge scheme. If someone on the scheme is working 40 hrs a week, they should be on min wage at least, which would be €346 (40*€8.65). It's not alot to ask the employer to contribute €108 per week (346-188-50). To answer the question, IMO jobbridge would really be a good thing if the employers paid the €108, to stop the jobs such as shelf packer or cow milker being on the scheme. People on the scheme would be alot more motivated knowing they weren't working below min. wage.

Eod100

The outlaw wrote: »

Like most people I was surprised that the company's do not pay the €50, but the Jobbridge scheme. If someone on the scheme is working 40 hrs a week, they should be on min wage at least, which would be €346 (40*€8.65). It's not alot to ask the employer to contribute €108 per week (346-188-50). To answer the question, IMO jobbridge would really be a good thing if the employers paid the €108, to stop the jobs such as shelf packer or cow milker being on the scheme. People on the scheme would be alot more motivated knowing they weren't working below min. wage.

Completely agree with you on this!

What makes it worse is that a) not everyone on a Job Bridge scheme is receiving the full social welfare allowance and b) some interns are signing on for social insurance contributions which means they only get the 50 euro allowance and nothing else.

I'd love to know a break-down of the number who are in the above situations but I doubt the Department of Social Protection would be keen to publish these figures..

NakedNNettles

Ophiopogon wrote: »

Off to do some "work".

....for next to nothing.

It dosen't count for anything unless you're paid.

Mully_2011 wrote: »

If i was unemployed I'd rather do the internship and get something outta it then sit on my hole for 9 months.

I was unemployed for about a year and I didn't spend my time sitting 'on my hole' as you call it, what makes you think that just because someone is unemployed there is nothing they can be doing to better yourself.

Were you so lost for solutions that working for nothing was the best you could come up with?

Last thing I was going to do was slog for someone for nothing, where is your pride and dignity? If you have enough drive and determination with a clear goal, anything can be achieved, just don't expect results overnight.

RacoonQueen

NakedNNettles wrote: »

....for next to nothing.

It dosen't count for anything unless you're paid.



I was unemployed for about a year and I didn't spend my time sitting 'on my hole' as you call it, what makes you think that just because someone is unemployed there is nothing they can be doing to better yourself.

Were you so lost for solutions that working for nothing was the best you could come up with?

Last thing I was going to do was slog for someone for nothing, where is your pride and dignity? If you have enough drive and determination with a clear goal, anything can be achieved, just don't expect results overnight.

I think you're exaggerating a bit here. My friend is doing one of these in a different industry/area to their experience and qualifications. Always wanted to change careers and is doing a FÁS online course to go along with it. There is a slight chance of employment afterwards, but if not he has a decent chance of getting something out of it as there are plenty of entry level jobs going in this area.

Treating it like 9 months of a college course, get 9 months experience, a good reference, makes a few connections and will get a course or two done with internationally recognised qualifications along the way.

If he didn't look at it that way, he'd be going in to work for free. This way he's not and it's not as depressing. You make what you can out of the opportunities you're given.

yankinlk

The company I work in has some jobs bridge jobs advertised. They treat the applicants very professionally. The process of interview is very much the same as a paid position, some posters on here think a jobs bridge job means put name down and come in to work in the morning.

An employee, paid or otherwise costs a company money. There is workspace, phone, utilities, insurance, materials, etc etc. salary is only one cost to a company, what about training, or other employees time taken to assist the new JB employee? Let's face it not every one is suitable for every job, be it paid or not!

JB employees in my company are treated very fairly, given time to work, train, and look for work as well. they are treated with respect and also understanding that at the end of the day their goal is to find paid employment. I'm sure there may be employers abusing the system, but please don't trash the entire concept and put everyone off. There are plenty of good stories too, so if you have an opportunity to take a position and the company is using JB the way it is meant to be done, then good luck!

Qualitymark

nacimroc wrote: »

Its legal slavery!!!!!

It often is.

But not always - I know someone who's had two JobBridge people working with her. The first one left after a couple of months because he got a paying job through the experience he got with her. The second one is shaping well, and is learning marketing, web design, bookkeeping, etc - the basics of running his own business - and making nice contacts, as he and the employer have desks in a shared office with several small cutting-edge firms.

But the common practice of using things like shelf-stacking and petrol-station work as "training" seems pretty nonsensical, certainly.

Mrs OBumble

NakedNNettles wrote: »

It dosen't count for anything unless you're paid.

Hmm, you've just insulted every volunteer in the country, not to mention thousands of family members who provide care for dependent elderly people etc.

Not sure if this is what you really meant ...

nacimroc

yankinlk wrote: »

The company I work in has some jobs bridge jobs advertised. They treat the applicants very professionally. The process of interview is very much the same as a paid position, some posters on here think a jobs bridge job means put name down and come in to work in the morning.

An employee, paid or otherwise costs a company money. There is workspace, phone, utilities, insurance, materials, etc etc. salary is only one cost to a company, what about training, or other employees time taken to assist the new JB employee? Let's face it not every one is suitable for every job, be it paid or not!

JB employees in my company are treated very fairly, given time to work, train, and look for work as well. they are treated with respect and also understanding that at the end of the day their goal is to find paid employment. I'm sure there may be employers abusing the system, but please don't trash the entire concept and put everyone off. There are plenty of good stories too, so if you have an opportunity to take a position and the company is using JB the way it is meant to be done, then good luck!

Thats great that the company getting the free labour treats them well. Of course they would. They are getting free labour! It costs the company money to hire someone, well yes, but they make this back, infinitely in this case, as they don't pay a wage!

This thing of having interviews makes the whole thing more worse. It should be set up so that the unemployed person 'picks' which company they want and not the other way around. It is just unpaid work otherwise and nobody is really getting trained if the employers get to choose the already qualified person. It could be done on a points scale so the company don't get a complete novice to the related industry, but choosing the most qualified slave is a joke.

The principle behind it has a tiny bit of merit, but in reality it would be impossible to make the system more counter productive! With a tiny bit of organisation it could be done properly. Exclude unskilled work immediately. Having shelf stackers etc in the scheme should be banned instantly. Skilled work only.

Its just slave labour!

Mark200

Love how the the figure of "38% of those on a jobbridge scheme getting fulltime employment IMMEDIATELY after their internship" is seen as a bad thing. Just think about that, after spending who knows how long unemployed you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a full time job after the internship without even having to apply anywhere else. That (apparently) doesn't even count those who may get jobs by having that experience on their CV.

And for those who say this figure shows that companies are abusing the system.... Eh what?? The point isn't just for the company to consider taking you on, the point is for the unemployed to get experience, a bit of extra money, and to have something productive to go instead of just sitting around applying unsuccessfully to place while their skills slowly disintegrate from nort being used.


I'm not saying that there are no companies abusing it, I'm sure there are, but jobbridge to me seems like a simply but effective idea... One of this governments best ideas so far.... and it has helped a lot of people so far to get back on their feet

And the idea that the company shouldn't be allowed interview people who they will be dedicating resources to and giving some level of responsibility to is idiotic, to put it as mildly as I can

NakedNNettles

JustMary wrote: »

Hmm, you've just insulted every volunteer in the country, not to mention thousands of family members who provide care for dependent elderly people etc.

Not sure if this is what you really meant ...

No I haven't. That's completely different.

This thread is about Jobbridge, and its abuse of the Irish workforce, please stick to that.

Jobbridge isn't about working for volunteer groups, read the thread if you don't understand.

Tombi!

Well as far as I know this was just a means to lower unenmployment rates (or at least looks that way).
If you do a scheme with Jobbridge, you're removed from the unemployment list and considered to be working as far as I know.

Which is stupid since you're working for less than minimum wage or getting the dole (while working, which is against the rules). So whichever way you want to look at it, something dodgy is going on here.

But in theory it's perfect. It helps people from everywhere get the experience needed.

In reality, it helps you spend 9 months how to stack selves. Or if you want to do an actual intership, you need a few years experience which again, only helps the company and does nothing for the person.

Eod100

Mark200 wrote: »

Love how the the figure of "38% of those on a jobbridge scheme getting fulltime employment IMMEDIATELY after their internship" is seen as a bad thing. Just think about that, after spending who knows how long unemployed you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a full time job after the internship without even having to apply anywhere else. That (apparently) doesn't even count those who may get jobs by having that experience on their CV.

The figure of 38% includes people who find work with either their host organisation or with a different company. You're right in saying that it only refers to individuals who have secured employment on immediate completion of their internship.

So it does not take into account people who find work in the weeks/months afterwards. I guess once the independent evaluation is published more figures like this will be released.

It would be interesting to know of the 38% a) how many are in part-time employment b) how many are in full time employment c) how many were kept on by their host organisation d) how many were hired by a different company and e) are they working in a similar sector/job as their JobBridge one.

yankinlk

nacimroc wrote: »

Thats great that the company getting the free labour treats them well. Of course they would. They are getting free labour! It costs the company money to hire someone, well yes, but they make this back, infinitely in this case, as they don't pay a wage!

This thing of having interviews makes the whole thing more worse. It should be set up so that the unemployed person 'picks' which company they want and not the other way around. It is just unpaid work otherwise and nobody is really getting trained if the employers get to choose the already qualified person. It could be done on a points scale so the company don't get a complete novice to the related industry, but choosing the most qualified slave is a joke.

The principle behind it has a tiny bit of merit, but in reality it would be impossible to make the system more counter productive! With a tiny bit of organisation it could be done properly. Exclude unskilled work immediately. Having shelf stackers etc in the scheme should be banned instantly. Skilled work only.

Its just slave labour!

Wow. This is really narrow minded thinking. Sure the person looking for work should interview the company taking them on , and refuse if it's a go no where shelf stacking position, but that's not what I referred to. The opportunity I speak of allowed people with no previous experience in the direct role, to come onboard and try a whole new career. The employer got to take a chance on a person that might not normally have made it thru on merit alone, the person that took the role , well they either badly want to impress and learn something new, or decide quite quickly it's not for them.
Make yer own luck in life.

allibastor

yankinlk wrote: »

Wow. This is really narrow minded thinking. Sure the person looking for work should interview the company taking them on , and refuse if it's a go no where shelf stacking position, but that's not what I referred to. The opportunity I speak of allowed people with no previous experience in the direct role, to come onboard and try a whole new career. The employer got to take a chance on a person that might not normally have made it thru on merit alone, the person that took the role , well they either badly want to impress and learn something new, or decide quite quickly it's not for them.
Make yer own luck in life.

to be fair though, how many times do they take someone on with No experience. I deal with lots of people who come from job bridge, many of them are doing the job they have done before at pay. many are also 3-8 years in that particular field of work. I would say something if it was giving fresh faced youngsters a chance, but in most cases it is not. it is taking people who are so bored at being at home and taking full advantage.

i on a joke put an application in for a site engineer role down in Tralee, i was actually told by the company they though i did not have the right kid of level of experience. i have 5 years. they then said my qualifications were not right, refer to my previous point i had down this job already for 5 years. how does that help those poor lads with 0 years exp.

donegal11

The 38 percent tells us nothing. I wonder how many were hired by the host organisation? and if I started an internship and found a paying job two weeks later would it be classed in that 38% success.

It amazes me when I look at some of the "internships" in Dublin looking for qualified solicitors and accountants (how are such jobs allowed to be posted). Would a qualified solicitor or accountant finding a job during or after an internship be a success since they already have sufficient experience anyway and would have found a job eventually .

The scheme as it currently stands has a few major faults
1. The employer can cherry pick the best candidates, in other words picking a candidate with plenty of experience over someone with none(the actual point of the scheme). A better system would have Fas assign staff on basis of the potential employees needs.

2. It displacing jobs which actually exist(wait till xmas to see all the retail position internships ).

3 Revolving internships as mentioned here . It amazes me how many companies are on advertising for the same positions they had advertised last year.

StupidLikeAFox

Personnally, I think that if I was long term unemployed, with no prospects and loads of rejection letters, I would have a greater chance of getting a foot in the door somewhere by taking one of these internships. Apart from the host company, you also get to build up contacts in the industry, supplies, clients etc which you just can't do when you are on the dole

Even if it was a low-skilled job for 9 months and you were let off, you could go into an actual job interview and talk about your roles and responsibilities in your most recent job as opposed to a job you had a few years ago.

I imagine college goers are finding it a bit tougher to get part-time work though

Eod100 wrote:

The figure of 38% includes people who find work with either their host organisation or with a different company

This isnt true:
797 of those who had completed the scheme had gone into full-time employment, with 40 per cent being given jobs with companies where they served internships.
Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0510/1224315844050.html

donegal11

It's 40% of the 38% which means about 15% of jobbridge interns found jobs within there host organisation which is a joke considering the about of actual jobs that where converted to internships. But in fairness maybe the completion rate includes interns who left there placement early without a job lined up which could easily happen.But I would guess that companies love the free workers and get a new batch in each year:mad: