Intern will gain practical experience in Bla Bla Bla

isaac123

The intern will gain practical experience in Bla Bla Bla
Are there any Real jobs advertisded in Ireland, is this a new form of Slavery where people have to work for people making millions but still get no pay? Is it advisable for people with cleaning positions to advertise for placement as if no one in the world can clean.
This whole work placement internship schem is a scam and needs to be adressed. if this scheam is not there employers will still employ workers who should work and be paid. and unemployment will not be this much. companies who should employ workers to fill certain positions, take interns to exploit them for 9 moths and let them go and take up new workers,
Companies are looking for 10 years of experienc mean while the same job is advertised as an internship position so that if you dont have the 10 years experience, you will take the 9 months for free with the hope of getting a job at the end which is not or never there, a new intern will be taken and you sent away, mean while you can never get a job with the one year experience you just go,(they start from twoyears) what has the woorld become. We can keep writting without stop but is anyone feeling this punch?
Recent Graduates, unemployed, people on work placement comeon
we have to do something..............................................

Brussels Sprout

If Jobbridge had been implemented correctly it may have had some value but it's been ruthlessly exploited by too many companies as an infinite source of free labour.

Solair

There are similar schemes in other countries and at EU level that are equally ridiculous.

To me it looks like a bunch of do-gooders were lobbied very successfully to get free labour and convinced themselves it was a good idea.

SCOOP 64

All it does is take full time permanent jobs away from us, it should be scrapped!

Godge

isaac123 wrote: »

The intern will gain practical experience in Bla Bla Bla
Are there any Real jobs advertisded in Ireland, is this a new form of Slavery where people have to work for people making millions but still get no pay? Is it advisable for people with cleaning positions to advertise for placement as if no one in the world can clean.
This whole work placement internship schem is a scam and needs to be adressed. if this scheam is not there employers will still employ workers who should work and be paid. and unemployment will not be this much. companies who should employ workers to fill certain positions, take interns to exploit them for 9 moths and let them go and take up new workers,
Companies are looking for 10 years of experienc mean while the same job is advertised as an internship position so that if you dont have the 10 years experience, you will take the 9 months for free with the hope of getting a job at the end which is not or never there, a new intern will be taken and you sent away, mean while you can never get a job with the one year experience you just go,(they start from twoyears) what has the woorld become. We can keep writting without stop but is anyone feeling this punch?
Recent Graduates, unemployed, people on work placement comeon
we have to do something..............................................

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

You make a number of unrelated statements with no evidence to back them up.

SCOOP 64

Read some of the posts here, Name and Shame Job Bridge
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056531481&page=28

krd

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If Jobbridge had been implemented correctly it may have had some value but it's been ruthlessly exploited by too many companies as an infinite source of free labour.

Back in the 90s, there was a social employment scheme - it later became Community Employment. The social employment scheme was ruthlessly exploited. To a point there was a particularly greasy Fianna Fail TD going around North Dublin, telling pub and restaurant owners that he could get them free workers - and they could sack the people they employed.

RichardAnd

No company should have staff that they are not willing to pay for out of their own pockets.

hatrickpatrick

Unfortunately this problem is not going to go away while people are still accepting these 'offers'. Supply and demand etc.

The real question is, why are so many people accepting them?

Brussels Sprout

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The real question is, why are so many people accepting them?

• Desperation
• Fear of having social welfare payments cut
• Pressure from Parents and peers
• Inability to emigrate for whatever reason
• The need to escape the confidence sapping, depressing, mind numbing drudgery of the dole
• The need to fill the gaps on the CV
• The vague hope that they might actually get a job out of it

I don't knock people for taking jobs on it but I do knock employers for taking advantage of these people's desperation

krd

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The real question is, why are so many people accepting them?

Because. The biggest thing employers are worried about, is not that you're thick (they like hiring thick people), not that you don't have qualifications (most of the time they don't care).

What worries them most is if you are a weirdo. An unemployable misfit.

If you can show, you're in a job, even if you're not being paid, it shows that someone will hire you, and tolerate your presence. So, it makes it easier to get a job.

Sand

Having carried out several interviews with graduates for permanent and temporary roles this year, graduates need all the experience they can get. The ones I saw were inarticulate, staggered by some basic questions about information on their CV and were never really able to sell themselves. And those were the ones that didn't have basic spelling or grammatical errors in their CV.

There was clear blue sky between graduates and the more experienced candidates in their interviews, and their CVs. I do feel a great deal of sympathy for graduates in this market. It isn't 2002 anymore. Companies are not desperate to hire - quite the opposite. Unemployment is 14.8% and graduates are competing with people who have 5-10 years experience under their belts who are realistic enough to be willing to work for whats on offer. Even if graduates only get a 9 month internship and a pat on the back at their exit then at least they have 9 months experience to put on their CV and use to sell themselves at the next job interview.

The idea of interns as some sort of free source of labour for companies doesnt make practical sense. You get in an intern, set them up for systems, roles, securities, train them (taking away experienced staff from their duties and hurting their productivity) and build up their experience. You take the risk of them screwing up or aggravating clients and need to have someone ride shotgun on everything they do to control that risk (again hitting productivity of the team). All of this costs time and resources. And by the time they're fairly productive they're gone and you're back to square one with a new intern setting them up for systems, roles, securities and training all over again. And again. And again. "Free" interns rapidly become a semi-permanent drag on the teams productivity.

The maths don't add up unless the Interns are simply photocopying all day long, which isn't really a career so not a job lost. For what its worth, I was very happy when we were able to arrange a permanent role for an intern who really impressed us. If someone is going for one of these intern roles, my advice would be to ask the interviewers if they can explain to you what skills and experience the role offers (its the only benefit an internship promises) by the end of 6-9 months. If all they can tell you is you'll know a photocopier back to front by the end of it, then don't take up the offer.

Godge

nig1 wrote: »

Read some of the posts here, Name and Shame Job Bridge
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056531481&page=28

That is another thread, nothing to do with the OP.

I still cannot see what this thread is about.

RichardAnd

Sand wrote: »

And those were the ones that didn't have basic spelling or grammatical errors in their CV.

No offence, but as the author of the above sentence, are you really in a position to remark on the grammar of others?

Sand

Yep, because your CV is one thing, and your internet discussion post is another. Also, yes I am.

RUCKING FETARD

Godge wrote: »

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

You make a number of unrelated statements with no evidence to back them up.

You're the only one confused...

Sand wrote: »

For what its worth, I was very happy when we were able to arrange a permanent role for an intern who really impressed us.

:rolleyes: I'm sure you were.

solarith

There is some good

Sand

RUCKING FETARD wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'm sure you were.

I am glad that you are convinced of my sincerity. Your views mean a lot to me.

Solair

Sand wrote: »

Having carried out several interviews with graduates for permanent and temporary roles this year, graduates need all the experience they can get. The ones I saw were inarticulate, staggered by some basic questions about information on their CV and were never really able to sell themselves. And those were the ones that didn't have basic spelling or grammatical errors in their CV.

There was clear blue sky between graduates and the more experienced candidates in their interviews, and their CVs. I do feel a great deal of sympathy for graduates in this market. It isn't 2002 anymore. Companies are not desperate to hire - quite the opposite. Unemployment is 14.8% and graduates are competing with people who have 5-10 years experience under their belts who are realistic enough to be willing to work for whats on offer. Even if graduates only get a 9 month internship and a pat on the back at their exit then at least they have 9 months experience to put on their CV and use to sell themselves at the next job interview.

The idea of interns as some sort of free source of labour for companies doesnt make practical sense. You get in an intern, set them up for systems, roles, securities, train them (taking away experienced staff from their duties and hurting their productivity) and build up their experience. You take the risk of them screwing up or aggravating clients and need to have someone ride shotgun on everything they do to control that risk (again hitting productivity of the team). All of this costs time and resources. And by the time they're fairly productive they're gone and you're back to square one with a new intern setting them up for systems, roles, securities and training all over again. And again. And again. "Free" interns rapidly become a semi-permanent drag on the teams productivity.

The maths don't add up unless the Interns are simply photocopying all day long, which isn't really a career so not a job lost. For what its worth, I was very happy when we were able to arrange a permanent role for an intern who really impressed us. If someone is going for one of these intern roles, my advice would be to ask the interviewers if they can explain to you what skills and experience the role offers (its the only benefit an internship promises) by the end of 6-9 months. If all they can tell you is you'll know a photocopier back to front by the end of it, then don't take up the offer.

That's all well and good, but the problem is that many of the 'interns' already have years of experience and have just found themselves unemployed. Also some of the 'internships' being advertised are actually just low-paid jobs that the companies are not willing to pay to fill.

What you are describing above is a proper internship experience in a well-run organisation. Those kinds of programmes are actually very beneficial (particularly to someone without any previous experience or recent graduates).

I have come across a lot of situations where work that had been previously farmed out to freelancers in some areas is now being carried-out by 'interns' !!

In this case, the intern had significant previous experience and just found themselves in a position where they had no other job opportunities so had to take an internship up to continue their unemployment benefit payment and to avoid being idle. However, it was having a direct impact on others because their jobs disappeared.

I don't think anyone's really complaining about well-run internship programmes that actually give people valuable experience, rather more about the 'chancers' who are trying to just get free staff paid for by the department of social welfare.

There have been some really ridiculous 'internships' popping up on Job Bridge that are either not providing anything in terms of meaningful experience or that are actually looking for qualified, experienced 'interns'.

The problem is that the scheme is not being policed properly which is just undermining what could be a good programme if it were more tightly managed.

The other issue with Job Bridge is that it's encouraging people to sign-on to get their foot in the door with some companies because there is no other way of getting in as the old internship schemes and entry level positions have vanished in a lot of cases and you cannot access Job Bridge without signing on and claiming!

We'd just want to be a little more aware of the fact that a very well-intentioned scheme could end up being abused and also becoming somewhat counterproductive if it's not a little more carefully monitored, managed and assessed.

Dotsie~tmp

Its just a way of depressing labour costs because they don't have the guts to tackle a minimum wage that is killing job creation and essential services that are so costly people forego essential things like doctor/dental visits and endure pain and ill-health. So little honesty and critical thinking in our governance.

krd

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Its just a way of depressing labour costs because they don't have the guts to tackle a minimum wage that is killing job creation and essential services that are so costly people forego essential things like doctor/dental visits and endure pain and ill-health. So little honesty and critical thinking in our governance.

I didn't know doctors and dentists were on minimum wage.

Heroditas

Sand wrote: »

Having carried out several interviews with graduates for permanent and temporary roles this year, graduates need all the experience they can get. The ones I saw were inarticulate, staggered by some basic questions about information on their CV and were never really able to sell themselves. And those were the ones that didn't have basic spelling or grammatical errors in their CV.

There was clear blue sky between graduates and the more experienced candidates in their interviews, and their CVs. I do feel a great deal of sympathy for graduates in this market. It isn't 2002 anymore. Companies are not desperate to hire - quite the opposite. Unemployment is 14.8% and graduates are competing with people who have 5-10 years experience under their belts who are realistic enough to be willing to work for whats on offer. Even if graduates only get a 9 month internship and a pat on the back at their exit then at least they have 9 months experience to put on their CV and use to sell themselves at the next job interview.

The idea of interns as some sort of free source of labour for companies doesnt make practical sense. You get in an intern, set them up for systems, roles, securities, train them (taking away experienced staff from their duties and hurting their productivity) and build up their experience. You take the risk of them screwing up or aggravating clients and need to have someone ride shotgun on everything they do to control that risk (again hitting productivity of the team). All of this costs time and resources. And by the time they're fairly productive they're gone and you're back to square one with a new intern setting them up for systems, roles, securities and training all over again. And again. And again. "Free" interns rapidly become a semi-permanent drag on the teams productivity.

The maths don't add up unless the Interns are simply photocopying all day long, which isn't really a career so not a job lost. For what its worth, I was very happy when we were able to arrange a permanent role for an intern who really impressed us. If someone is going for one of these intern roles, my advice would be to ask the interviewers if they can explain to you what skills and experience the role offers (its the only benefit an internship promises) by the end of 6-9 months. If all they can tell you is you'll know a photocopier back to front by the end of it, then don't take up the offer.

Sums up my thoughts exactly.
I got my company to take on an intern this year and we have now made him permanent.
Some of the other people I interviewed were dreadful.
We've invested a lot of time in him and he's now on the books.
He certainly didn't spend the time photocopying or making tea though. He spent a lot of time shadowing me and learning.

Brussels Sprout

Heroditas wrote: »

Sums up my thoughts exactly.
I got my company to take on an intern this year and we have now made him permanent.
Some of the other people I interviewed were dreadful.
We've invested a lot of time in him and he's now on the books.
He certainly didn't spend the time photocopying or making tea though. He spent a lot of time shadowing me and learning.

And that's a good and fair use of the programme. Unfortunately not every business is so scrupulous. What people are complaining about are the roles that are clearly just looking for free labour to carry out an unskilled job. For example, I just went to the website and on the front page of the available internships I found a receptionist and a shop assistant.

Heroditas

Oh I agree that those types of "internship", i.e. exploitation should be cracked down on.

RacoonQueen

Sand wrote: »

The idea of interns as some sort of free source of labour for companies doesnt make practical sense. You get in an intern, set them up for systems, roles, securities, train them (taking away experienced staff from their duties and hurting their productivity) and build up their experience. You take the risk of them screwing up or aggravating clients and need to have someone ride shotgun on everything they do to control that risk (again hitting productivity of the team). All of this costs time and resources. And by the time they're fairly productive they're gone and you're back to square one with a new intern setting them up for systems, roles, securities and training all over again. And again. And again. "Free" interns rapidly become a semi-permanent drag on the teams productivity.

The maths don't add up unless the Interns are simply photocopying all day long, which isn't really a career so not a job lost. For what its worth, I was very happy when we were able to arrange a permanent role for an intern who really impressed us. If someone is going for one of these intern roles, my advice would be to ask the interviewers if they can explain to you what skills and experience the role offers (its the only benefit an internship promises) by the end of 6-9 months. If all they can tell you is you'll know a photocopier back to front by the end of it, then don't take up the offer.

I think you're missing the point that the vast majority of internships on this scheme are not training people to do anything. They may in your company treat it as an actual internship but most are just free labour. Shop assistants, admin staff(9 months to learn how to file and answer phones?), hotel housekeeping staff, hospital clerical staff, hospital portering staff, classroom assistants, warehouse staff. The list is endless.

There are also a lot of internships looking for years of experience, they're entitled to say a degree is desirable but to ask for a degree and years of experience is not an internship.