What do you think of JobBridge?

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

ECDL? Anyone who has a non-arts degree will know more than what's covered by the ECDL.

He's right you know. I passed my ECDL but when i broke down on the side of the road, I couldn't even find the dipstick on my Macbook Air.

There should be some night-time computer training as well as a bit of skid pan traning to avoid crashes.

allybhoy

Our company (IT provider) took five lads in off jobridge over a period of time, 3 of them are now engineers with us, other two lads were wasters who will probably never find full time employment. The three who we took on were hard working and eager to learn and have since done very well for themselves in the company and gone on to get further qualifications that will help them in their career. Im sure there are plenty of other success stories out there but you never hear about them. Your more likely to hear about the other guys who were lazy, incompetent and useless and will blame everything but themselves...including the government. Not saying every company and situation is like this but there are a lot of success stories out there that you simply dont hear about.

Rubberchikken

i thought some jobs have a person doing up to 39 hours a week on job bridge? i stand corrected if so.

don't have an issue with it as such, but some companies take the pee and they have to be flushed out (pun not intended).

in a proper company, a person could learn some valuable things but it really all depends on how professional and fair the person/people in charge are, and that can be a gamble.

truedoom

Wolf Club wrote: »

I haven't yet heard of one where an intern was learning for the entirety of the internship.

I did. was in an IT helpdesk.

Learned a **** load every day.

Network Administration, Windows Server Administration, Building servers.

Even got a load of experience with building Citrix Xenapp environment and managing that.

Had a great experience with Jobsbridge tbh, but i'm one of the few.

Ferris_Bueller

I think JobBridge has taken away too many entry level jobs. I graduated from college in May and have found it difficult to get employment relative to my degree, I've been working part time for the past 2 years so I'm ineligible for all of these JobBridge schemes that are going, and there are very little actual jobs going for people like myself. I'd gladly work for minimum wage in a lot of these advertised internships but JobBridge is actually encouraging me to go on the social welfare, hopefully it won't come to that stage.

Wolf Club

truedoom wrote: »

I did. was in an IT helpdesk.

Learned a **** load every day.

Network Administration, Windows Server Administration, Building servers.

Even got a load of experience with building Citrix Xenapp environment and managing that.

Had a great experience with Jobsbridge tbh, but i'm one of the few.

That's good to hear, I'm glad it worked out for you.

Another issues I'd have with it is companies advertising a position that is well above the station of the job actually being offered. A guy I know started one recently that was advertised as "Data analytics", the only thing he's had to do since starting is use Excel.

KomradeBishop

hfallada wrote: »

The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment.

No, it's the lack of enough jobs...

Iwasfrozen

I like jobbridge. It's a good opportunity for graduates to get more experience. You have to be careful though. Only ever do a scheme if it's 1. Relevant to your interests / career choice and 2. You have an understanding with the manager / HR that you will be employed at the end.

Otherwise don't do it.

hfallada

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, it's the lack of enough jobs...

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

Iwasfrozen

hfallada wrote: »

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

More than that there are only a lack of jobs if you consider the number of available jobs fixed. A view that flies in the face of contemporary economics. Even the type Komrade subscribes to.

Valetta

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

Where did you come up with that little nugget?

KomradeBishop

hfallada wrote: »

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

That's not evidence that there are enough jobs. I think you'll notice we're not in a boom now either.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

More than that there are only a lack of jobs if you consider the number of available jobs fixed. A view that flies in the face of contemporary economics. Even the type Komrade subscribes to.

We're talking about the present - there are not enough jobs now - we're not talking about some undetermined point in the future, when more jobs have been made available (who knows when we'll have enough jobs to bring unemployment back to desired levels?).

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're talking about the present - there are not enough jobs now - we're not talking about some undetermined point in the future, when more jobs have been made available (who knows when we'll have enough jobs to bring unemployment back to desired levels?).

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

66ad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

How are policies like supplying free labour, going to create more payable jobs. When they can just hire an intern for free?

Iwasfrozen

66ad wrote: »

How are policies like supplying free labour, going to create more payable jobs. When they can just hire an intern for free?

1. The intern over the course of the placement will have gained experience and skill in the desired sector which a new intern will not have. The company will have to invest time and effort training a new intern. This is assuming a worthwhile placement and not some micky mouse placement making sandwiches which I've advised against taking.

2. Jobbridge is designed to work with Jobsplus so after nine months there will be a financial incentive available for the company to take interns on. (I can't remember how much exactly but it's a couple thousand, nothing to be sniffed at)

66ad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. The intern over the course of the placement will have gained experience and skill in the desired sector which a new intern will not have. The company will have to invest time and effort training a new intern. This is assuming a worthwhile placement and not some micky mouse placement making sandwiches which I've advised against taking.

2. Jobbridge is designed to work with Jobsplus so after nine months there will be a financial incentive available for the company to take interns on. (I can't remember how much exactly but it's a couple thousand, nothing to be sniffed at)

1. Most companies are looking for experince in the jobsbridge intern they are adveritising.

2.Why pay someone when you can just hire someone with the experince for free.

Iwasfrozen

66ad wrote: »

1. Most companies are looking for experince in the jobsbridge intern they are adveritising.

2.Why pay someone when you can just hire someone with the experince for free.

1. I would say that should be against the rules, in my view.

2. Because you'll have to spend time training him, he's not going to be motivated and he'll leave you high and dry as soon as he gets a real job. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Don't think I'm defending Jobbridge here, government interference in the market is nearly always negative and this is no exception but for those who can't get a job you might as well make the best you can out of it and next election vote for a government that will stay out of the market.

Ace2007

allybhoy wrote: »

Our company (IT provider) took five lads in off jobridge over a period of time, 3 of them are now engineers with us, other two lads were wasters who will probably never find full time employment. The three who we took on were hard working and eager to learn and have since done very well for themselves in the company and gone on to get further qualifications that will help them in their career. Im sure there are plenty of other success stories out there but you never hear about them. Your more likely to hear about the other guys who were lazy, incompetent and useless and will blame everything but themselves...including the government. Not saying every company and situation is like this but there are a lot of success stories out there that you simply dont hear about.

being curious, how long did you keep the other 2 working, when it was clear they wouldn't be kept on (probably take you about 1/2 months) where they told and let go, or where they kept on for the full 6/9 months?

secondly do you actually hire anyone straight from say college and pay them a wage and train them up, or do you take the "free labour" option and see whose good/not good and then make a decision?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

No, we aren't discussing any of that. This is what I was replying to:
"The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment."

In reply to that, I said that no - the greatest barrier is that there are not enough jobs.

Simple factual statement about the present - not interested into being roped into a wider discussion.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, we aren't discussing any of that. This is what I was replying to:
"The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment."

In reply to that, I said that no - the greatest barrier is that there are not enough jobs.

Simple factual statement about the present - not interested into being roped into a wider discussion.

Fair enough, pardon me for assuming we were discussing the topic of the thread.

Tarzana2

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

I think JobBridge has taken away too many entry level jobs. I graduated from college in May and have found it difficult to get employment relative to my degree, I've been working part time for the past 2 years so I'm ineligible for all of these JobBridge schemes that are going, and there are very little actual jobs going for people like myself. I'd gladly work for minimum wage in a lot of these advertised internships but JobBridge is actually encouraging me to go on the social welfare, hopefully it won't come to that stage.

This is exactly the problem with it. Many of the internships are attractive to new grads, but if you have a part-time job, you can't apply for them!

Mr. Incognito

Job bridge is just a way to halve the minimum wage to erode the cost base for companies here.

Cant afford the minimum wage of EUR8.65 p/h

No problem. Pay worker 1 EUR8.65 p/h and worker 2 EUR1.02 and your average cost makes us cheap as chips.

Course one worker is getting absolutely shafted but sure arent the just glad to be getting the "experience".

It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem when the Unions rode the arse off sucessive governments to jack the minimum wage and drive inflation up

GarIT

I think it is a good system, could be implemented better but a positive start.

The taxpayer is not responsible for supporting the unemployed, it is something that is done for a few reasons, humanity, reducing crime rates and other reasons. I'm a fan of the tribal model, if you're too old, too young or unable to hunt the tribe will help you out, but if you are capable of hunting but wont, you starve. We should scrap unemployment benefit where possible, the government should provide a relevant JobBridge job to anyone unemployed as soon as they become unemployed if possible. Where not possible they can receive the dole, turn down a job without a great reason and you get nothing.

JobBridge could be restructured. It should pay minimum wage. Companies that have a conversion rate of interns to job offers of less than 50% should be kicked off the scheme. The interns should cost the company more so they are not abused as much as cheap labour.

That carry on of being allowed wait for something relevant needs to be stopped though. If you have an degree in certain subjects you should be treated as having no degree and be made accept any job, if you have less than a 2:1 you should be treated as if you have no degree. I have actually heard of somebody that was allowed refuse a job because it wasn't relevant to her degree, a scraped pass in Irish & ancient Celtic studies. The reality with a lot of degrees is that no relevant jobs exist.

jos22

GarIT wrote: »

I think it is a good system, could be implemented better but a positive start.

The taxpayer is not responsible for supporting the unemployed, it is something that is done for a few reasons, humanity, reducing crime rates and other reasons. I'm a fan of the tribal model, if you're too old, too young or unable to hunt the tribe will help you out, but if you are capable of hunting but wont, you starve. We should scrap unemployment benefit where possible, the government should provide a relevant JobBridge job to anyone unemployed as soon as they become unemployed if possible. Where not possible they can receive the dole, turn down a job without a great reason and you get nothing.

JobBridge could be restructured. It should pay minimum wage. Companies that have a conversion rate of interns to job offers of less than 50% should be kicked off the scheme. The interns should cost the company more so they are not abused as much as cheap labour.

That carry on of being allowed wait for something relevant needs to be stopped though. If you have an degree in certain subjects you should be treated as having no degree and be made accept any job, if you have less than a 2:1 you should be treated as if you have no degree. I have actually heard of somebody that was allowed refuse a job because it wasn't relevant to her degree, a scraped pass in Irish & ancient Celtic studies. The reality with a lot of degrees is that no relevant jobs exist.

it must vary from office to office. the office I used deal with it made it clear that you must apply to any position that you are capable of doing and not a particular job that you want to do and the particular officer in question enforced it too. she was hated by one who choose not to work, but any genuine JSA had no issues with her

Mr. Incognito

GarIT wrote: »

I think it is a good system, could be implemented better but a positive start.

The taxpayer is not responsible for supporting the unemployed, it is something that is done for a few reasons, humanity, reducing crime rates and other reasons. I'm a fan of the tribal model, if you're too old, too young or unable to hunt the tribe will help you out, but if you are capable of hunting but wont, you starve. We should scrap unemployment benefit where possible, the government should provide a relevant JobBridge job to anyone unemployed as soon as they become unemployed if possible. Where not possible they can receive the dole, turn down a job without a great reason and you get nothing.

JobBridge could be restructured. It should pay minimum wage. Companies that have a conversion rate of interns to job offers of less than 50% should be kicked off the scheme. The interns should cost the company more so they are not abused as much as cheap labour.

That carry on of being allowed wait for something relevant needs to be stopped though. If you have an degree in certain subjects you should be treated as having no degree and be made accept any job, if you have less than a 2:1 you should be treated as if you have no degree. I have actually heard of somebody that was allowed refuse a job because it wasn't relevant to her degree, a scraped pass in Irish & ancient Celtic studies. The reality with a lot of degrees is that no relevant jobs exist.

I have a lot of issues with this but I just want to make sure you understand the basic mechanics of job bridge.

On the dole the state pays you 187 a week odd.

On job bridge the state pays you 187 a week odd and the employer pays you an additional fifty euro.

It is not saving the state one cent.

You do grasp this dont you? Your post appears not to.

Also there are 300,000 unemployed. There are not 300,000 jobs to fill, even if everyone worked for free.

jos22

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have a lot of issues with this but I just want to make sure you understand the basic mechanics of job bridge.

On the dole the state pays you 187 a week odd.

On job bridge the state pays you 187 a week odd and the employer pays you an additional fifty euro.

It is not saving the state one cent.

You do grasp this dont you? Your post appears not to.

the states pays the the 188 + 50 euro top on job bridge

employers pays you nothing

Mr. Incognito

jos22 wrote: »

the states pays the the 188 + 50 euro top on job bridge

employers pays you nothing

Wow. So it costs the state to subsidise slave labour.

B.A._Baracus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have a lot of issues with this but I just want to make sure you understand the basic mechanics of job bridge.

On the dole the state pays you 187 a week odd.

On job bridge the state pays you 187 a week odd and the employer pays you an additional fifty euro.

It is not saving the state one cent.

You do grasp this dont you? Your post appears not to.

Also there are 300,000 unemployed. There are not 300,000 jobs to fill, even if everyone worked for free.

You really built yourself up there to have a hard fall :pac:
As Jos22 said... the state pays the extra 50.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Wow. So it costs the state to subsidise slave labour.

Nice try for a save :pac:

Iwasfrozen

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Wow. So it costs the state to subsidise slave labour.

It's not slave labour, it's a chance to upskill. Having said that the company should really pay the 50 euro.