The Jobbridge Scandal

Right Turn Clyde

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But still nobody has explained to me how legally you could exclude certain employers or certain types of employment from this scheme.

I'm sure you could draw up a list of appropriate industries/occupations and restrict it to people with third-level education, so it would essentially became a (unemployed) graduate initiative. I don't see where the legal problem is. The scheme already has restrictive criteria regarding who can enter an internship. You're simply redefining the criteria. Exactly what law would a cafe owner invoke when they're told they can no longer hire unpaid interns?

scamalert

So government can come up with a CE scheme,but simple process of screening employer

-for position advertised,what person actually will gain from it as in training/experience to move into paid position,that actually requires training or experience beforehand

-thus only allowing to advertise positions where there is lack of experienced labor,thus only allowing any business to partake in it with written agreement that it cant be filled otherwise,thus signing agreement that for any 1-2 interns taken company will have to offer full time guaranteed place after the term is over.Thus legally giving guarantee that scheme would only be used to hire potential employees.And not to be used as a potential to gain free labor nor to replace positions that can be filled otherwise,or used as a replacement for paid position.

took me 2 minutes to come up with it,and its not rocket science either.

So the reality is its only to soften the stats not to give any future opportunities in reducing unemployment.

dxhound2005

scamalert wrote: »

So government can come up with a CE scheme,but simple process of screening employer

-for position advertised,what person actually will gain from it as in training/experience to move into paid position,that actually requires training or experience beforehand

-thus only allowing to advertise positions where there is lack of experienced labor,thus only allowing any business to partake in it with written agreement that it cant be filled otherwise,thus signing agreement that for any 1-2 interns taken company will have to offer full time guaranteed place after the term is over.Thus legally giving guarantee that scheme would only be used to hire potential employees.And not to be used as a potential to gain free labor nor to replace positions that can be filled otherwise,or used as a replacement for paid position.

took me 2 minutes to come up with it,and its not rocket science either.

So the reality is its only to soften the stats not to give any future opportunities in reducing unemployment.

Spend another 2 minutes or 2 hours and examine the ads on the front page of Jobbridge. Tell me which of them qualifies under your criteria and which are too menial.


http://intern.jobbridge.ie/

This is number 2 on the list. Good or bad?

The intern will gain practical experience in management in the day to day operations of a stock collection service. The intern will receive formal/informal training in the following , database, customer service, route. On completion the intern will have attained skills in management of stock collection and distribution, customer interaction, computer systems.


And who is going to design criteria which are legally safe from challenge by employers who get turned down? Isn't my way much simpler, just let anyone put up an ad and let the people on the dole select what they want and ignore the others. Which is what is happening.

scamalert

Have to agree with you dx
Since missed the part where you mentioned free to choose JB scheme.
But ive given simple example that ive made up in minutes.

Without much knowledge of law or anything considering scheme for that matter.Yet it wouldn't take a day to do it properly,where any employer wanting to avail of such scheme would have to prove that it cant be filled otherwise,and that at the end of it they would have to make an offer for full time paid position.

But if it was tackled in such way that employers would have to commit offering paid position those CE schemes would melt in minutes and only genuine offers would be left,thus any business wanting free labor would have to suck it up,or refer to actual paid position leaving fancy wording out for stocking up shelves.

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

There's no room for empathy in Iwasfrozen's world, where every day there's a Two Minutes' Hate consisting of a slideshow showing poor people.

Scrapping the minimum wage will help the most vulnerable. It will give them the opportunity to work instead of being forced into long term unemployment or jobbridge programs.

Not a NSA agent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Scrapping the minimum wage will help the most vulnerable. It will give them the opportunity to work instead of being forced into long term unemployment or jobbridge programs.

How do we sell this "helping" the most vulnerable to those working minimum wage? Dont worry, you'll still have you job, you'll just be getting as low as possible for doing it.

Do we just hope they dont know that their employers will reduce their wages as far as they'll go while there's someone wiling to take them?

trixychic

Firstly Iwasfrozen, if you say the limit is 188 a wk then you are setting a minimum wage surely??

Secondly if that is the line for working a 40 hr wk, how do you expect that person to pay rent/mortgage and Bill's and still have enough for food???

That's just basic as in heat and bins and esb. If you start including tv licence, car tax, insurance and fuel??? You expect someone to live on 188 a wk?? Really???

trixychic

trixychic wrote: »

Firstly Iwasfrozen, if you say the limit is 188 a wk then you are setting a minimum wage surely??

Secondly if that is the line for working a 40 hr wk, how do you expect that person to pay rent/mortgage and Bill's and still have enough for food???

That's just basic as in heat and bins and esb. If you start including tv licence, car tax, insurance and fuel??? You expect someone to live on 188 a wk?? Really???

That is the unfortunate reality for single people on Welfare.

Uncle Ben

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is the unfortunate reality for single people on Welfare.

Some single people are also required to live on €100 per week, depending on their age.

Roquentin

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

The single greatest flaw with Jobbridge is that it includes blue-collar type 'internships'. They're the ones that tend to be hugely exploitative. Internships are largely the domain of white-collar, professional occupations.

An intern shouldn't earn their company much money. They're simply there to gain experience, do some low-priority work and allow the company to cherry-pick future employees (that's the real benefit to the company).

However, you have people doing manual labour Jobbridge internships, working bloody-hard and with the company paying nothing. That's disgraceful in this day an age.

Personally, I think Jobbridge contains a good idea. It's just been implemented horrendously. I done a legal internship and I know other people who have done the same. We all found them very successful.

I think Jobbridge should be remodelled and aimed solely at people looking to enter 'professional' careers. That's the only environment where internships work.

yea this is it. there are internships for warehousing and other stuff that dont make much sense

Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Some single people are also required to live on €100 per week, depending on their age.

True, but they'd usually still be living at home.

trixychic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is the unfortunate reality for single people on Welfare.

I understand that. My sister in law had to.move home cause of it. The country is in a state.

Uncle Ben

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True, but they'd usually still be living at home.

It's still wrong.

Not a NSA agent

trixychic wrote: »

Firstly Iwasfrozen, if you say the limit is 188 a wk then you are setting a minimum wage surely??

Secondly if that is the line for working a 40 hr wk, how do you expect that person to pay rent/mortgage and Bill's and still have enough for food???

That's just basic as in heat and bins and esb. If you start including tv licence, car tax, insurance and fuel??? You expect someone to live on 188 a wk?? Really???

188 isnt too bad for a single person. Being on 100 is where the fun is.

Tipsy McSwagger

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

188 isnt too bad for a single person. Being on 100 is where the fun is.

Ye it's grand if you are living at home with your mammy cooking all your meals and paying all the bills.

Iwasfrozen

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

How do we sell this "helping" the most vulnerable to those working minimum wage? Dont worry, you'll still have you job, you'll just be getting as low as possible for doing it.

Do we just hope they dont know that their employers will reduce their wages as far as they'll go while there's someone wiling to take them?

If a person is already earning 18k then dropping the minimum wage won't affect them. Those who are worth 18k or more won't be affected by dropping the minimum wage. Those who will be affected are those currently worth 15k or 13k who desperately want a job but they can't get one.

The minimum wage forces these people into long term unemployment or jobbridge but I would rather they had an opportunity to work.

Iwasfrozen

trixychic wrote: »

Firstly Iwasfrozen, if you say the limit is 188 a wk then you are setting a minimum wage surely??

Secondly if that is the line for working a 40 hr wk, how do you expect that person to pay rent/mortgage and Bill's and still have enough for food???

That's just basic as in heat and bins and esb. If you start including tv licence, car tax, insurance and fuel??? You expect someone to live on 188 a wk?? Really???

You're proving my point. No one is going to work for 188 euro a week as they can already receive that on the dole. What is offered must be at least 188 euro a week plus expenses.

Not a NSA agent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If a person is already earning 18k then dropping the minimum wage won't affect them. Those who are worth 18k or more won't be affected by dropping the minimum wage. Those who will be affected are those currently worth 15k or 13k who desperately want a job but they can't get one.

The minimum wage forces these people into long term unemployment or jobbridge but I would rather they had an opportunity to work.

Why would I pay someone 18k if I can pay them or someone else to do the same work for 15k? The only people paid by their worth are already earning above minimum wage. The people are getting minimum wage because its as low as the business can go and they are still able to fill positions.

You are assuming that getting rid of the minimum will only affect those who are now unemployed and everywhere will start hiring lots more people for some reason.

Why wouldnt everyone end up earning less and more people relying on social welfare because their wages arent enough to live on?

Iwasfrozen

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Why would I pay someone 18k if I can pay them or someone else to do the same work for 15k? The only people paid by their worth are already earning above minimum wage. The people are getting minimum wage because its as low as the business can go and they are still able to fill positions.

If you employed a person to do a job at 18k while the minimum wage was 18k then that person must have been worth 18k.

If the minimum wage is abolished that person will still be worth 18k, if you try to cut his wages another company will offer him 18k.

If the person wasn't worth 18k while minimum wage laws were in place then you would never hired him for 18k in the first place.

trixychic

But then you are not as you said scrapping the minimum wage... they are just lowering it. And if employers can continue to get workers for free on a job bridge scheme or its like they are not going to hire anyone regardless of the pay!!!

Not a NSA agent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you employed a person to do a job at 18k while the minimum wage was 18k then that person must have been worth 18k.

If the minimum wage is abolished that person will still be worth 18k, if you try to cut his wages another company will offer him 18k.

If the person wasn't worth 18k while minimum wage laws were in place then you would never hired him for 18k in the first place.

Why would another company hire a person at 18k when you could hire a person to do the same job for 15k?

The reason people are being hired at 18k now is because they cant pay any lower. If I can get 30k in a job but apply to Dunnes, they arent going to offer be 30k because its my "worth". They will offer me the same amount as everyone else and probably won't give me the job because there is a risk I could go elsewhere.

Iwasfrozen

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Why would another company hire a person at 18k when you could hire a person to do the same job for 15k?

The reason people are being hired at 18k now is because they cant pay any lower. If I can get 30k in a job but apply to Dunnes, they arent going to offer be 30k because its my "worth". They will offer me the same amount as everyone else and probably won't give me the job because there is a risk I could go elsewhere.

Why? Because another company will hire the guy at 18k.

Your Dunnes example doesn't make sense. If you change fields you clearly can't expect to earn as much.

Not a NSA agent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why? Because another company will hire the guy at 18k.

Your Dunnes example doesn't make sense. If you change fields you clearly can't expect to earn as much.

So now we are assuming there is a boom of minimum wage jobs and they are desperate for someone with a year of shop experience. If we make enough assumptions it might just work out!

Tesco are often known for trying to steal Dunnes workers with offers of 12 euro an hour.

But what about my worth? Thats what these jobs pay right? You are claiming Im wrong about them hiring people who will do the job well enough at lowest cost.

1. Cut minimum wage
2. ???
3. Profit

Iwasfrozen

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

So now we are assuming there is a boom of minimum wage jobs and they are desperate for someone with a year of shop experience. If we make enough assumptions it might just work out!

Tesco are often known for trying to steal Dunnes workers with offers of 12 euro an hour.

But what about my worth? Thats what these jobs pay right? You are claiming Im wrong about them hiring people who will do the job well enough at lowest cost.

1. Cut minimum wage
2. ???
3. Profit

Hold on, let me break this down for you. Those whose market value is worth 18k, 25k, or 30k, will be unaffected by a drop in minimum wage. We can generalize this by saying those whose market value or worth is >=18k will not be affected by a drop in the minimum wage.

Those who will be affected by a drop in the minimum wage are those whose market value is less than 18k. Be it 15k, 13k, etc. Minimum wage laws make it impossible for companies to hire them and forces them into long term unemployment or jobbridge.

Removing minimum wage laws would enable those whose market value is less than 18k to gain employment. Which will give them experience, references, opportunity to improve their market value instead of languishing on state aid.

No assumptions, no silly South Park references. Pretty simple to understand.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you employed a person to do a job at 18k while the minimum wage was 18k then that person must have been worth 18k.

I don't think that's logical. Perhaps that person must have been worth whatever the minimum wage was.

You can argue that they are only paying someone 18 grand because that is the minimum they are allowed to pay someone. What makes you think that, if the minimum wage is reduced or abolished, they will continue to hire people at 18 grand?

Iwasfrozen

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think that's logical. Perhaps that person must have been worth whatever the minimum wage was.

You can argue that they are only paying someone 18 grand because that is the minimum they are allowed to pay someone. What makes you think that, if the minimum wage is reduced or abolished, they will continue to hire people at 18 grand?

I don't think that argument is logical. If a person's market value is 15k I won't hire them for 18k.

The exact same logic that tells me a person earning 30k won't be affected by lowering the minimum wage. Because the floor is being lowered beneath their market value.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think that argument is logical. If a person's market value is 15k I won't hire them for 18k.

The exact same logic that tells me a person earning 30k won't be affected by lowering the minimum wage. Because the floor is being lowered beneath their market value.

So, if the minimum wage were abolished from January 1st next year, you would expect companies which currently hire for positions of 18k (current minimum wage) to continue hiring at that figure after that date?

You would not expect them to start advertising jobs at a lower figure?

Iwasfrozen

osarusan wrote: »

So, if the minimum wage were abolished from January 1st next year, you would expect companies which currently hire for positions of 18k (current minimum wage) to continue hiring at that figure after that date?

You would not expect them to start advertising jobs at a lower figure?

I would expect companies would be willing to take on more people and pay them their market value. So the total number of people in the workforce would increase.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would expect companies would be willing to take on more people and pay them their market value. So the total number of people in the workforce would increase.

that didn't answer my question though.

Do you expect them to continue hiring at the current figure even after the minimum wage is reduced or abolished?

Iwasfrozen

osarusan wrote: »

that didn't answer my question though.

Do you expect them to continue hiring at the current figure even after the minimum wage is reduced or abolished?

Those who have a current market value of 18k will still command a market value of 18k. If a company tries to cut their wages they have the option to move elsewhere.

Those who have a market value above or equal to 18k are unaffected by moving the price floor lower than 18k.