The Jobbridge Scandal

Xenji · 04-04-2014 3:45pm

For the third time in asking, are you using the Indecon Report figures or using figures from elsewhere, if they are from elsewhere please link them.

Around a fifth of participants got work within the organisation where they were doing their work experience, with nearly 17% getting a job elsewhere, this is from May 2013.

Ann Landers · 04-04-2014 3:46pm

Have 61% been taken on by the company where they did their internship? No? Then no, it's minority and a significant one at that. As others have pointed out, that 61% figure is iffy.

Ann Landers · 04-04-2014 3:46pm

I think he is going by the Indecon Report figures.

Soft Falling Rain · 04-04-2014 3:47pm

These surveys typically only use a sample of those who completed the programme, and exclude the people who walked away for very good reasons. Hence, why the figure is possibly skewed. You also have to take into account the rate of non completion of the survey.

Daith · 04-04-2014 3:49pm

Indeed. Unless we can ask the companies if the fact that the person completed the Job Bridge helped secure the job.

Very fuzzy data to be honest.

Mrs Garth Brooks · 04-04-2014 3:52pm

But used them for 40 hours a week before taking them on. There was a need for them to work full time (for free). But cut the hours when they're paying.

Xenji · 04-04-2014 3:53pm

If he is, then only around a fifth of participants got work within the organisation where they were doing their work experience, with nearly 17% getting a job elsewhere since the scheme has started, the figure is lower if you take into account people who never completed the scheme. The original draft of the Indecon report showed that only 8% of interns were kept on by their host organisation with a 75% dropout rate that was then lowered to 59%. So only 8.2% of people who have done an internship have been kept on by their host organisation and nearly the same figure have got employment elsewhere. Taking that into account, only around 17% of people who have done JobBridge have gotten a job out of it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-report-into-controversial-jobbridge-scheme-recommends-more-reports-29236030.html

Ann Landers · 04-04-2014 3:54pm

Exactly.

guinnessdrinker · 04-04-2014 4:01pm

A similar argument can be made that companies do actualy intend to hire a paid employee but decide to instead opt to hire an intern for one main simple reason: Cost. Simply put, a company will incur an expense to hire a paid employee but they will not incur an expense when they hire an intern.

Companies exist to make a profit. If a company can exploit a scheme that allows them to help themselves to free labour and gain an advantage over a competitor and increase their profits then what's stopping them? I don't think many companies are taking on interns because they feel morally obliged to. They are taking on interns because it will lead to an increase in productivity and a decrease in expenses. In a properly ran business this will lead to an increase in profits.

When you look at the example I gave. The intern spent 9 months working at 40 hours per week and the company at the end of the internship rewared her by giving her 20 hours a week paid employment. This looks great on employment statistics and on Jobbridge statistics. But when a hard working intern, desperate for paid employement is strung along on the pretence that there may be a full time positon at the end of the internship only to be offererd a token part time position that would normally have taken a week's training then the scheme can hardly be called a success.

tomwaterford · 04-04-2014 4:01pm

what contacts/experience are you going to gain washing cars for e1.25 an hour???
only so far your career will develop in washing cars FFS!!

oh sure that makes it ok so....they wont even pay them e1.25 an hour:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
get the state to pay them instead so they can get away without having to pay out wages!!!...how can anyone possibly defend this as honourable??

Permabear · 04-04-2014 4:07pm

This post has been deleted.

tomwaterford · 04-04-2014 4:10pm

if the solicter isn't able to hire her he shouldn't have taken her on in the first place!!!:mad::mad:
if he/she doesn't have the work for her it would be a waste of her time....why would he/she take on an intern??
why would they not hire her after it?????

shruikan2553 · 04-04-2014 4:10pm

In those cases I would see it as successful but the statistic would include Jane if she got a job in Smyths over Christmas, I would question why the solicitors didnt hire her.

Successful:
Jane is offered a job by host company.
Jane is offered a job by host company and another company in similar area. Jane takes the job in the other company.

Not Successful:
Jane is just let go in the end.
Jane gets a job months later.
Jane gets seasonal work.

Mrs Garth Brooks · 04-04-2014 4:12pm

Do you think car washers and shelf stackers get work that easily after an internship? Not a hope when there's more slaves available.

Thats the reality of the situation.

Ann Landers · 04-04-2014 4:13pm

In the scenario you give above, the internship has been a success. From the figures you give, is there a breakdown of where the people not hired by their host organisation ended up and how related was it to the internship? Did the employers supply information to the people conducting the study that the Jobbridge internship was a factor in the person being employed? If this information is not available, the figure is meaningless.

Xenji · 04-04-2014 4:14pm

17% of people who have done JobBridge has either been kept on by their host company or have found employment elsewhere, hardly setting the world afire with those statistics.

Permabear · 04-04-2014 4:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Daith · 04-04-2014 4:29pm

Not quite. The company will always get the intern for free. There is no guarantee the intern will get "experience, mentoring, recommendations, and networking opportunities".

There is nothing wrong with the idea of an internship. Turning every entry level job into one and quality control around it is an issue.

ABajaninCork · 04-04-2014 4:32pm

Far too many of these 'internships' do not offer any training, recommendations and networking opportunities. All they want is a warm body for free! :mad:

I read of one example on an earlier thread where the intern was required to run personal errands for the (female) boss! Things like balancing her chequebook; running to the pharmacy to pick up her birth control, collecting the dry-cleaning and doing her shopping. How is that kind of 'work experience' helping the intern?

The point I've been making throughout this thread is the fact that there is no proper checks and balances made to ensure the quality of the intern AS WELL AS the quality of the internship match. If the intern dares to complain, then nothing is done. Now I'm sure a good few of the complaints are probably spurious. But there's far more genuine complaints about which nothing is done. Companies are abusing this scheme left, right and centre.

This was a good idea in principle. Now it's a complete mess. Manipulated by the politicians for political gain to show they are 'doing something', rather than being in Dublin for the beer. And exploited by the employers for personal gain.

Permabear · 04-04-2014 4:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Daith · 04-04-2014 4:40pm

Maybe it was a full time job before but is now turned into a part time job as the new intern working more hours can do the rest of the work? Do you not think having interns means talking work albeit lower level work away from a full time position?

KyussBishop · 04-04-2014 4:41pm

Nobody said there is a fixed amount of work to be done, that (the 'lump of labour fallacy') is a straw-man argument you keep on bringing up and pinning to other posters, when they did not make that argument:
People pointed out that paid workers can be replaced with interns, and what you post does nothing to undermine that fact.

Sustainable economic growth in the private sector (and employment growth resulting from that), has to come from increased consumer demand - and note: this is not put forward as an argument against the 'lump of labour' fallacy (making this disclaimer, to pre-empt more use of the fallacy as a straw-man).

Oh ok, anyone who feels exploited is a Marxist, mmm? Nothing overly emotive about that argument.

So, as a Libertarian, you are supporting state-subsidization of business, by the state paying interns to provide labour and resulting profits to the business, instead of the business providing them with a wage - interesting double standards.

Here we have the fallacy of composition - the idea that because removing the minimum wage will increase employment for some jobs, that it will lead to an overall increase in employment (when instead it can lead to either no increase or an overall reduction in employment, due to lowered wages reducing consumer demand).

There are not enough jobs available there are 28 unemployed per job vacancy at the moment:
http://www.nerinstitute.net/imglibrary/2014/01/201401211508391.jpg
http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/01/21/over-28-unemployed-people-for-each-vacancy-in-the/

The idea that people "just don't have the skills" is wrong, because without adequate consumer demand or demand for exports (from a world which is also going through an economic downturn, and where, overall, countries are trying to import less and export more - just like us - leading to general reduced ability to export) - without the adequate demand, you don't have the business profits needed to create enough jobs to get back on the course to full employment.

I don't actually disagree with the idea of internships myself for skilled roles, but I do disagree with the way the current scheme is being exploited by some.

Permabear · 04-04-2014 4:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 04-04-2014 4:51pm

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop · 04-04-2014 4:53pm

Except it's not fallacious, your citation of the 'lump of labour fallacy' is a straw-man, since nobody argued there is only a fixed amount of work available, just that paid workers can be replaced with unpaid ones.

Ann Landers · 04-04-2014 4:58pm

Very nice spot!

ABajaninCork · 04-04-2014 4:59pm

I understand that. NO system is perfect! But this one is an absolute shambles.

Undoubtedly there are people the scheme has helped. Several examples are given here as well as elsewhere on other threads. However the NUMBER of people it has actually helped I would call into question. And just how do you define 'productive relationships'? If they do not help the intern back into employment, then it is NOT productive. Sorry...

Soft Falling Rain · 04-04-2014 5:51pm

You are looking at things a bit simplistically. If the host organisation does not take you on, and regardless of a glowing recommendation, you'll be facing an uphill struggle to compete in a competitive market.

Why? Because rightly or wrongly, in the grand scheme of things a 9 month internship will always be overlooked in favour of a more experienced candidate. Just look at the amount of job advertisements that emphathise that only those with PAID experience need apply.

starlit · 04-04-2014 6:46pm

It can still be difficult to get into a jobbridge now days due to competition from other candidates even if you have potential.

runawaybishop · 04-04-2014 6:54pm

People are always more likely to report negative experiences. It cannot be avoided that there are a lot of companies exploiting jobbridge and the system is not regulated properly.

The Jobbridge Scandal

Comments