Visa discrimination

Shy Ted

Just saw a job advertised online that stated
" We do not sponsor or employ people on any type of visa".

Can employers actually state that?
I understand that they may not want to employ people on holiday visas, but it sounds like they are excluding permanent residents too.
It's not like it's a defence related position either, it's in retail.

Zambia

Shy Ted wrote: »

Just saw a job advertised online that stated
" We do not sponsor or employ people on any type of visa".

Can employers actually state that?
I understand that they may not want to employ people on holiday visas, but it sounds like they are excluding permanent residents too.
It's not like it's a defence related position either, it's in retail.

Do you have a link to that.chances are its just worded badly

Shy Ted

I don't want to name them, but there is a spelling typo.
Maybe they're not aware of permanent residency visas?

Anyway, here's the last paragraph of the advertisement.

All applicants will be kept in strictest confidence.
You will need to forward a resume to the manager to be considered.
We expect resumes to be detailed and showing full work history with references.
References will only be contacted on consultation with applicants.

We do not sponsor or employee people on any type of visa.

Edgarfrndly

Quick google found it: http://www.seek.com.au/job/28626101

Zambia

You can imagine they have had a few whv in that role and don't want more.

Chances are they are unaware of pr visas.

If they were informed to change it to you must have the right to live and work permanently in Australia it would be clearer

Shy Ted

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Quick google found it: http://www.seek.com.au/job/28626101

Yeah I know. Not a big fan of naming and shaming, but typos are incredibly helpful .

Shy Ted

Zambia wrote: »

You can imagine they have had a few whv in that role and don't want more.

Chances are they are unaware of pr visas.

If they were informed to change it to you must have the right to live and work permanently in Australia it would be clearer

I agree, but I just wasn't too sure.
There's so much talk of racism out here, its hard to know.

mandrake04

Shy Ted wrote: »

I don't want to name them, but there is a spelling typo.
Maybe they're not aware of permanent residency visas?

Permanent Resident visa only last 5 years, your visa can expire and you can still live in Australia as a Permanent Resident without being on any sort of visa.

You only need a visa to re-enter the country like a RRV.

I would say like many others they class PRs the same as citizens, I do it myself and often refer to temporary visa holders as "being on a visa" where I would call a PR a resident.

Also I can't see how it's racism never mentioned in the ad about race.

jank

mandrake04 wrote: »

Permanent Resident visa only last 5 years, your visa can expire and you can still live in Australia as a Permanent Resident without being on any sort of visa.

You only need a visa to re-enter the country like a RRV.

I would say like many others they class PRs the same as citizens, I do it myself and often refer to temporary visa holders as "being on a visa" where I would call a PR a resident.

Also I can't see how it's racism never mentioned in the ad about race.

Agree, people mistake Australian bluntness and directness as racism due to growing up in Ireland where directness is a social no no.

Peregrinus

Actaully, this is unlawful, at least as stated. Under the Race Discrimination Act 1975 it is unlawful to discriminate in employment on the grounds of (among other things) immigrant status.

I suspect what they actually mean is that they, as employers, will not sponsor people or otherwise do anything to assist you in retaining your visa. If that's what they mean, that wouldn't be unlawful. But what they have said is that they won't employ people on any type of visa, including PR, and including visas which allow unrestricted work. That's unlawful. They need to correct their ad so that it says what they actually mean. As it stands, the ad would discourage the holder of a PR visa or similar from applying, so it's discriminatory in effect even if not in intent.

Zambia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actaully, this is unlawful, at least as stated. Under the Race Discrimination Act 1975 it is unlawful to discriminate in employment on the grounds of (among other things) immigrant status.

I suspect what they actually mean is that they, as employers, will not sponsor people or otherwise do anything to assist you in retaining your visa. If that's what they mean, that wouldn't be unlawful. But what they have said is that they won't employ people on any type of visa, including PR, and including visas which allow unrestricted work. That's unlawful. They need to correct their ad so that it says what they actually mean. As it stands, the ad would discourage the holder of a PR visa or similar from applying, so it's discriminatory in effect even if not in intent.

I would agree in effect it is worded badly.

The most likely scenario is the owner of the business is a bit jaded hiring stylist after stylist and having them leave.

Hairdressers (not that I am a huge user of their facility's) do tend to have repeat business. People call up and ask for "their" hairdresser. I would imagine the owner wants a core set of staff with a core set of customers.

Its not really discriminating if you want the person to have permanent work rights to Australia. Its like the first requirement of any job.

"Can you legally work here?"
"Ah no"

"Right well thanks for coming in"

Shy Ted

mandrake04 wrote: »

Also I can't see how it's racism never mentioned in the ad about race.

jank wrote: »

Agree, people mistake Australian bluntness and directness as racism due to growing up in Ireland where directness is a social no no.

I wasn't saying that the ad was racist, and to be honest I don't think that the Aussies are.
Any that I've met so far have been great. I was just wondering if this could be an exception?

Someone showed me this, and I guess it got me wondering.
I recently spoke with the HR manager with a software company that does some consultancy work on the side. They were looking for an engineer to assist the sales team with demonstrations and do some consultancy too. The ad wasn't too specific about whom should apply, but I applied too late and candidates were already shortlisted.
Anyway, I had an informal chat with the HR Manager and she said that she thought I had loads of experience but she'd never hire me because I didn't have the local experience.
If it were building services, civil, structural etc... I'd understand but this would have been more generic with less regulations.
All the same, it just leaves it difficult to get your foot in the door.


BTW, I think Zambia's theory is right though.

Peregrinus

You don't have to use the words "race" or "black" or "foreign" or similar in your ad in order for the ad to have a racially discriminatory impact.

If you indicate that you'll only employee people who are entitled to work long-term in Australia (which Zambia suggests - I think rightly - is what the employer intends here) that's going to impact adversely on the holders of visas which only permit short-term work. That will disproportionately impact certain races or ethnic groups which are over-represented in that group. But the employer can justify the restriction on the grounds that being in a position to make a long-term commitment to the job is a reasonable requirement to impose.

But if, as in this case, he indicates that he won't employ anybody but citizens, that's also going to impact certain races/ethnic groups disproportionately, and I don't think the employer is going to be able to justify it.

What matters is not the words the employer uses so much as the effect the employers actions have. In this case, if Zambia is correct, the employer probably wouldn't knock back an application from the holder of a PR visa. But he is less likely to get that application, because the poor wording of his ad discourages them from applying. That's (unintended) direct discrimination on the basis of immigration status, which is forbidden. But I think it's probably also unintended indirect discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic background, which is also forbidden.

Mellor

I'd assume that just meant they the looking for somebody with permanent work rights, rather than excluding PR.

Zambia

Centrelink wont hire you if you are not a citizen.

Bu they will give you benefits on PR .....go figure

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if, as in this case, he indicates that he won't employ anybody but citizens, that's also going to impact certain races/ethnic groups disproportionately, and I don't think the employer is going to be able to justify it.

As an aside I have seen plenty of job ads where you must be a citizen to apply, especially public sector or government. Is it only the private sector so that has to follow rules regarding these adds?

Would stating in an add that you must be an Australian Citizen to work in this job, not disproportionately affect certain groups?

Peregrinus

Yes, but there's an exemption in the Act which allows government jobs to be reserved to citizens. A private sector employer can't do this (except, perhaps, in very limited circumstances - e.g. a contractor providing labour for some government project which requires security clearance).

GladWrap

A private sector employer can do this and they do this routinely as exemptions to the Anti Discrimination Act are available in certain situations. In terms of a contractor labourer providing services in a government sanctioned restricted environment, this happens all the time. For example, many people who worked on the Collins Class subs in Adelaide were on visas. The same will happen again, no doubt, when Japan takes over the project on the same dock.

ObeyTheSuit

Zambia wrote: »

Centrelink wont hire you if you are not a citizen.

Bu they will give you benefits on PR .....go figure

I think welfare is Federal. To work in Federal Gov you are required to be a citizen funnily enough not the same requirements for state gov

edit: Also would like to note that some employers may have defense contracts which requires security clearance which in turn requires citizenship.

GladWrap

Generally, a security clearance does not require citizenship. That would be dependent on the position of employment.

Mellor

GladWrap wrote: »

Generally, a security clearance does not require citizenship. That would be dependent on the position of employment.

I think what he is saying is one of the requirements for security clearance for defense contracts is citizenship.

ObeyTheSuit

I did some research for non-DoD stuff. You can apply for a position in Federal Gov however you must have a traceable history to be security cleared and they retain the right to disallow non-citizens from applying (this job / departmental specific). They even mention on their site that you are expected to be a citizen. This is Fed gov only. Not really on topic I admit, but it explains why you can't work for the Fed. A lot of Gov just don't want to go through the hassle to be honest and just do a blanket no.

As an example a few years back I couldn't work for a particular part of Telstra's operations (Irish equiv to Eircom) because they handled some of DoD's security network. I was told non-citizen, not happening.

ArseBurger

GladWrap wrote: »

Generally, a security clearance does not require citizenship. That would be dependent on the position of employment.

DSD clearance is required to work on government networks. Citizenship is mandatory.