Changes expected for the 457 visa

catbear

Garda check and medical not required for 457 as it's not a residency visa. The cost breakdown should be on the IMMI site.

As for your questions have a browse of the FAQ sticky on this forum.

mandrake04

Applicant can pay for the visa application.


Employer by law cannot pass on or recover the cost of

SBS registration
Nomination
Agent fees
Training funds donation
Flights

thedarksh1te

catbear wrote: »

I'd be very careful with this, this sponsor could think you're desperate and treat you like ****e when it suits and then dump you as soon as they need to. It's a win win for them and a lose lose for you.

I'm not really that concerned there because 1. I transferred from the Dublin branch of they company and 2. They recently lost two members of staff and despite doing interviews haven't found anybody right so I have a huge workload now and they really need me to stay on.

thedarksh1te

mandrake04 wrote: »

Applicant can pay for the visa application.


Employer by law cannot pass on or recover the cost of

SBS registration
Nomination
Agent fees
Training funds donation
Flights

Fully aware of all of the above and the consciences! So how have so many people done it? A recruiter over here even told me everybody does it! If the company do the transfer and you give them cash or they deduct it from your salary then how can anybody know?

catbear

thedarksh1te wrote: »

Fully aware of all of the above and the consciences! So how have so many people done it? A recruiter over here even told me everybody does it! If the company do the transfer and you give them cash or they deduct it from your salary then how can anybody know?

I presume you mean "consequences". And not everyone does it. Our sponsor has footed all their due costs and has not passed on any sponsorship costs. They're very much into compliance.

That recruiter, if based in Australia could get in trouble if they're caught facilitating fraud.

menuisier

Hey Mandrake

you say the application can pay for the visa but the employer cannot pass on
SBS registration
Nomination
whats is left really for the application to pay then?
thanks

mandrake04

thedarksh1te wrote: »

Fully aware of all of the above and the consciences! So how have so many people done it? A recruiter over here even told me everybody does it! If the company do the transfer and you give them cash or they deduct it from your salary then how can anybody know?

They only enforced this since July 1st, DIBP heavily relies on tips offs for this sort of thing.....but think about this if some disgruntled ex 457 employee complained to the Dept that this happened and the immigration took action then cancel the employees sponsorship registration so does any sponsorship visa with that company. Imagine coming into work some morning to the news that your visa just been canceled because someone else complained about your employer did the wrong thing.... What are going say then sure it's grand everyone's does it?

thedarksh1te

catbear wrote: »

I presume you mean "consequences". And not everyone does it. Our sponsor has footed all their due costs and has not passed on any sponsorship costs. They're very much into compliance.

That recruiter, if based in Australia could get in trouble if they're caught facilitating fraud.

Sorry autocorrect moment!
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying F the system I'll get around it, I just get the impression my chances of sponsorship are lessoned if I don't pay! FYI that was a quite sizeable recruiter told me that in an interview when I arrived here initially!

mandrake04

menuisier wrote: »

Hey Mandrake

you say the application can pay for the visa but the employer cannot pass on
SBS registration
Nomination
whats is left really for the application to pay then?
thanks

Visa is $1035 (per person over 18)




Agent fees $2500-$3000*

SBS Sponsorship fee $420*
Nomination fee $330*


*should be paid by Sponsor

menuisier

Thanks Mandrake, that makes sense now but not the kind of cents i wanted to hear.
I guess I should look on the bright side at least I'm not getting squeezed for the other 750$

Would you be able to tell me what kind of documentation I have to get together as well?

ArseBurger

catbear wrote: »

Garda check and medical not required for 457 as it's not a residency visa.

Since when?

Batgurl

ArseBurger wrote: »

Since when?

At least the last two years. I didn't have to do either.

massdebater

I applied for a 457 mid-2011 and didn't have to do any poloce checks.

mandrake04

It's always been the case for 457, you don't need a police check just a declaration that you have no convictions same as a holiday visa.

mandrake04

thedarksh1te wrote: »

I just get the impression my chances of sponsorship are lessoned if I don't pay!

If you are genuinely skilled then the employer should be happy to cover the cost, is that not how it works?

Mellor

mandrake04 wrote: »

If you are genuinely skilled then the employer should be happy to cover the cost, is that not how it works?

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

mandrake04

Mellor wrote: »

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

The better applicants just get snapped up by the bigger successful companies, those at bottom of the barrel go out with the begging bowl. LOL

Batgurl

Mellor wrote: »

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

catbear

Tsipras wrote: »

begging bowl LOL? i hope end up there yourself we'll see how LOL it is.. ur a muppet

In fairness he's got a point. If you present yourself to a potential employer as desperate then it's easier for them to rip you off if. Bargaining power is important and the more experience you have in your profession then the greater your bargaining power.

If you're cheaper to hire than a local then you become expendable if business gets quiet. them's the breaks.

mandrake04

Tsipras wrote: »

begging bowl LOL? i hope end up there yourself we'll see how LOL it is.. ur a muppet

Far from a muppet, just telling it the way it is.

The way of the world, plenty of lads on here have been sponsored directly from Ireland, sponsorship paid for, flights paid for, furniture shipped, months accommodation paid for.... then there are those who can't get sponsored unless they pay the sponsorship themselves and willing to work longer hours for less money.

It's like self depreciation, don't say it doesn't happen.

Mellor

Batgurl wrote: »

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

Live within their means? Who? Not every industry is booming. Many company's are struggling through no fault of their own. It's not close to Dublin circa 2008, but it's enough to make you glad to have a job and a backlog of work.

Obviously few people would relocate around the world for such a position. But I'm talking about a situation where somebody has a position in a small company, he's a solid employee and the employer genuinely wants to keep him on. But $5k can be a lot to a small company.

I'm not saying this is always the case, nor am I saying people don't get exploited ever. I posted before about 457ers getting a raw deal. But it's naive to think that there's never a gray area.

mandrake04

Batgurl wrote: »

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

I can see Mellors point, if a company is looking for staff and an Aussie walk through the door looking for $65K and someone for example from Ireland might offer to do the job for $53900 if the got sponsored. You can see why the company would do it, hence why the July changes

Mellor

mandrake04 wrote: »

I can see Mellors point, if a company is looking for staff and an Aussie walk through the door looking for $65K and someone for example from Ireland might offer to do the job for $53900 if the got sponsored. You can see why the company would do it, hence why the July changes

That's not my point and you know it. That example is obvious exploitation of the visa.
(Plus You had to pay equivalent salary long before July did you not?)

I'm talking about where the overseas guy is currently employed, visa is expiring. Has a proven record. Boss wants to keep him on for various reasons but afford the cost.

I can't remember what industry you work in ( I think its IT) and my view might be jaded due to the state of my own industry.

mandrake04

Mellor wrote: »

I'm talking about where the overseas guy is currently employed, visa is expiring. Has a proven record. Boss wants to keep him on for various reasons but afford the cost.

I get that point but the rules are now what they are, now the employer can not pass those costs on. Maybe a few years ago it was acceptable but now it's against the law. If the employer wants to sponsor then they must pay various reasons or not.

But on a side note if the employee was good then they would have many offers of sponsorship, they wouldn't have to opt for one that they have to pay the costs .... Sponsorship means to financially back or vouch. The employer sponsors the employee not the other way round.

Mellor

mandrake04 wrote: »

I get that point but the rules are now what they are, now the employer can not pass those costs on. Maybe a few years ago it was acceptable but now it's against the law.

My understanding is that it has been against the law for a number of years. Pretty sure that was one of the obligations of the SBS back when I did it. I don't condone breaking the law, and I dont to like the precedent it sets for employers, but I can't begrudge anybody who pays for his own sponsorship as a last resort - as long as the situation was genuine.

But on a side note if the employee was good then they would have many offers of sponsorship, they wouldn't have to opt for one that they have to pay the costs

If only that were true for all of us. When you are stuck in an industry that is downsizing, there are very few new openings regardless of ability.

mandrake04

Mellor wrote: »

My understanding is that it has been against the law for a number of years. Pretty sure that was one of the obligations of the SBS back when I did it. I don't condone breaking the law, and I dont to like the precedent it sets for employers, but I can't begrudge anybody who pays for his own sponsorship as a last resort - as long as the situation was genuine.

Your understanding is wrong

It was an obligation that appears to have be disregarded, it's now a law.

Sponsors are obligated to pay certain costs
Before 1 July 2013 - Sponsors were obligated not to recover certain costs from a primary or a secondary sponsored person.

After 1 July 2013 - Sponsors will be required to pay certain costs associated with becoming a sponsor and not pass these costs, in any form, onto a sponsored person.

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/changes-457-program.htm


I can understand why people would do it, if they are desperate enough they will do it...but it undermines the integrity of the program.

Mellor

Ah right, I assume obligation, meant a legal obligation.
What about paying for flights out of the country once 457 ends. Are people sponsors prior to July bound only by an obligation also.

Batgurl

mandrake04 wrote: »

but it undermines the integrity of the program.

Not to mention undermining the positions of the genuinely skilled.

A highly qualified acquaintance had been on a 457 for 3/4 years. Whole thing paid for by the company, flights out, reloc fees etc. they were thrilled to have her.

Gradually though over the months/years they started to get desperate backpackers who were in the admin section looking for sponsorship, even offering to pay for it themselves.

The company started to believe their own bull**** that they were helping these poor souls, instead of the other way around.

They (the company) started throwing their weight around and making demands on 457ers (including my friend) which were totally unreasonable. Then they pulled the 'well we are sponsoring you' card.

She realised that they honestly believed they were doing her some sort of favour!

She left and had a (better) job lined up within two weeks.

The fact is paying your own way is not only going to make it harder for yourself in the long run but others in the same position.

@Mellor: I understand your point but I imagine this would be the minority as opposed to the majority.

mandrake04

Mellor wrote: »

Ah right, I assume obligation, meant a legal obligation.
What about paying for flights out of the country once 457 ends. Are people sponsors prior to July bound only by an obligation also.

Enhancing the enforcement framework to include enforceable undertakings between the Minister and a sponsor and former approved sponsor
Before 1 July 2013 – The enforcement framework relating to sponsorship of non-citizens seeking entry to Australia for work purposes, includes administrative sanctions (to bar a sponsor or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor), an infringement notice scheme and a civil penalty scheme.

After 1 July 2013 - Enforceable undertakings will be an additional enforcement option where there has been a failure by an approved sponsor or former approved sponsor to satisfy an applicable sponsorship obligation. An enforceable undertaking is a court-enforceable promise made between the Minister and a sponsor. This option might avoid substantial legal costs associated with litigation in the courts. They are designed to be flexible and secure compensation to restore harm resulting from contraventions of the obligation (eg payment to a worker to compensate for underpayments).

Court enforceable promise means pay heed to your obligations or else.

ArseBurger

Batgurl wrote: »

Not to mention undermining the positions of the genuinely skilled.

A highly qualified acquaintance had been on a 457 for 3/4 years. Whole thing paid for by the company, flights out, reloc fees etc. they were thrilled to have her.

Gradually though over the months/years they started to get desperate backpackers who were in the admin section looking for sponsorship, even offering to pay for it themselves.

The company started to believe their own bull**** that they were helping these poor souls, instead of the other way around.

They (the company) started throwing their weight around and making demands on 457ers (including my friend) which were totally unreasonable. Then they pulled the 'well we are sponsoring you' card.

She realised that they honestly believed they were doing her some sort of favour!

She left and had a (better) job lined up within two weeks.

The fact is paying your own way is not only going to make it harder for yourself in the long run but others in the same position.

@Mellor: I understand your point but I imagine this would be the minority as opposed to the majority.

Add to that people actively rorting the system on both sides. Not even attempting to integrate into society. Giving genuine folk here a bad reputation. I've seen a gradual increase in aggravation towards the numbers of Irish landing in Australia from both Australians and ex-pats. With the general consensus that more and more are simply taking the piss. I don't necessarily disagree.