The Jobbridge Scandal

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 03:26PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Well, not you anyway.

I don't think I was including myself in the comparison.

Hermy · 25-02-2015 03:52PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If I was running a business who do you imagine I would want to hire all other things being equal? The guy who will work 6-9 months for 150 euro a week or the guy who won't work 6-9 months or 150 euro a week? Who has the better attitude?

Jobbridge is great for those starting off their career because it gives the company the opportunity to train people at a much lower cost and at end the applicant will either have a job or 6-9 months experience working in the sector. It's really that simple.

JobBridge is great for employers because it gives them the opportunity to avail of free labour.

Wide Load · 25-02-2015 03:54PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If I was running a business who do you imagine I would want to hire all other things being equal? The guy who will work 6-9 months for 150 euro a week or the guy who won't work 6-9 months or 150 euro a week? Who has the better attitude?

Jobbridge is great for those starting off their career because it gives the company the opportunity to train people at a much lower cost and at end the applicant will either have a job or 6-9 months experience working in the sector. It's really that simple.

6-9 months working in the sector of stacking boxes, great experience to be had.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:24PM

Wide Load wrote: »

6-9 months working in the sector of stacking boxes, great experience to be had.

If that's what you sign up for... You're not compelled to stack boxes you know...

Tarzana2 · 25-02-2015 04:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think I was including myself in the comparison.

No shít!

Your horrible attitude came across in the post so yeah.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:27PM

Hermy wrote: »

JobBridge is great for employers because it gives them the opportunity to avail of free labour.

Yes and gives those who are otherwise unable to to find work the ability to build up experience. Jobbridge helps remove some of that pressure but if we didn't have such high draconian minimum wage laws there would be no need for jobbridge.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:34PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

No shít!

Your horrible attitude came across in the post so yeah.

You may find my attitude horrible but at the end of the day I couldn't care less. Wake up call if you're not willing to work for less than minimum wage during internships well, there are plenty who will. There's no point complaining about jobbridge if you're not willing to make sacrifices.

shruikan2553 · 25-02-2015 04:35PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If I was running a business who do you imagine I would want to hire all other things being equal? The guy who will work 6-9 months for 150 euro a week or the guy who won't work 6-9 months or 150 euro a week? Who has the better attitude?

Jobbridge is great for those starting off their career because it gives the company the opportunity to train people at a much lower cost and at end the applicant will either have a job or 6-9 months experience working in the sector. It's really that simple.

I would just save myself the hassle of paying someone and getting a jobbridge intern. Why pay someone with only 6-9 months experience from the scheme who wasnt kept on or didnt find a job during that time?

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 04:42PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You may find my attitude horrible but at the end of the day I couldn't care less. Wake up call if you're not willing to work for less than minimum wage during internships well, there are plenty who will. There's no point complaining about jobbridge if you're not willing to make sacrifices.

I've a question.
Let's say an internship (the full 39 hours) was offered. It's an internship on cleaning cars at a carwash and we'll say operating the till too on Jobsbridge.
Assuming you're in favour of someone taking up that internship for the nine months, would you be in favour of someone taking up an internship as a receptionist for the same amount of time?

Both have zero experience whatsoever. The only thing both companies have in common is the car wash place has a habit of requesting many internships over the past few years for the same type of job. Pretend it's a Maxol or something.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:43PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I would just save myself the hassle of paying someone and getting a jobbridge intern. Why pay someone with only 6-9 months experience from the scheme who wasnt kept on or didnt find a job during that time?

Because training is expensive. I'd like to say most people are smart enough not to take an internship in an industry with little training costs but that would be optimistic...

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 04:45PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because training is expensive. I'd like to say most people are smart enough not to take an internship in an industry with little training costs but that would be optimistic...

Then how the Hell did you manage to defend the whole thing several pages back when people were pointing out nine months of "training" for stuff like deli worker?

Your argument then was (IIRC; if you want I'll double check back through the thread): if you're not interested in it then don't take it.

Wide Load · 25-02-2015 04:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If that's what you sign up for... You're not compelled to stack boxes you know...

Get your dole cut or sign up. You'd be compelled to sign up alright..

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:47PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I've a question.
Let's say an internship (the full 39 hours) was offered. It's an internship on cleaning cars at a carwash and we'll say operating the till too on Jobsbridge.
Assuming you're in favour of someone taking up that internship for the nine months, would you be in favour of someone taking up an internship as a receptionist for the same amount of time?

Both have zero experience whatsoever. The only thing both companies have in common is the car wash place has a habit of requesting many internships over the past few years for the same type of job. Pretend it's a Maxol or something.

Why would you make that assumption? No I wouldn't be in favor of someone taking up an internship to wash cars considering there's very little training costs involved.

Does that mean I don't think they should be advertised on the website? Of course they should be I would hope people are smart enough to pass over them.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 04:52PM

Wide Load wrote: »

Get your dole cut or sign up. You'd be compelled to sign up alright..

Nope, you're compelled to apply for jobbridge scheme, send in a rubbish cv and if by some miracle you get an interview, botch it.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 04:56PM

So I did a quick Google:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/JobBridge-Organisations.aspx
According to that, if you have one fulltime employee (30 hours or more per week), you're entitled to at least one slave, er, "jobbridge worker". So, if I'm reading this, I can pop open a business, claim I'm working 30 hours by standing in the room for 30 hours a week and have an unemployed person
do all the work?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would you make that assumption? No I wouldn't be in favor of someone taking up an internship to wash cars considering there's very little training costs involved.

Does that mean I don't think they should be advertised on the website? Of course they should be I would hope people are smart enough to pass over them.

Why, though? Why should some shyster of a businessman get to say "ah let's not pay someone. Just bring in someone to be a slave from the dole"?

Tarzana2 · 25-02-2015 05:06PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You may find my attitude horrible but at the end of the day I couldn't care less.

Once again - no shít.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 05:23PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Why, though? Why should some shyster of a businessman get to say "ah let's not pay someone. Just bring in someone to be a slave from the dole"?

If the slave is dumb enough to do a scheme in an industry without high training costs then I don't see the problem myself.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 05:26PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the slave is dumb enough to do it I don't see the problem myself.

You don't see why it's okay for it to be legal to hire someone from below a minimum wage, to encourage unethical practices, to essentially destroy entry level jobs and replace them with unemployed people who are still considered unemployed, just not for the purposes of the government being able to consider them on the register.

Are you having a laugh?

Tigger · 25-02-2015 05:35PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So I did a quick Google:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/JobBridge-Organisations.aspx
According to that, if you have one fulltime employee (30 hours or more per week), you're entitled to at least one slave, er, "jobbridge worker". So, if I'm reading this, I can pop open a business, claim I'm working 30 hours by standing in the room for 30 hours a week and have an unemployed person
do all the work?

Why, though? Why should some shyster of a businessman get to say "ah let's not pay someone. Just bring in someone to be a slave from the dole"?

you are not your own employee
neither is your wife or child
but if you need a team of three you can hire one full time 30 hrs employee and get a second free

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 05:37PM

Tigger wrote: »

you are not your own employee
neither is your wife or child
but if you need a team of three you can hire one full time 30 hrs employee and get a second free

I was hoping it wasn't that simple.
Still, you could anybody you know that's not related to you directly and have them down as 30 hours, right?

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 05:44PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

You don't see why it's okay for it to be legal to hire someone from below a minimum wage, to encourage unethical practices, to essentially destroy entry level jobs and replace them with unemployed people who are still considered unemployed, just not for the purposes of the government being able to consider them on the register.

Our draconian minimum wage laws have destroyed entry level jobs. The jobbridge scheme allows companies to take on low skilled workers and train them up, effectively the government is subsiding this training.

This is good for both the worker and the company, the worker either gets a job or at least training and experience in the sector they want to work and the company gets to train people without having to worry about high wage costs.

If our minimum wage laws were lower there would be no need for jobbridge but here we are. Effectively people who aren't worth minimum wage at market value are complaining about jobbridge taking all their jobs instead of getting off their ass and doing something about it. I have very little time for people like that.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 05:47PM

So you believe the government's solution is to "create below minimum wage jobs" because the minimum wage is too high?

Because it sounds like you're trying to justify a bunch of shady practices here.
You do remember the work placement program don't you?
Do you remember CE schemes too?

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 05:53PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So you believe the government's solution is to "create below minimum wage jobs" because the minimum wage is too high?

If the minimum wage wasn't so high there would be no need for jobbridge.

Jobbridge exists for those whose market value is less than minimum wage, to give them a chance to acquire skills and experience.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 05:55PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the minimum wage wasn't so high there would be no need for jobbridge.

Jobbridge exists for those whose market value is less than minimum wage, to give them a chance to acquire skills and experience.

Yeah great, now about the other part of my post?

BlatentCheek · 25-02-2015 05:56PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Our draconian minimum wage laws have destroyed entry level jobs. The jobbridge scheme allows companies to take on low skilled workers and train them up, effectively the government is subsiding this training.

This is good for both the worker and the company, the worker either gets a job or at least training and experience in the sector they want to work and the company gets to train people without having to worry about high wage costs.

If our minimum wage laws were lower there would be no need for jobbridge but here we are. Effectively people who aren't worth minimum wage at market value are complaining about jobbridge taking all their jobs instead of getting off their ass and doing something about it. I have very little time for people like that.

And clearly our minimum wage is far too high as evidenced by all the minimum wage workers in Dublin living like kings in vast luxury apartments.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 05:57PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

And clearly our minimum wage is far too high as evidenced by all the minimum wage workers in Dublin living like kings in vast luxury apartments.

Clearly the minimum wage is too high given all the people who have to rely on schemes like jobbridge to get a job.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 05:58PM

Can you explain to me why we needed JB when we had CE schemes?

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 06:02PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Can you explain to me why we needed JB when we had CE schemes?

They're completely different schemes, why do we need bananas when we have oranges? Your question is nonsensical.

Tombi! · 25-02-2015 06:11PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're completely different schemes, why do we need bananas when we have oranges?

They were aimed at giving people experience.
We had things that did it.
Now we have a much, much less effective scheme that not only encourages people to work well below minimum wage (generally that's considered illegal in most countries) but for some reason, you're going on about draconian minimum wage laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage
For some draconian countries, the ones listed there aren't exactly the worse in the world. Better than several, I'd say from talking to people from there. Exception being San Marino and Monaco since I don't know anyone from there.

Here's what gets me about your entire opinion: you're defending the practice of encouraging working below minimum wage, letting businesses take advantage of the unemployed and doing it because it's "draconian minimum wage laws".
You do realize how bloody expensive things are in this country, right?

I have to ask, why? Why are you so defensive on the sides of the employer of either actual employed workers or JB workers? Did you benefit as an employer from this scheme or what? I'm just curious how you can honestly defend it with pride.

Iwasfrozen · 25-02-2015 06:24PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

They were aimed at giving people experience.
We had things that did it.
Now we have a much, much less effective scheme that not only encourages people to work well below minimum wage (generally that's considered illegal in most countries) but for some reason, you're going on about draconian minimum wage laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage
For some draconian countries, the ones listed there aren't exactly the worse in the world. Better than several, I'd say from talking to people from there. Exception being San Marino and Monaco since I don't know anyone from there.

Here's what gets me about your entire opinion: you're defending the practice of encouraging working below minimum wage, letting businesses take advantage of the unemployed and doing it because it's "draconian minimum wage laws".
You do realize how bloody expensive things are in this country, right?

I have to ask, why? Why are you so defensive on the sides of the employer of either actual employed workers or JB workers? Did you benefit as an employer from this scheme or what? I'm just curious how you can honestly defend it with pride.

And bananas and oranges are both fruit. But the schemes aren't identical, JB is a much better scheme for college graduates who hoping to enter the professional class and who have good qualifications but little to no experience. So the government effectively subsidizes their training through the jobbridge scheme.

Now you're somehow trying to correlate high minimum wage with prosperity? Causation is not correlation, Zimbabwe could tomorrow morning put into law a 9 euro minimum wage law, it wouldn't improve to say the least. Countries in Europe are relatively rich despite a relatively high minimum wage. Not because.

Jobbridge gives those whose market value is less that of minimum wage the right to work for a company while the government subsidises their training. It's a good scheme that has helped many people but will only work if people are willing to make sacrifices, and of course they're smart enough not to apply for a job washing cars...

Yes I realize things are expensive in this country I don't believe I've ever pretended they aren't.

I defend jobbridge because I've seen it help people, simple as that. People who were smart, highly qualified but couldn't get a job through no experience. Jobbridge gives companies the chance to take these people on and train them up, then when they have 9 months experience under their belt they're a much more attractive person to employ.

The Jobbridge Scandal

Comments