The Jobbridge Scandal

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, but it was you, just an hour or so ago, who suggested that the 1 in 10 figure for companies who would have offered employment in the absence of jobbridge indicated a miniscule displacement rate of 0.0092%.

I was pointing out that the displacement rate is higher than the one you mistakenly calculated.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And this is a true statement, as the report shows. No one claims it was 100% replacing real jobs though.

Why do you have such an issue with the scheme being regulated properly?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fg1406

I have 3 friends who took part in the scheme. 1 with a positive experience, the other 2 with a negative one. 1 ultimately ended up being hired by the firm, one was a qualified teacher working in a shop (at a register all day) and the theirs was given a 6 month contract after her internship ended, once that ended she was let go and another JobBridge intern hired in her place.

What bugs me just as much as the pointless "car wash attendant" internships are ones in the public sector whereby there are zero chances of getting employment at the end of the term. That's plain exploitation. If you need someone to clean your wards or do your admin, hire them or redeploy them.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why do you have such an issue with the scheme being regulated properly?

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes you were. You comment on displacing paid employees and produce a figure of 0.0092%.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

This post had been deleted.

Yes, I know it refers to the participating organisations. My point is, why take the 1 in 10 figure and talk about specualtive displacement rates when that it not what the 1 in 10 figure refers to (you would have us believe it was only 6.4% however).

Permabear wrote: »

No matter how you look at it, the "real jobs are being replaced by internships" line of argument has no traction. It's a hysterical fabrication.

I have never argued that line though, so I don't know why you keep making that point to me.

your argument has been along the lines of:

Permabear: Anybody talking about capitalist exploitation is a quasi-Marxist whinger.

Me: What are the figures?

Permabear: only 6.4%, nothing really.

Me: higher for the bigger companies, just over 10%.

Permabear: still nothing really.

Me: Goes up to 29% when you combine the two positive answer choices.

Permabear: Still nothing really.

Jobbridge in its design is limited so as to not be a threat to real employment. Some people have argued that it is a threat, but i'm not one of them. To argue that it is not as bad as some people make out does not mean that there is not a problem with it.

osarusan

Anyhow I've said what I had to say on this issue.

I think that the jobbridge scheme is a potentially valuable scheme which is woefully mismanaged. The government should be scrutinising potential hosts far far more rigorously than they are. They should be asking for detailed proposals from each host applicant, in which the host outlines the programme of the internship, what the intern will learn, when they will learn it, and who they will learn it from. The proposal should also explain how long the internship is, why it is that long, and should be compared to regular training/probation periods for that company. With these conditions, it could be a scheme that really does help people gain valuable skills and help companies find valuable employees (as it already is/does in some cases).

Instead, it's a scheme for which virtually any company can apply, type up some generic fluff about formal/informal training in all aspects of everything, and the company can know that jobbridge won't even check the advertisment unless somebody reports it.

The idea that companies like Tesco should be allowed to take on interns for positions floor staff for 9 months is indefensible, but yet it is defended on here as a valuable opportunity. Having said that, I don't subscribe to the argument that jobbridge is a serious thread to real employment, as the figures don't support that.


Good luck to anybody unemployed with their jobhunting.

PopePalpatine

runawaybishop wrote: »

Why do you have such an issue with the scheme being regulated properly?

Because regulation is EEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIL!!! :rolleyes:

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why do you have such an issue with the scheme being regulated properly?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:pac::pac::pac: Why do you have such an issue with the scheme being regulated properly? :pac::pac::pac:

donegal11

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know fine well that host organisations are never going to admit displacing/replacing paid jobs so that statistic is pointless(massively underestimated). Even at government level the scheme is actively displacing/replacing paid roles and anyone browsing fas would see the same internships advertised after every 9 or so months by the same companies(obviously a needed role) or positions that were jobs magically turned into internships. I have even heard of people going for paid roles and being asked would they be willing to do an internship. The statistics are being manipulated by government and when success is defined as getting work within 6 months no matter how short a contract is equally meaningless. I would bet controlled groups would see marginal employee benefit and a deadweight loss.

yankinlk

donegal11 wrote: »

You know fine well that host organisations are never going to admit displacing/replacing paid jobs so that statistic is pointless(massively underestimated). Even at government level the scheme is actively displacing/replacing paid roles and anyone browsing fas would see the same internships advertised after every 9 or so months by the same companies(obviously a needed role)

if you throw out one statistic then throw out all, u cant pick and choose the poll questions u only like to make your points.

on your second point, its not that simple. in the multi i work in we had job losses alongside jobsbridge for the last 2 years. there was never going to be job displacement. every jb was told the truth from the start, and they witnessed the layoffs during their internship. without jobsbridge, they never would have had the chance to get any experience in our place.

allibastor

A company I used to work for has placed an AD for an intern again, It will be the 6th intern in 2.2 years that they have used.
The company provides labour solutions to Northern Europe and does make very good money, but still uses interns as they are free. Even the wording on all the intern ads have changed, different job titles etc. to ensure they can get free workers.

Glad I am out of there, it sickens me that companies who can afford it are still bleeding the system dry.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

allibastor wrote: »

A company I used to work for has placed an AD for an intern again, It will be the 6th intern in 2.2 years that they have used.
The company provides labour solutions to Northern Europe and does make very good money, but still uses interns as they are free. Even the wording on all the intern ads have changed, different job titles etc. to ensure they can get free workers.

Glad I am out of there, it sickens me that companies who can afford it are still bleeding the system dry.

Name and same. You're not working there any more so have nothing to lose.

allibastor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Name and same. You're not working there any more so have nothing to lose.

If a mod gives me the OK then I will, but I don't want to get in trouble.

runawaybishop

Joan on todayfm there this morning. i missed the end when Ray was asking her about abuses in the scheme, what did she say?

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again you're making use of the 'lump of labour' fallacy as a straw-man, when nobody argued that the number of jobs is static.

Moreover, the stats you provided prove that job loss is happening, you only disagree on the degree of job losses - it's a variety of special pleading, "that does not pass my subjective threshold to be considered as 'real' job loss, so it doesn't count".

I don't argue myself, that Job Bridge causes any significant displacement/job-losses, given how small the number of people is in the program - but you're showing a deliberately selective interpretation of the stats, to make logically definitive statements that are contradicted by the same stats - i.e. non-sequiturs which don't follow from the stats you provide.


I would not be surprised if this deliberate black/white framing "there is only a small amount of job loss, so there is no job loss", is for trying to get people to point out your inconsistency, and then accuse them of arguing the opposite extreme "Job Bridge leads to widescale job loss (as a percentage of the labour force)" - even though, from what I can see, nobody does argue that, yet that is the straw-man you are countering, pretending it is peoples actual argument.

It's manufacturing endless straw-men, to keep the debate spinning, to create opportunities for soapboxing, such as this zombie-argument that has been debunked dozens of times:

Permabear wrote: »

JobBridge gives interns the experience, skills, and references they need to compete for new jobs. Its impact on levels of paid employment is positive rather than negative, given the high numbers of interns who transition to paid employment after participating in the scheme.

Fallacy of Composition again - which you know the 'lump of labour' attempt at counterargument is a straw-man, since nothing here argues that the number of jobs is fixed (a requirement for the 'lump of labour' fallacy):
Fallacy of Composition|Reality
"JobBridge reduces unemployment"|JobBridge helps some unemployed workers, compete against the rest of the unemployed, for the same number of jobs (with exceptions for skill-shortage roles - with no stats to quantify JobBridge's contribution here). This does not rule out non-Job-Bridge changes to job/unemployment numbers.
"Removing minimum wage boosts employment"|This can reduce wages/aggregate-demand/business-profits and then reduce employment.
"Slashes wages can boost employment"|For the same reasons as above, can reduce employment.
"People can get a job, they just need to put more effort in and try harder, to retrain into skilled roles that are in demand"|There are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how hard they all try or how much effort they collectively put in.
"In a worldwide economic downturn, people can get a job, they just need to emigrate"|In a worldwide downturn, similar to above, there are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how many emigrate.
"Competing on exports (e.g. by slashing wages) can bring recovery"|If all of the world tries to import less and export more all at once (which a great many of our trading partners are, due to the economic crisis), they will all fail, and it will be a race-to-the-bottom in wages/living-standards.
"Cutting government spending and increasing taxes (austerity) can bring recovery"|Cutting government spending and increasing taxes, reduces aggregate demand, which harms employment and economic activity.
"A government budget surplus is good"|A budget surplus, without adequate exports to offset the money this removes from the private sector, can drain the private sector of money and cause an over-reliance on credit/debt (which can create an unsustainable debt bubble).

There are no stats showing any decrease in unemployment from Job Bridge, but there are stats showing an increase in jobs lost; it is possible that the net total of jobs created by Job Bridge (e.g. for roles with skill shortages), outnumbers the total number of displaced jobs (and not every displacement equals unemployment) - but you provide no stats on that whatsoever, you just cherry pick unrepresentative stats and ignore the fallacy of composition.

billy the squid

allibastor wrote: »

If a mod gives me the OK then I will, but I don't want to get in trouble.

contact jobbridge@welfare.ie with the details of the company.

billy the squid

runawaybishop wrote: »

Joan on todayfm there this morning. i missed the end when Ray was asking her about abuses in the scheme, what did she say?

she spouted the usual line about how many inspections they carried out and how many host organisations there were. In all Ray Darcy gave her a very softball interview. the discriminatory nature of JobBridge wasn't even brought up

Penny Tration

Oh, fcuk this. Time to unsubscribe from this thread.

Before I do, though - my bf reached 3 months of unemployment the other day, and was called in (again) and told he had to apply for internships or risk his dole being cut.

He refused. They said they'd cut his dole.

He got a full time, decent wage job offer this morning. Bye bye, jobbridge.

NZ_2014

I agree with the sentiment of what scambridge are doing, but asking for a €13 minimum wage under their "RealJobs" proposal is a bit ridiculous and makes them look a bit silly.