The Jobbridge Scandal

Iwasfrozen

Wang King wrote: »

The very definition of job is paid employment, look it up

Dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

Wang King

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

Doesn't change the fact you are incorrect

Iwasfrozen

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

A nixer is a bit of work done on the side by employed people, painters, carpenters, electricians etc. To be honest it's quiet clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about in this thread.

Nixers are often undertaken by unemployed to top up their dole. They are jobs and the people holding them are classified as unemployed. So holding a job does not automatically make a person employed.

Iwasfrozen

Wang King wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact you are incorrect

I'll repeat, dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

Xenji

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You've answered your own question. Jobbridge interns are classified as unemployed because the relevant legislation mandates it.

To answer your second point. Lots of unemployed people have jobs, they're called nixers. You don't need to be classified as employed to have a job and a job does not have to be paid to be classified as being a job.

Just gonna leave this with you, as you have proven with your track record in this thread there is no point replying any further.

Courtesy of Webster's.

Job
noun
1.
a paid position of regular employment.
"the scheme could create 200 jobs"
synonyms: position of employment, position, post, situation, place, appointment, posting, placement, day job; More
2.
a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
"she wants to be left alone to get on with the job"
synonyms: task, piece of work, assignment, project;

Wang King

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'll repeat, dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

You're just embarrassing yourself now, but continue, your posts are good comedic value if nothing else

Tipsy McSwagger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nixers are often undertaken by unemployed to top up their dole. They are jobs and the people holding them are classified as unemployed. So holding a job does not automatically make a person employed.

Ye go over to the dole office and explain that to them.

fin12

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Erm, I don't know who you've been talking to but volunteers often refer to their work as a job. Which it is, an unpaid voluntary job is still a job.

Excuse me I dont need to talk to anybody because I volunteer myself, and know plenty others who are volunteering and I've never once heard somebody refer to their volunteering role as their job.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

I take it you're using Ayn Rand's version of the English dictionary.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They are jobs and the people holding them are classified as unemployed. So holding a job does not automatically make a person employed.

The comparison you are trying to pass off as legitimate is laughable.

Nixers versus jobbridge internships.

I don't believe for even a second that you really believe what you're saying has any validity.

Iwasfrozen

The claim that jobbridge reduced the number of jobs in the economy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The number of jobs in an economy is a variable dependent on many elements, cost of wages being one of the biggest factors. As wages fall, the number of jobs in the economy increases as companies are willing to hire more people. This is the case with jobbridge which is effectively allowing companies to hire workers at zero cost subject to constraints imposed by the department of social protection allowing them to reach employee saturation.

Some people here are making the implication that the same number of jobs would be available in the economy without jobbridge, that jobbridge is supplementing what would otherwise be paid work forgetting the laws of supply and demand which tell us a fall in wages creates new positions while an increase in wages (what ending the scheme would effectively be) reduces the number of available positions.

It seems many of the comments from posters on this forum are a result of ignorance of economics and basic supply and demand.

Tipsy McSwagger

Can you imagine an unemployed person going into the dole office and turning down a Jobridge internship because they have a few nixers lined up?

QuinDixie

Jobbridge as a concept is a very good idea.
But it should be only for professional positions, positions lasting no longer than 4 months and companies who use Jobbridge should be expected to eventually hire their jobbridge workers.
Or else Jobbridge becomes a vicious circle, achieving nothing but state funded employees. And we have enough of them already.

The Dogs Bollix

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The claim that jobbridge reduced the number of jobs in the economy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The number of jobs in an economy is a variable dependent on many elements, cost of wages being one of the biggest factors. As wages fall, the number of jobs in the economy increases as companies are willing to hire more people. This is the case with jobbridge which is effectively allowing companies to hire workers at zero cost subject to constraints imposed by the department of social protection allowing them to reach employee saturation.

Some people here are making the implication that the same number of jobs would be available in the economy without jobbridge, that jobbridge is supplementing what would otherwise be paid work forgetting the laws of supply and demand which tell us a fall in wages creates new positions while an increase in wages (what ending the scheme would effectively be) reduces the number of available positions.

It seems many of the comments from posters on this forum are a result of ignorance of economics and basic supply and demand.

Are you serious? Jobbridge is allowing companies to hire empoyees?

Jobbridge isn't a recruitment agency.

The sole purpose of jobbridge is to give experience and experience only. Not to hire workers at zero cost.

I should edit my post, what "wages" are you speaking of when you say as wages fall?

Are you talking of "jobbridge wages" ?

Your post sickens me. Jobbridge isn't a recruitment agency or for hiring workers or cheap labour. Its for experience only. Its to give people experience so that they can use their experience and get off the social welfare. Not to stay on it. But as long as this scheme is in place, nothing changes. Companies arent interested in taking on people, why would they. They have a revovling door of people to keep costs down as you say.

Iwasfrozen

The Dogs Bollix wrote: »

Are you serious? Jobbridge is allowing companies to hire empoyees?

Jobbridge isn't a recruitment agency.

The sole purpose of jobbridge is to give experience and experience only. Not to hire workers at zero cost.

Yep. Did you read what I wrote? The labour market can be explained as a very basic supply and demand model. Jobbridge acts as an effective subsidy on employment. Subsidies increase supply as they reduce the cost of providing the service, in this case reducing the cost of providing employment.

Ending jobbridge, ending the subsidy, will decrease the number of jobs in the economy and make it harder for those whose market value is less than our ridiculously high minimum wage the chance to get on the career ladder, develop skills and shape their prospects to what companies and market forces are projecting into the future.

For those who are on jobbridge currently the best advice I can give you, coming from a guy who has seen this be successful in the past, is attitude is everything. You have to give it your all in work and show your employer that you are a person who will benefit the company. Be better than the competition and you won't have any competition. One thing is for certain, whining about you situation won't help but being the best and succeeding in the objectives you set yourself will put you above the mediocre masses.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'll repeat, dictionaries and definitions differ. That is by no means universal.

'Atlas Shrugged' is not a dictionary.

mickstupp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Evidence?

It's very simple really. I thought, given your contributions to the thread, that you might have looked this up already, but anyhow.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/JobBridge-Interns-FAQs.aspx#q6

You will receive an internship allowance that is equal to your current social welfare allowance (at time of commencement on the Scheme) plus an additional €50 per week top-up which will be paid by the Department Social Protection (DSP).

The DSP pays the equivalent of the social welfare allowance, plus €50. The "employer" pays nothing. Therefore they are getting free labour. It's very clear. You work for a company for a full week, and the government gives you money for that, not the company you worked for. So companies are getting free labour.

The government then says that the people on Jobsbridge are not on Social Welfare, not unemployed, and yet they're still getting paid out of the same purse as far as I can see. Thus, they're fiddling the unemployment numbers to make themselves look better.

People are not being employed by the companies they're interning in because those companies are not paying them. They're being paid by the government, and they're being paid more than they would if they just sat on social welfare. The scheme is costing the government while they subsidise businesses that should be paying for the work they receive.

scamalert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Imagine I run a company and hired one accountant. Jobbridge is brought in and I choose to hire two junior accountants on the scheme to work under the existing accountant. Jobbridge hasn't taken any jobs there and has actually provided two.

Now you might say the two junior boyos will replace the senior but that's something you would need to support with evidence.

your views are diluted to say the least.

since in examples i pointed out they look to fill in empty positions-and your claim id hire extra two people-for what ? extra free labor,if like you say you already had person in place and secured his position-thus two people doing 40h every week for 9 months to push papers around and get replaced afterwards-or even doing the same job while x person gets payed properly and two yoyos are given 50e out of government pocket.

Now id imagine you would back that up with them gaining experience-but that's rubbish,since on most ads its usual person will gain experience in every day tasks,printing,dealing with customers and other crap that usually wouldn't take more then few weeks at most to get to know.And worse there would always be people who already have degrees and qualifications for such jobs thus ,come real job that work experience will do little when it will come to picking candidates who already are qualified in the field.

Ending jobbridge, ending the subsidy, will decrease the number of jobs in the economy

-any evidence to support given what you said,as i could only see that those employers who were actually looking to hire someone would remain if they indeed needed the workforce,but those who look to get free labor would die down as flies,thus it would only force real jobs to be advertised and they would put every effort in, to train person properly,thus simple selection would take place where if one doesn't work out it would be employers lose and it wouldn't take them 9 months to do it if proper wages would have to be payed-since there are plenty of schemes in place where people can re train in any given field in a years time and and take up education if they need career change,thus your claim actually would support that businesses that cant afford to pay even minimum wage would dive under,thus making place for others who would be able to.

Greenmachine

The Dogs Bollix wrote: »

Are you serious? Jobbridge is allowing companies to hire empoyees?

Jobbridge isn't a recruitment agency.

The sole purpose of jobbridge is to give experience and experience only. Not to hire workers at zero cost.

I should edit my post, what "wages" are you speaking of when you say as wages fall?

Are you talking of "jobbridge wages" ?

Your post sickens me. Jobbridge isn't a recruitment agency or for hiring workers or cheap labour. Its for experience only. Its to give people experience so that they can use their experience and get off the social welfare. Not to stay on it. But as long as this scheme is in place, nothing changes. Companies arent interested in taking on people, why would they. They have a revovling door of people to keep costs down as you say.

I Know two people who have done job bridge, they both had a number of years experience in their chosen area, between 5 and 10 years, but both had a period of unemployment, ridiculous that they had to choose a job-bridge over paid employment, but in both case, the job bridge position required a number of years experience a clear contradiction of terms, of what job bridge is for.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok well if your employer said these would be paid jobs if jobbridge did not exist (and I doubt he did, a least publicly) then we can take his word for it. But you can't then make a link to the wider economy extrapolating that your personal experience is indicative of the bigger picture.

The labor market is like any other, lower the cost of employing a person and companies will employ more people. Companies would rather pay two people 20k than one person 40k if they can get away with it. The same is true for jobbridge, it allows companies to hire more people than they otherwise would.

Do you have any evidence to back up your statement that jobbridge is reducing the number of paid jobs? Because apart from very low skilled or blue collar work I can't see how that would be feasible.

I'm not trying to imply that what I have experienced is how it is everywhere but there are enough stories in this thread and in the public domain that one can make an informed guess that the scheme is being abused. As I already said, I was offered to jobs at a good wage only to be called back and told that the jobs were now on jobbridge. Where I work now they need to hire a minimum of two people, these were to be waged jobs till they realised that they can use jobbridge to get people on and then do so every 9 months. That the cooling off period is no longer there says so much.

That so many of the internships now require a certain amount of experience goes totally against why it exists in the first place. Every day there are positions being advertised for roles which should be filled by experienced individuals who receive a wage but instead the scheme now allows employers to advertise for experienced individuals who they don't have to pay a cent for.

The Dogs Bollix

Honestly, i feel bullied or i must be put in my place and made feel stupid.

From day 1, there was someone and something about her. I kept out of her way unless she came to me asking for me to do something.

I'm qualified, just like her. I lack experience, it doesn't make me stupid. I guess I'm stupid because i took an assistant role jobbridge rather than something in what i qualified in. But what was i meant to do with little work. But I'm made feel stupid.

For the most simple of things.

Something happened a couple of months ago which i had nothing to do with. But i got the blame. Something similar happened today and she must have linked what happened back then and i got the blame again.

I did volunteer work years ago for a charity. Its something i learned in my first 5 minutes-no joke. Its something, you bring with you. And here's me and somehow they think i can't grasp something 6 months later in a jobbridge!

Wompa1

The Dogs Bollix wrote: »

Honestly, i feel bullied or i must be put in my place and made feel stupid.

From day 1, there was someone and something about her. I kept out of her way unless she came to me asking for me to do something.

I'm qualified, just like her. I lack experience, it doesn't make me stupid. I guess I'm stupid because i took an assistant role jobbridge rather than something in what i qualified in. But what was i meant to do with little work. But I'm made feel stupid.

For the most simple of things.

Something happened a couple of months ago which i had nothing to do with. But i got the blame. Something similar happened today and she must have linked what happened back then and i got the blame again.

I did volunteer work years ago for a charity. Its something i learned in my first 5 minutes-no joke. Its something, you bring with you. And here's me and somehow they think i can't grasp something 6 months later in a jobbridge!

That sh1t happens to me all the time. I'm not an intern. I'm a contractor, it's just politics. You say you don't have the experience. Just get the experience you need or want and then bolt.

When you say you didn't take something you are qualified in. Why did you do that? Was there no internship you were qualified in? Are you actually qualified or do you mean you have a degree, a master and\or a PhD...I wouldn't say those qualify anybody for a certain job. You need the experience which is meant to be the reason for this JobBridge BS

The Dogs Bollix

Wompa1 wrote: »

That sh1t happens to me all the time. I'm not an intern. I'm a contractor, it's just politics. You say you don't have the experience. Just get the experience you need or want and then bolt.

When you say you didn't take something you are qualified in. Why did you do that? Was there no internship you were qualified in? Are you actually qualified or do you mean you have a degree, a master and\or a PhD...I wouldn't say those qualify anybody for a certain job. You need the experience which is meant to be the reason for this JobBridge BS

I'm qualified but I'm an assistant to helping out the people with the same qualifications as me. The assistant role is just a fancy name as a cleaner. So I'm over qualified. But found it difficult to get work. But I'm in a building to where i would like to get experience. Watching students get more experience than i do. I got more experience as a student.

As for an internship, im qualified in.. There was a two but i didnt hear back from one, and they have it re-advertised looking for experience and the other was in a small village with little available accommation. They are so few internships available. And i did contact employers and they weren't interested.

Its soul destroying.

scamalert

I dont get it is it that hard to make scheme win=win

1.allow to advertise Jb only if employer will train person and keep him after set period of time when training is completed.no more then 2 positions if one fails.

2.dump all the fec55rs who want to advertise jobs where skills can be gained in less then couple weeks of training,or looking people into qualified positions.

3.employ person to check on trainee and employer weekly and monitor ongoing training.

few steps and there wouldn't be any such crap with this scheme where no brain jobs or qualified positions are abused,thus creating actual working scheme to get into different fields and employ people otherwise if there's actual shortage.

trixychic

Isn't it interesting that the people who are "pro" job bridge haven't actually done one of the placements themselves??? It's all "a friend/ friend of a friend / second cousin"....

Anyone who has been in the placements knows how bad it is. Very easy to talk the talk and all that.

CramCycle

My brother actually.

I do not disagree. Most JBs are terrible. The companies involved should be banned or fined for abuse ( fine payable directly to the JBers, about 1 year annual salary).

There are some that are great, some companies that use it properly. All it really needs is someone to tell companies with inappropriate placements to F off.

Backstreet Moyes

I done a Springboard course to retrain to a new sector with the aim of getting into a well known local company.

I got an internship as part of the course and i agreed to stay on part-time once the internship ended, while looking for full-time work.

I noticed last week the company i wanted to get into are hiring for a job-bridge position, with the job role that i wanted to get experience in.

My question is since i have been working part-time for the last few weeks does this make me ineligible for the job-bridge role.

Xenji

Nuts102 wrote: »

I done a Springboard course to retrain to a new sector with the aim of getting into a well known local company.

I got an internship as part of the course and i agreed to stay on part-time once the internship ended, while looking for full-time work.

I noticed last week the company i wanted to get into are hiring for a job-bridge position, with the job role that i wanted to get experience in.

My question is since i have been working part-time for the last few weeks does this make me ineligible for the job-bridge role.

Did you switch from JSB to JBA, if so, you will have to wait 3 months before you can apply from the time of the switch.

Backstreet Moyes

Xenji wrote: »

Did you switch from JSB to JBA, if so, you will have to wait 3 months before you can apply from the time of the switch.

I done a springboard course so i was still receiving job seekers allowance, now working part time i am on x@o's if that makes it any clearer.

Tipsy McSwagger

Not having the company pay any money on top of the €50 the Social gives to the intern constitutes slave labor imo.