The Jobbridge Scandal

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dxhound2005

sligoface wrote: »

Hardly supports your argument when one of the hardest hit areas of the country for unemployment has the highest percentage on a free labor scheme. It shows what people are forced to do when the government cannot provide a real answer to unemployment. Another recent article stated that half the storefronts in town are empty. That's not spin, that's fact. Many businessea have closed and the few that are left are using Jobbridge which means anyone looking for work here is going to have a lot of difficulty.

How is it minor when literally half the jobs on the fas website in my area are unpaid internships? Do you really think all of us on here complaining about so many job ads being for internships and being for positions like bar and waitstaff are just exaggerating?

Forget about numbers, do you think there should be government sponsored internships for bar and waitstaff? Do you think free labor can actually help decrease levels of unemployment? If so, please explain how, I'd love to hear it.

I have a problem with the scheme because I can see clearly that it is a major obstacle in my goal of finding paid work, and that's why I post here. If you were a young adult jobseeker you might understand, but the only reason you keep coming on here to defend the scheme is because you support the political party that implemented it. And just like them, you're out of touch and choose to deny the simple fact that the availability of free labor has a negative affect on the amount of paid work.

Seriously, when it's pointed out that the scheme is being abused and companies are exploiting people the best you can do is say that it's only 6500 people being exploited? How is that a valid defense?

There are about 5,000 on the Live Register in Sligo. Giving the 144 people on Jobbridge a real job would solve that problem how exactly? The Sligo man is completely overstating the impact of Jobbridge and you have now also been taken in by the media spin.

Guy:Incognito

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There are about 5,000 on the Live Register in Sligo. Giving the 144 people on Jobbridge a real job would solve that problem how exactly? The Sligo man is completely overstating the impact of Jobbridge and you have now also been taken in by the media spin.

Is it okay to exploit "only" 144 people?

What if 10 competing businesses shut down because they don't have free staff?

what if a competitor in your line of work took on a few people on jobsbridge to cut costs and undercut you forcing your company to close. Is that okay?

dxhound2005

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is it okay to exploit "only" 144 people?

What if 10 competing businesses shut down because they don't have free staff?

what if a competitor in your line of work took on a few people on jobsbridge to cut costs and undercut you forcing your company to close. Is that okay?

I will take "a few" to mean 4. That employer would have to between 21 and 30 full time employees to allow them to look for 4 interns.

dxhound2005

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know what you mean. But there are about 1.9 million people in paid employment.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2013/qnhs_q32013.pdf

Xenji

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There are about 5,000 on the Live Register in Sligo. Giving the 144 people on Jobbridge a real job would solve that problem how exactly? The Sligo man is completely overstating the impact of Jobbridge and you have now also been taken in by the media spin.

How many more people are actually unemployed in Sligo after you take into account the various activation programmes?

Guy:Incognito

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I will take "a few" to mean 4. That employer would have to between 21 and 30 full time employees to allow them to look for 4 interns.

On. Let's say 4. That's €52,600 ( plus employers liabilities, assuming only minimum wage and 9 months) in wages the company is saving in a year and putting towards undercutting your company. So that's the government down it's tax take on €52,600 and the rest that isn't being spent in the economy generating vat take for the government. Instead of gaining whatever they get of the €52,600 the government is paying out €37,000. That's bad maths in anyone's language.

dxhound2005

Xenji wrote: »

How many more people are actually unemployed in Sligo after you take into account the various activation programmes?

I have no idea. If you apply the 0.34% from the newspaper link to the 85,000 total on all the schemes you get 289. Could be way off the mark, maybe there are a lot more on CE schemes in the West than the national average.

shruikan2553

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Were they sidestepped from the dole in to these courses on a similar weekly rate? Are they being farmed out as free labour to private businesses (outside of work placenments relative to their course before you bring that up)

The reality is this magical half a million figure of unemployed they were afraid of was well broken.

Not even students are being screwed over as much as those on jobsbridge, at least min wage plus some benefits for my class.

dxhound2005

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

On. Let's say 4. That's €52,600 ( plus employers liabilities, assuming only minimum wage and 9 months) in wages the company is saving in a year and putting towards undercutting your company. So that's the government down it's tax take on €52,600 and the rest that isn't being spent in the economy generating vat take for the government. Instead of gaining whatever they get of the €52,600 the government is paying out €37,000. That's bad maths in anyone's language.

But you are ignoring the numbers on Jobbridge who go on to proper jobs during or following their placements. I'm tired finding figures for people who would rather just make their own up out of their heads and use them as a basis to go on a rant so I will let you research that one.

zenno

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But you are ignoring the numbers on Jobbridge who go on to proper jobs during or following their placements. I'm tired finding figures for people who would rather just make their own up out of their heads and use them as a basis to go on a rant so I will let you research that one.

Show me the un-massaged real government figures ?. You have to take into account of all the courses people are on (as monies paid into their bank account of which are registered as working/in a different section to JSA as you cannot get your money from the post office any-more because they are taken off jobseekers) as they are being told that they are not on JSA any-more as they are in a full-time course. When they finish their course, then they have to sign on for JSA again, and then they are added to the unemployment record once again.

A friend of mine took the truck course and was told by the DSP that he would no longer be paid by the social welfare for JSA while he is on this course, so the DSP obviously ticked him off the books as working in a course. This is how they massage the figures. The same goes with Jobbridge/Gateway/TUS/CE-schemes and the rest, as they are not classed as unemployed any-more, they are removed from the unemployment statistics figures of unemployment.

The real figures would be shocking. This DSP skilful scenario is akin to a magician making you think the ball is under the 3rd cup, when there is no ball at all.

ABajaninCork

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But you are ignoring the numbers on Jobbridge who go on to proper jobs during or following their placements. I'm tired finding figures for people who would rather just make their own up out of their heads and use them as a basis to go on a rant so I will let you research that one.

So what is the figure for last year? 2012?? I've tried asking the Department and have also put the question to my local TD's (two FG, 1 FF, 1 SF, 1 Lab). That was TWO YEARS AGO, as detailed a few pages ago. To date, I am still waiting for an answer.

Now I wonder why that is?? :rolleyes:

dxhound2005

zenno wrote: »

Show me the un-massaged real government figures ?. You have to take into account of all the courses people are on (as monies paid into their bank account of which are registered as working/in a different section to JSA as you cannot get your money from the post office any-more because they are taken off jobseekers) as they are being told that they are not on JSA any-more as they are in a full-time course. When they finish their course, then they have to sign on for JSA again, and then they are added to the unemployment record once again.

A friend of mine took the truck course and was told by the DSP that he would no longer be paid by the social welfare for JSA while he is on this course, so the DSP obviously ticked him off the books as working in a course. This is how they massage the figures. The same goes with Jobbridge/Gateway/TUS/CE-schemes and the rest, as they are not classed as unemployed any-more, they are removed from the unemployment statistics figures of unemployment.

The real figures would be shocking. This DSP skilful scenario is akin to a magician making you think the ball is under the 3rd cup, when there is no ball at all.

I don't know what a truck course is. Whenever I point out that 6,500 people on Jobbridge is not a major element of the employment scene (and this thread is about Jobbridge) all I get is What About. What about Tus what about all the other schemes what about emigration. Well all the figures have been repeated over and over for anyone who wants to read them. And as I have to keep repeating the people doing the figures for what they call Activation Schemes have always published them as a separate category from the Live Register figure. So how can anyone claim that the current figures are massaging unemployment statistics any more than 5 or 20 years ago?

Just for your benefit I will attach the figures again. Look at the bottom of the page in the table called Activation Schemes to see a full breakdown of the Activation Scheme figures. Nobody is trying to hide them away, they are just not the same as people on the Live Register who are at home unemployed, not on any scheme and looking for work.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterfebruary2014/

You will note that the Live Register figures are for February but the Activation Schemes are January.

osarusan

Are any statistics available on what % of internships lead to paid positions within the company, or similar positions with other companies which can be attributed to the internship?

Also, any statistics available on how many internships each company has offered, and how many applications for internships have been rejected by FAS as being unsuitable?

dxhound2005

osarusan wrote: »

Are any statistics available on what % of internships lead to paid positions within the company, or similar positions with other companies which can be attributed to the internship?

Also, any statistics available on how many internships each company has offered, and how many applications for internships have been rejected by FAS as being unsuitable?

All I can do is point you to the Indecon report for which there is a link on the Jobbridge site. It runs to 155 pages so you might be able to extract some of the information you need. But it is out of date. I don't know who you would expect to be able to monitor Jobbridge on an ongoing basis to the extent that they could supply the very detailed information you are looking for.

http://www.jobbridge.ie/notice5.aspx

osarusan

dxhound2005 wrote: »

All I can do is point you to the Indecon report for which there is a link on the Jobbridge site. It runs to 155 pages so you might be able to extract some of the information you need. But it is out of date. I don't know who you would expect to be able to monitor Jobbridge on an ongoing basis to the extent that they could supply the very detailed information you are looking for.

http://www.jobbridge.ie/notice5.aspx

If nobody is monitoring the answer to the question "What % of internships leads to employment with the company or with a similar company utilising the skills developed in the internship?" how can anybody determine whether the scheme has been a success or not?

I's hardly 'very detailed information', it's data fundamental to the premise of the scheme.

Reading through this thread and I get the impression that were the government to set up work camps and force the unemployed into them, there would still be apologists in here telling us that Enda is doing this for us b

Guy:Incognito

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I don't know what a truck course is. Whenever I point out that 6,500 people on Jobbridge is not a major element of the employment scene (and this thread is about Jobbridge) all I get is What About. What about Tus what about all the other schemes what about emigration. Well all the figures have been repeated over and over for anyone who wants to read them. And as I have to keep repeating the people doing the figures for what they call Activation Schemes have always published them as a separate category from the Live Register figure. So how can anyone claim that the current figures are massaging unemployment statistics any more than 5 or 20 years ago?

Just for your benefit I will attach the figures again. Look at the bottom of the page in the table called Activation Schemes to see a full breakdown of the Activation Scheme figures. Nobody is trying to hide them away, they are just not the same as people on the Live Register who are at home unemployed, not on any scheme and looking for work.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterfebruary2014/

You will note that the Live Register figures are for February but the Activation Schemes are January.

So do you think it's ok for even 1 person to be on a job bridge in a supermarket stacking shelves. If so, why

Guy:Incognito

osarusan wrote: »

Are any statistics available on what % of internships lead to paid positions within the company, or similar positions with other companies which can be attributed to the internship?

Also, any statistics available on how many internships each company has offered, and how many applications for internships have been rejected by FAS as being unsuitable?

Presumably if there were figures , or more importantly if they reflected favourably on job bridge then Joan Burton would use them instead of the much more vague "X number of people that were on job bridge are now in employment" .that employment might well have no relation to the company or industry they did the job bridge in.

guinnessdrinker

dxhound2005 wrote: »

All I can do is point you to the Indecon report for which there is a link on the Jobbridge site. It runs to 155 pages so you might be able to extract some of the information you need. But it is out of date. I don't know who you would expect to be able to monitor Jobbridge on an ongoing basis to the extent that they could supply the very detailed information you are looking for.

http://www.jobbridge.ie/notice5.aspx

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but how is the general public supposed to know how successfull or unsuccessfull the scheme is if it is not being fully monitored and how is it supposed to be measured?

I was told off the record by an employee of Intreo that the scheme is not being monitored properly and this is leading to companies trying to exploit the scheme.

It is plainly obvious that the scheme is not being monitored correctly anyway imo. The citeria for companies applying to list a position needs to be overhauled in the first instance.

A detailed plan should be submitted by the company specifying exactly what experience and benifits the intern will gain i.e the description should not be vague. For example "the intern will gain experience in working with computers" should read along the lines of "after the first month the intern will have passed the Google Analytics Individual Qualification, in the second month the intern will have completed xxx Course" etc.

guinnessdrinker

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably if there were figures , or more importantly if they reflected favourably on job bridge then Joan Burton would use them instead of the much more vague "X number of people that were on job bridge are now in employment" .that employment might well have no relation to the company or industry they did the job bridge in.

Good point. I know a person that did a 9 month internship with a retail company. She worked 40 hours per week on the scheme, at the end of the scheme the company did keep her on but only gave her approx 20 hours per week.

osarusan

From that report, of 2042 respondents, 1050 (51.4%) are now employed. 583 (28.6%) are employed with the company which hosted their internship, 177 (8.7%) are employed by another company in the same sector, and 290 (14.2%) are employed in another sector.

992 (48.6%) are not employed. 683 (33.6%) are unemployed, 185 (9.1%) are pursuing further education or training, 69 (3.4%) had short-term contract work which ended, and 55 (2.7%) have emigrated.

(Table 3.15 on page 36)

Also, the host organisation offered paid positions to 860 people, which was 18.7% of the total number of internships hosted.

(Table 3.17 on page 47).

Guy:Incognito

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Good point. I know a person that did a 9 month internship with a retail company. She worked 40 hours per week on the scheme, at the end of the scheme the company did keep her on but only gave her approx 20 hours per week.

Did she need 9 months (unpaid) to learn how to do the job or could she have been a proper, paid employee from early on?

Guy:Incognito

osarusan wrote: »

From that report, of 2042 respondents, 1050 (51.4%) are now employed. 583 (28.6%) are employed with the company which hosted their internship, 177 (8.7%) are employed by another company in the same sector, and 290 (14.2%) are employed in another sector.

992 (48.6%) are not employed. 683 (33.6%) are unemployed, 185 (9.1%) are pursuing further education or training, 69 (3.4%) had short-term contract work which ended, and 55 (2.7%) have emigrated.

(Table 3.15 on page 36)

Also, the host organisation offered paid positions to 860 people, which was 18.7% of the total number of internships hosted.

(Table 3.17 on page 47).

So about 30% of the companies actually need people? Even add another free 10% on for companies that just didn't think the person was worth the job.

guinnessdrinker

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did she need 9 months (unpaid) to learn how to do the job or could she have been a proper, paid employee from early on?

No she didn't need 9 months experience. This would have been an entry level paid position up until Jobbridge where you learn and gain experience on the job. She was looking for other jobs while on the scheme but was unable to find work.

Hitchroun

Check out this new great opportunity, an internship of a life time!

Its hard to break into the car cleaning business...

guinnessdrinker

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

No she didn't need 9 months experience. This would have been an entry level paid position up until Jobbridge where you learn and gain experience on the job. She was looking for other jobs while on the scheme but was unable to find work.

So basically she was exploited for 9 months.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically she was exploited for 9 months.

and then given a part time job at the end when she presumably originally was looking for a full time job.

dxhound2005

osarusan wrote: »

If nobody is monitoring the answer to the question "What % of internships leads to employment with the company or with a similar company utilising the skills developed in the internship?" how can anybody determine whether the scheme has been a success or not?

I's hardly 'very detailed information', it's data fundamental to the premise of the scheme.

So for 6500 people constantly churning over you want someone to interview every one of them and their Jobbridge employer and their new employer, if any. And then categorise how relevant their job is to the training they received on Jobbridge. As far as I can see that is partly what the Indecon exercise did. But how often would you want this exercise conducted. Every week, every month? If someone gets a job or changes job 6 months after leaving Jobbridge how would you go about capturing that information for instance? To me it does not sound like a simple exercise at all.

osarusan

dxhound2005 wrote: »

To me it does not sound like a simple exercise at all.

I never said it was simple. It's not. But it should be done to some extent. The Indecon report seems detailed enough.

My point is that the data is needed to determine the effectiveness of the scheme. Surely you can agree on that, without resorting to more strawman arguments.