rottenage wrote: » im 25 and an un qualified chef my partner is also 25 we have a 2 & 1/2 year old and another due soon, i want to know exactly what it will take to emigrate to australia, ie; cost to get set up house, car flights and visas, were would be best to go? i have relatives native to australia will this help my cause, should i get in touch with them?
markymark21 wrote: » Pretty easy to get sponsored as a chef. Even with the changes from July 1st it shouldn't matter too much. In the summer the job websites are rammed full of ads looking for chefs Even the fact that your unqualified probably won't matter. In many cases with the consolidated sponsor list they ask for a number of years experience OR a qualification
danotroy wrote: » Good advice Mark i didn't want to be so positive and get the OP's hopes up as sponsorship in hospitality seems all rosey but its not as easy as it seems. As i said i read that chefs are the top 457 visa skill sort. How is your visa/sponsorship coming along mark?
markymark21 wrote: » Should go through this week.. Poxy employers ain't paying for it though, and they use a migration agent so it's gonna be cost me a few weeks wages unfortunately. At least I'll have the piece of mind I guess
Batgurl wrote: » No offence Mark but this makes my blood boil. Peace of mind? Your sponsored. That ain't a guaranteed visa by a long shot. And making you pay for the dang thing? And through an agency of their choosing? Screams dodge to me. If an employer really values you, they will stump up the costs of keeping you. Do you know how much some places pay recruitment agencies to get them good Aussie staff. Makes the 457 visa cost look like a bargain and yet they still make the John pay it? The more people put up with this the more it will happen. Hospitality by its very nature tends to be higher turnover of staff so you may find yourself wanting to move again in a year. Sorry, i know that seemed like a rant but its more getting annoyed for you and not wanting you to get taken advantage of. I hope it all works out for you.
Batgurl wrote: » No offence Mark but this makes my blood boil. Peace of mind? Your sponsored. That ain't a guaranteed visa by a long shot.o And making you pay for the dang thing? And through an agency of their choosing? Screams dodge to me. If an employer really values you, they will stump up the costs of keeping you. Do you know how much some places pay recruitment agencies to get them good Aussie staff. Makes the 457 visa cost look like a bargain and yet they still make the John pay it? The more people put up with this the more it will happen. Hospitality by its very nature tends to be higher turnover of staff so you may find yourself wanting to move again in a year. Sorry, i know that seemed like a rant but its more getting annoyed for you and not wanting you to get taken advantage of. I hope it all works out for you.
danotroy wrote: » I hope it works out for you too Mark but be wary and have a contingency ($) plan. There are countless stories of people getting shafted in hospitality sponsorship situations.
rottenage wrote: » i failed to mention my partner is qualified in childcare, so i could probably look for a job that doesnt particulary need a qualiication, ie bar work and the likes which i have plenty expierence
danotroy wrote: » IIRC chefs are the number one 457 visa holders,
Batgurl wrote: » And making you pay for the dang thing? And through an agency of their choosing? Screams dodge to me.
Mellor wrote: » That's ridiculous. It's not at all uncommon to go through a agent and for the applicant to pat for it. I don't see how that's dodgy in any way.
Batgurl wrote: » How is it ridiculous?
The basic premise of the 457 visa scheme is for employers to source skills which are in short supply/they cannot located in Australia.
While I know in recent times its tilted to favour employees who may struggle to find work in their own country, the fact is, its still there to benefit employers.
Making an employee pay for their own visa (which is supposed to be benefiting the employer) strikes me as unusual but I could probably get over that condition if they were happy for the employee to do the paperwork etc themselves. But combining it with an instruction to only use their designated visa agent? Unnecessary and should be raising red flags.
Mellor wrote: » An awful lot of the time the applicant (such as MarkyMark above) wants to be sponsored. They request it, and the company is willing to help them out. To improve their chances of sponsorship most people are willing to pay costs. If they really want to stay, they'd be idiots not to. I'm not sure whats worse, that you can't understand that, or that you choose to ignore it to highlight that it must be dodgy.
Mellor wrote: » To improve their chances of sponsorship most people are willing to pay costs. If they really want to stay, they'd be idiots not to.
Mellor wrote: » No they aren't. The largest industry for 457s is construction. And the most common occupations are Project Managers, then Programmers and then managers. That's last years numbers, cook/chef did see a huge increase, but not the no.1
danotroy wrote: » is it totally above board to ask the applicant to pay for the visa?
Mellor wrote: » The applicant is supposed to pay for the visa. The company is supposed to pay for the SBS and nomination. Strictly speaking, the company is not supposed to seek the costs of the 457 from the applicant, but in reality its a burden people should be willing to accept. AFAIK its not unlawful for the applicant to offer to pay costs to secure the position/visa offer. This would be in the case of people in current positions on WHVs looking to extend their stay. When people are sponsored from ireland, the employer tends to be the one wants the visa, so they cover costs (inc moving, flights etc)
Obligation not to recover certain costs from a skilled worker or secondary sponsored person You must not recover, or seek to recover, from the skilled worker or any of their family members, all or part of the costs (including migration agent costs): that relate specifically to the recruitment of the skilled worker associated with becoming or being a sponsor or former approved sponsor.
What are the new measures? strengthening the existing obligation regarding recovery of costs to ensure that sponsors are solely responsible for certain costs
sin_city wrote: » Can't she get sponsored and you work off her visa?
mandrake04 wrote: » Maybe he ment that Cook/Chef are the biggest rorters, I doubt there will be as many this year.http://m.smh.com.au/comment/the-books-are-being-cooked-on-457-visas-20130318-2gb0s.html
Batgurl wrote: » I fully understand and accept your point of view, but I don't think its ignorant for me to air mine.
BabyMonkeyy wrote: » I think but i could be wrong in saying that childcare is coming off the list for sponsorship when the new rules are coming in.
Mellor wrote: » But how does anybody have stats on whose rorting. Article is nonsense.
Batgurl wrote: » How is it ridiculous? The basic premise of the 457 visa scheme is for employers to source skills which are in short supply/they cannot located in Australia. While I know in recent times its tilted to favour employees who may struggle to find work in their own country, the fact is, its still there to benefit employers. Making an employee pay for their own visa (which is supposed to be benefiting the employer) strikes me as unusual but I could probably get over that condition if they were happy for the employee to do the paperwork etc themselves. But combining it with an instruction to only use their designated visa agent? Unnecessary and should be raising red flags.
markymark21 wrote: » There are plenty of Aussie residents who could apply for my job if it was up grabs - they just wouldn't be any good
danotroy wrote: » markymark21 wrote: » There are plenty of Aussie residents who could apply for my job if it was up grabs - they just wouldn't be any good I sincerely hope this is tongue in cheek. :rolleyes:
