thinking of emigrating

rottenage

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?

aido79

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?

First step would be to get in touch with a decent migration agent but to be honest your chances of getting a visa as an unqualified chef are pretty slim.

rottenage

cheers

danotroy

IIRC chefs are the number one 457 visa holders, But then again a 457 is not a permanent visa and they are about to get tightened/changed on july 1st. Maybe go and get a qualification or skills recognized it may be easier to emigrate then.

markymark21

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

rottenage

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

excelent cheers for that i do have 9 years expierence!!!!!!!! just no papers thanx again

danotroy

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

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?

kfc1210

If your going to Sydney, childcare for us was 140 a day you may get it a little cheaper but we were on a waiting list for 12 months to get that one, childcare is seriously hard to get.
The reciprocal health care agreement will cover you to have the baby in Oz but if your on a working holiday visa or 457 you baby will be Irish with no rights in Oz and you will not be entitled to working parents tax break, medicare or refund on childcare. If you are a perminent resident your baby can become a citizen.
I would seriously look into correct visa and work before you go with kids, we came home after 2.5 years because we could not afford to stay i even turned down 70K job because it was not enough money and the GF was working as well.

markymark21

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?

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

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

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.

danotroy

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.

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.

markymark21

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.

I know Yeh, it ain't an ideal situation. I don't like paying over the odds myself but The head and sous chef have both done it this way so ill just take the hit. It's only a few weeks wages either way.

To be honest I've been pretty fortunate to land this role. Especially on a WHV and being 24. There is no shortage of residents who could technically apply for my position - whether they'd be any good is a different story though. The terms of my contract are the pretty sweet as well so I'd be mad in the head not to go ahead with it just because I have to pay 2k extra!

markymark21

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.

Yeh sure I've been down that road before. Once bitten twice shy!

rottenage

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

sin_city

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

Can't she get sponsored and you work off her visa?

rottenage

yeah that could work im trying to get in touch with relatives out there think one or two have there own companies.

Mellor

danotroy wrote: »

IIRC chefs are the number one 457 visa holders,

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 job.

Batgurl wrote: »

And making you pay for the dang thing? And through an agency of their choosing? Screams dodge to me.

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

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.

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

Batgurl wrote: »

How is it ridiculous?

It's ridiculous to think that paying for the agent means it's something dodgy. Anybody with ANY familiarity of people using the 457 scheme wouldn't think that.

The basic premise of the 457 visa scheme is for employers to source skills which are in short supply/they cannot located in Australia.

Yes. That is the basic reason that the DIAC created the visa.

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.

It benefits both. Always has.
Everybody applying for a 457 visa wants to come to or stay in australia.

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.

Red flags. LMFAO
As above anybody with any knowledge of experience of 457s would find the applicant paying for the agent unusual. Just as its not unusual for the company to pay all costs.


The visa is there to help companies source staff from overseas. But its not always their only option. 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.

danotroy

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.

is it totally above board to ask the applicant to pay for the visa?

Batgurl

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.

And herein lies the problem. Employers know this and are increasingly starting to take advantage of it.

Let's be clear. I don't disagree with employees footing the cost.

But if you are asking employees to pay the costs, then the method of application should be at the employee discretion. Whether that is through an agent of their choosing or an independent application, the choice should remain with the person paying. Why should an employer, who will benefit from your employment, decide how much and with who, you spend your hard-earned money?

I'm a big fan of making people aware of all options and perhaps offering a point of view which they may not have considered. Which is why I told Mark to be careful as I wouldn't like to see him taken advantage of.

I fully understand and accept your point of view, but I don't think its ignorant for me to air mine.

mandrake04

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

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

Mellor

danotroy wrote: »

is it totally above board to ask the applicant to pay for the visa?

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)

mandrake04

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)

It was very flaky and in hindsight a rort

Its part of the employers obligation not to recover any costs, Batgurl is somewhat correct.

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.

The Dept knows it was rorted and going to strengthen so its not so flaky.

What are the new measures?

strengthening the existing obligation regarding recovery of costs to ensure that sponsors are solely responsible for certain costs

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

BabyMonkeyy

sin_city wrote: »

Can't she get sponsored and you work off her visa?

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

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

But how does anybody have stats on whose rorting. Article is nonsense.
He is talking about this years numbers btw.


When i said it wasn't cooks it was Project Managers I was refering to last years figures. I check the numbers for the year so far. So far cooks are top. they were 5th last year.

2012 - 1500 cooks (5th)
This year, 2400 so far (1st)

Apologies Danotroy, you were right.

Batgurl wrote: »

I fully understand and accept your point of view, but I don't think its ignorant for me to air mine.

It's one thing to say that you think an employer could be taking advantage.
It's another to say that it send up red flags and its a being of being dodgy dodgy.

mandrake04

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.

In the past the main problem was that most childcare jobs were usually paid below the TSMIT for 457 sponsorship unless you were a qualified childcare centre manager.

mandrake04

Mellor wrote: »

But how does anybody have stats on whose rorting. Article is nonsense.

Nonsense it might be but those are the raw figures and there's no smoke without fire.

Hospitality is where O'Connor has his crosshairs not doctors and nurses.

markymark21

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.

To be honest I'm not surprised I am footing the bill. Although sponsorship in hospitality is common for chefs and cooks, for front of house it isn't so common. There are plenty of Aussie residents who could apply for my job if it was up grabs - they just wouldn't be any good


Also, the head chef got this agent down to a 2K bill. I reckon I've got a good chance of getting a similar deal. This isn't the first time they have sponsored an individual for my position (an Irish girl funnily enough) so I reckon my application will be pretty straight forward.

danotroy

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:

mandrake04

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:

Mark is now saving his employers money, he is now washing beer glasses rather than them just throwing them away because Aussies can't do that job.

No wonder they are sponsoring him.