The Jobbridge Scandal

Backstreet Moyes

CramCycle wrote: »

When my brother done Jobbridge, the company he worked for were intense in his description. People taking 15minutes at most for lunch coming in early, leaving late. He started doing it as well and then his boss and a few others in his department told him, he wasn't getting paid, he should take a full 30 minutes to an hour and leave an hour or two early on a Friday, no coming in early or leaving late. He got experience in a wide range of areas that were not even in the Jobbridge description. He also got full employment before he was finished (from a different company), the guys he worked with, on the day he announced he got another job, took a proper lunch with him and told him to take the rest of the time off until he started the new job. He learned skills in HR and quality management that he was unlikely to have learned if they just used him as the dogsbody he expected. The skills he learned where not all that got him the job but they helped. Just saying, just because there are some taking advantage, don't sully them all. If a job is out of line or context or it offends you, report it.

It's great to hear some success stories. I have no problem as i am sure most don't doing Jobsbridge if it is of benefit. 9 months is not an awful lot of time if you are getting proper experience that makes your chances of getting full time employment better. The problem is it is not regulated properly.

It is great to hear success stories. Internships used as they were meant are a great asset to both employers and employees. It's the few taking the pee that gets it its bad name.

ryan101

Deleted User wrote: »

It is great to hear success stories. Internships used as they were meant are a great asset to both employers and employees. It's the few taking the pee that gets it its bad name.

99% of them are talking the piss.

1 story in a hundred on here, which is nice to hear, won't change it.

Wompa1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why should a company hire anybody at all when they can keep getting free labour from Jobridge?

The first few months of any skilled job costs a company money. There's time spent training, on-boarding, providing company assets. Believe it or not, larger companies like one I worked for were not permitted to take on interns a few years ago (Back when interns were from college courses on placements). The labor was deemed ineffective and at a cost since it takes too long to skill up in that line of work. They weren't fully capable of the job before finishing.

The company took on students on placement before 2008 but not after. They did it beforehand for good PR in the city.

It would be more prudent for a company to fill a position with a long term resource rather than swap out interns over a period of time.

Personally, it had crossed my mind back before I got into a skilled line of work to go into a pub and offer to do 20 hours a week for free to experience. I didn't know anybody who owned or managed a pub and it seemed like a tough job to get into without knowing somebody or without living in a very small town. I had thought bar work would be a good cushion, better than retail experience and it's something when Irish, you can get a job in other countries with.

guinnessdrinker

dreamers75 wrote: »

I having trouble in work for refusing to use this ( I ops manager) owners and CEO want us to do this. I flat out refuse and will win.

My main reasons for not employing these people are (AH agree disagree as you wish)

Loyalty: My team is loyal to me and any freebie newbies wont be.
Effort: i expect 100% from all my staff and motivate them to do this, freebies imo are unmotivatable.
Attitude to work: i expect people to be in work everyday i dont tolerate sickies or lates. Imo going a year without either is expected so hate those attendance awards....its your fcuking job your supposed to be there.
Reward: I reward staff who work as I expect with money....no point offering anything else its the reason we all work. I cant reward freebies as it breaks TOS.

Out of interest, why do the company owners and the CEO want to hire interns so badly?

guinnessdrinker

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Out of interest, why do the company owners and the CEO want to hire interns so badly?

Because it's free labour?

cloudatlas

Axel Lamp wrote: »

Just my 2 cents worth, but the company I work for made 8 people permanent who were orignally hired on Jobbridge.

This is since the scheme started.

All I can hear by reading this is -We needed these people to fill eight vacancies and we got nine months cheap labour before we let them even get close to the salary that they would usually be entitled to.

The scheme hasn't been going that long so the appointments weren't staggered. Eight vacancies is a lot of positions for the h.r. department not to engage with traditional hiring processes and pay people properly from day one! If there was any justice those people would be back payed for almost a years work gone financially unrewarded.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's free labour?

Hardly free when you factor in the cost of training them. You would have to be a poorly run company or one that requires very little skills for this to be true. Its time away from the trainers actual job, quality manager getting paper work ready, HR getting paperwork together, training for an unspecified amount of time before the intern would even be allowed handle data/samples/whatever your company work at.

Good companies will do it because it has benefits such as showing management skills in their own staff, identifying future employees without having to fire them before 6 months is up because they can't take the risk of holding onto them, making contacts for the future if the intern turns out to be successful.

Sh1t companies will do it for free labour, but people seem intent on moaning about the entire scheme rather than the administrators who let the obvious rubbish ones go up and the companies who should be blacklisted.

cloudatlas wrote: »

All I can hear by reading this is -We needed these people to fill eight vacancies and we got nine months cheap labour before we let them even get close to the salary that they would usually be entitled to.

Instead of the 6 months where we would let them go because they maybe did not fully have the skills before hand and we can't take the risk on someone who doesn't tick the right boxes. This way we give them the skills for this type of work, plus actual hands on work experience afterwards for their CV and if we happen to identify staff, brilliant, if not, we might be lucky to have broke even by taking a risk on someone that HR would normally not have considered and those they would have considered may not have applied.

The scheme hasn't been going that long so the appointments weren't staggered. Eight vacancies is a lot of positions for the h.r. department not to engage with traditional hiring processes and pay people properly from day one! If there was any justice those people would be back payed for almost a years work gone financially unrewarded.

How do you know the company was busy enough for the 8 people before? Place gets busier, business improves, right we need more staff, hurrah, we have 8 people who have been training and practising and we have no need ot roll the dice on an employee who may cost us in the long run.

cloudatlas

CramCycle wrote: »

Instead of the 6 months where we would let them go because they maybe did not fully have the skills before hand and we can't take the risk on someone who doesn't tick the right boxes. This way we give them the skills for this type of work, plus actual hands on work experience afterwards for their CV and if we happen to identify staff, brilliant, if not, we might be lucky to have broke even by taking a risk on someone that HR would normally not have considered and those they would have considered may not have applied.


How do you know the company was busy enough for the 8 people before? Place gets busier, business improves, right we need more staff, hurrah, we have 8 people who have been training and practising and we have no need ot roll the dice on an employee who may cost us in the long run.

What your saying is that the traditional hiring process that is engaged in daily is not adequate and saying that people on the dole shouldn't be given a fair chance to access fully payed employment. Workplaces already have probation periods and the majority of good companies already engage in training their work force. Jobbridge is nothing new it just unnecessarily extends these periods, removes rights and pays a pittance to people who are already probably touching the bottom of their bank accounts. These checks and balances already exist. If this is the way forward then scrap traditional hiring process and implement jobbridge type nine months probation nonsense across the board.

I don't know what type of business it is but in such a short time eight people is a lot of people from jobbridge. It appears to an outsider that there was a need there and that the traditional hiring process was ignored in favour of this extended hoop jumping and kow- towing before you get the same as someone sitting to your left.

Axel Lamp

cloudatlas wrote: »

All I can hear by reading this is -We needed these people to fill eight vacancies and we got nine months cheap labour before we let them even get close to the salary that they would usually be entitled to.

The scheme hasn't been going that long so the appointments weren't staggered. Eight vacancies is a lot of positions for the h.r. department not to engage with traditional hiring processes and pay people properly from day one! If there was any justice those people would be back payed for almost a years work gone financially unrewarded.

Incorrect, they were trained up with the skills for the job then offered full-time roles. Put whatever spin you want on it but there are now 8 people off the dole in full-time work.

And for your information, the company have also hired other people recently throught the normal process i.e. HR, not Jobbridge.

CramCycle wrote: »

Hardly free when you factor in the cost of training them. You would have to be a poorly run company or one that requires very little skills for this to be true. Its time away from the trainers actual job, quality manager getting paper work ready, HR getting paperwork together, training for an unspecified amount of time before the intern would even be allowed handle data/samples/whatever your company work at.

Good companies will do it because it has benefits such as showing management skills in their own staff, identifying future employees without having to fire them before 6 months is up because they can't take the risk of holding onto them, making contacts for the future if the intern turns out to be successful.

Sh1t companies will do it for free labour, but people seem intent on moaning about the entire scheme rather than the administrators who let the obvious rubbish ones go up and the companies who should be blacklisted.

Instead of the 6 months where we would let them go because they maybe did not fully have the skills before hand and we can't take the risk on someone who doesn't tick the right boxes. This way we give them the skills for this type of work, plus actual hands on work experience afterwards for their CV and if we happen to identify staff, brilliant, if not, we might be lucky to have broke even by taking a risk on someone that HR would normally not have considered and those they would have considered may not have applied.


How do you know the company was busy enough for the 8 people before? Place gets busier, business improves, right we need more staff, hurrah, we have 8 people who have been training and practising and we have no need ot roll the dice on an employee who may cost us in the long run.

Correct and right.

johnnyvegas22

i'm just about to leave college and look for a job, i would gladly talk a job bridge job because i have no experience, this is why i have failed interview after interview

osarusan

CramCycle wrote: »

Sh1t companies will do it for free labour, but people seem intent on moaning about the entire scheme rather than the administrators who let the obvious rubbish ones go up and the companies who should be blacklisted.

This just isn't true. That majority of those on this thread who have a problem with jobbridge feel that it is the (lack of) administration of the scheme, rather than the scheme itself, which is flawed.

The other problem people have is with the portrayed merits of the scheme.

cloudatlas

Axel Lamp wrote: »

Incorrect, they were trained up with the skills for the job then offered full-time roles. Put whatever spin you want on it but there are now 8 people off the dole in full-time work.

And for your information, the company have also hired other people recently throught the normal process i.e. HR, not Jobbridge.

The fact that they used jobbridge in conjunction with the traditional hiring process doesn't fit with what the other poster said above that the 9 month training probation being required. Of course I'll put forward an opinion 'spin' on something I view as unethical. If it was ethical then more prestigious companies would engage in it but they don't. If we're going to split hairs. Why nine months why not two, three, four? What difference does it make? Such a long period of time gives the government the numbers off the live register that they need at key moments to put their 'spin' on the data sets.

Did it really take nine months for your company to both train and figure out if these people were a good fit? Seriously? I'm not buying what you're selling.

Axel Lamp

cloudatlas wrote: »

The fact that they used jobbridge in conjunction with the traditional hiring process doesn't fit with what the other poster said above that the 9 month training probation being required. Of course I'll put forward an opinion 'spin' on something I view as unethical. If it was ethical then more prestigious companies would engage in it but they don't. If we're going to split hairs. Why nine months why not two, three, four? What difference does it make? Such a long period of time gives the government the numbers off the live register that they need at key moments to put their 'spin' on the data sets.

Did it really take nine months for your company to both train and figure out if these people were a good fit? Seriously? I'm not buying what you're selling.

I'm not selling anything, I merely wanted to state that people were hired fulltime from the jobbridge scheme. Other people were also hired under the normal process.

You have clearly made up your mind that the whole scheme is a scam, unethical and a way for emplayers to screw everyone. I'm telling you that is not 100% true as my employer has clearly shown.

I'm not contributing to this thread anymore after this. The fact that 8 people were hired fulltime from jobbridge should speak for itself.

osarusan

Axel Lamp wrote: »

I'm not contributing to this thread anymore after this. The fact that 8 people were hired fulltime from jobbridge should speak for itself.

It should speak for itself? In what way?

Very few people on this thread have said that it a fundamentally wrong scheme. Most have said they have problems with the fact that some internships look like abuse of the scheme.

The good news that 8 people got jobs doesn't really negate this criticism.

cloudatlas

Axel Lamp wrote: »

I'm not selling anything, I merely wanted to state that people were hired fulltime from the jobbridge scheme. Other people were also hired under the normal process.

You have clearly made up your mind that the whole scheme is a scam, unethical and a way for emplayers to screw everyone. I'm telling you that is not 100% true as my employer has clearly shown.

I'm not contributing to this thread anymore after this. The fact that 8 people were hired fulltime from jobbridge should speak for itself.

There are a number of people in this thread who suggest that the hiring of employees through the scheme is wholly altruistic and that the companies have done a good turn for these poor unfortunates. If that's the case then they should let their clients know. Why don't companies use slogans like 'we proudly participate in the jobbridge scheme' as a marketing device if what they are doing is so good.

When people are frozen out of their profession by a plethora of poorly paid internships flooding their job feeds or feel economically coerced to take a poorly paid job which quite clearly in this case could have been fully paid from the outset then yes I do think it is unjust.

These suggestions of alturism insults intelligence.

CramCycle

osarusan wrote: »

This just isn't true. That majority of those on this thread who have a problem with jobbridge feel that it is the (lack of) administration of the scheme, rather than the scheme itself, which is flawed.

It was such a long thread I missed large chunks, I agree with the admin being the issue rather than the scheme.

osarusan wrote: »

Very few people on this thread have said that it a fundamentally wrong scheme. Most have said they have problems with the fact that some internships look like abuse of the scheme.

The good news that 8 people got jobs doesn't really negate this criticism.

Nor should it but it appears that alot of people are blaming the entire scheme, rather than admin or the companies but then I missed large parts as I said.

cloudatlas wrote: »

There are a number of people in this thread who suggest that the hiring of employees through the scheme is wholly altruistic and that the companies have done a good turn for these poor unfortunates.

Not a hope, there is always a benefit in some way but in a well run company who is not abusing the scheme "free labour" is not it, I don't know what the numbers are in terms of volume of abuse to volume of used as intended, most of the stories I hear in the real world are positive, the only negative one I have heard is one that was abusive with hours (which was a state owned company) where the jobbridge guy was warned not coming in for additional out of hours media events etc. would mean they would have to review his placement.

Sierra Oscar

Donald Trump's Irish resort is hiring staff on the cheap offering €50 for 40 hour week

A young Irish man or woman is to be given the chance to work for billionaire Donald Trump.

The catch is they will only get €50 for working a full 40-hour week at his five-star golfing resort.

It has emerged the tycoon’s luxurious new hotel and golf club is using the notorious JobBridge scheme to recruit an operative for their stores department.

This is not right.

sawfish

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Donald Trump's Irish resort is hiring staff on the cheap offering €50 for 40 hour week

A young Irish man or woman is to be given the chance to work for billionaire Donald Trump.

The catch is they will only get €50 for working a full 40-hour week at his five-star golfing resort.

It has emerged the tycoon’s luxurious new hotel and golf club is using the notorious JobBridge scheme to recruit an operative for their stores department.

This is not right.

And this is the relevant ad?

http://intern.jobbridge.ie/Default.aspx?q=B+fomdowzS8kaDnSlUDk1zaMUPiFEeNrNWjviinu490thmC2C0u+DAmevJxMGUemT1UWbSAdbTX90kL0jFtLyKtyEaN4/xFg8jKVmPEG4T3s/XFDChrbU4XH7c3vBwFYGn8DO9wVu48gdsCj7mSHCrl5DC8Wa2fu44HjG2+he3VKk1KztoqdkfiJSlLBGIiMbUPKoNQeO3r8XDvIvILwbopcSnJiSUotAuHAz0VWSgLCYXQwPMuuK1FTu4buO+z+FEVye5nGKZkFc7J7BgxoZ88Q2YZh/6JwynLmJeTCbFZXemBbnlHSfc/qvyce0MyPncgG83kbwJW3igIdpLOXjzB3Qq8Z9jRTzJF6uuF00d60gp58mnYS3Cura3G+3WTxOK4MPg8SPLd4ARa92S1ZWPNndtD6Wb2SHrAK5xRsD4RY2xZupL14Q6NPVpG/drfW7t2rymLJCs/CTz7utlP1gYAPEUM4Qcv4B17DL1HmIJ4=

Ref. INTE-845661

CramCycle

How do you report positions that are inappropriate, do you mail them under their general compliance issue form?

PopePalpatine

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Donald Trump's Irish resort is hiring staff on the cheap offering €50 for 40 hour week



This is not right.

Donald Trump symbolises all that is rotten in American capitalism.

Tony EH

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Donald Trump symbolises all that is rotten in American capitalism.

FYP

It's €50 PLUS their dole. Not quiet the same. However, I agree that this is an abouse of the scheme.

smurke

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think paying someone 250 a week for a job they aren't qualified to do is value for money?

what are you talking about? most JobBridge positions that I've viewed require a third level qualification, and plenty too that are looking for masters students, for any of the council library positions it is recommended that you be pursuing a PHD, and they are county council positions that have an embargo on employing. University graduates with computer skills are going to be a damn sight better than those that went in with their leaving cert over 20 or 30 years ago. Those that type on computers with one figure. I've had that experience in countless public service offices. One woman in the tax office in Cork had pure fear in her eyes as she slowly pressed buttons, as if it was going to explode if she pressed the wrong key.

Smidge

Its no wonder Trump came over.
Enda and co schmoozed him with cheap labour. Trumps no fool, he will gladly make a few bob if slave labour is on offer.
I think this really highlights how rotten this scheme is.

darkpagandeath

I wonder will ministers be defending this scheme after this information came to light ....

Smidge

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I wonder will ministers be defending this scheme after this information came to light ....

Sadly, I would say yes they will.

Grab All Association

http://jobseeker.fas.ie/Default.aspx?q=B+fomdowzS8kaDnSlUDk1zaMUPiFEeNrNWjviinu490thmC2C0u+DJmE0puc60Fe8S6wsdTJTsKVdP/MakcfCUyr482ozuuVDDe2LZQfXIXe9hjvkaRqY8ppojPhE1Sv6+yn+6HTbOHtJj3EvvQzfkzvUty1KZfFhfAMlUcfcxgCMX1e0P9DsLRAStVkIRkv3iofw+PNmFAqDfqj58rVk0P2qK7PRkIU+sCpVXl2MAZ/o1QWnR9nbIsVkDDa/lM0iGsYqUS4Kgpq0GSMtZ/N6GOCoqjhxEC5N42QuDqkJCO598g76yW0vFIv5OGmbH1LTvI8+VFbWt/DSg7LPQoFABXLaD22RVfBSBADmJezK7PFLTAONtoGeTWAcyui5/L/5LbAD+0dA5ZMMDxNg86UcdVp6zn4U3g9EM3WAWH4dFZ45Gygiv3Gp2xV8RGNhNnSba3QvKv1OwU6xo8huH+N4Aqlh1o2Ajpn oh and when is Borrisoleigh part of Thurles Town. Shanahans Centra

shruikan2553

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I wonder will ministers be defending this scheme after this information came to light ....

They could have half the population kicking puppies and Joan Burton would find some statistic that's not bad and use it to defend it.

Grab All Association

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dumped-trump-billionaire-laying-over-3554366