What do you think of JobBridge?

Warper

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

Meathlass

Ah, another JobBridge thread.


Carry on.

Greenmachine

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

Don't you have to work a full week, not 20hr.

Warper

Greenmachine wrote: »

Don't you have to work a full week, not 20hr.

No its 20 hrs

The Backwards Man

I was on the dole for a while a few years ago as I had to wait to get vetted.

I would have gladly signed up for such a scheme for NO extra money. There's nothing as demeaning as sitting around on your hole all day doing nothing.

ThunbergsAreGo

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

Pretty sure €188 (or whatever)+€50 isnt €2.50 an hour. The whole amount should surely be taken

For Forks Sake

Warper wrote: »

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

Technically, the govt are paying €238 p/w (188 JSA + 50 Jobridge) in exchange for 20 hours work. €11.90 p.h.

BoJack Horseman

Its a crock of poop & it does displace paid labour.

(As previous threads have discussed).

Warper

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I was on the dole for a while a few years ago as I had to wait to get vetted.

I would have gladly signed up for such a scheme for NO extra money. There's nothing as demeaning as sitting around on your hole all day doing nothing.

Well everyone is different but do you not think that people should have a choice to be involved with JobBridge? Just because some people would work for nothing doesnt mean that everyone has to? The fact is that it is forced on people is what makes it wrong. They could keep it for people like yourself who would rather work for nothing but they should not ram it down peoples throats threatening them with welfare cuts if they dont oblige.

Doctor Jimbob

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.


The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

While the whole scheme is horribly implemented and needs reworked or done away with (internships for convenience stores and subway? lol); your post has a few very questionable points. Firstly, you're not forced to go on it after 6 months on the dole, at least not in all areas. I was on the dole for around 10 months and didn't have to go near the thing - I did check it out though, but there were no internships I qualified for that were in any way worth doing. As I mentioned above, the idea of a government funded internship as a cashier or deli worker is ludicrous.

On the other hand, it definitely isn't slave labour, and you don't get 50 euro a week, you get 50 euro a week on top of the dole you're already picking up. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's still below minimum wage, sure, but if you're one of the lucky ones who actually find an internship in a relevant field it's a fair trade off. Working for low pay beats sitting on your ass, IMO. Edit: above minimum wage if it's actually for 20 hours - I thought it was 40.

The last part of your post I completely agree with. The system is poorly implemented and abused by companies. With better regulation I actually think it would be a fantastic idea - poor pay or not.

Warper

Obviously the wealthier people in society are delighted with this as it gives them another way to exploit the poorer people in our society. I thought slave labour was banned a long time ago, obv not.

The Backwards Man

Warper wrote: »

Well everyone is different but do you not think that people should have a choice to be involved with JobBridge? Just because some people would work for nothing doesnt mean that everyone has to? The fact is that it is forced on people is what makes it wrong. They could keep it for people like yourself who would rather work for nothing but they should not ram it down peoples throats threatening them with welfare cuts if they dont oblige.

As far as I know no one has a gun held to their head saying they have to partake, maybe I'm wrong?

If they want the dole however, then I think it's fair enough.

BoJack Horseman

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As far as I know no one has a gun held to their head saying they have to partake, maybe I'm wrong?

No, there are blueshirted mobs forcing this.

ash23

Good in theory but shouldn't be used for jobs that require minimal training.

It would be good to use in connection with additional training. For example a jobsbridge in an office alongside an ECDL course or computer/payroll training.

A jobsbridge in a garage with mechanics course etc.

A job in a kitchen with HACCP training or on a building site with HSA training.

0byme75341jo28

Many employers take the piss with JobBridge, that's where the problem lies.

Stacking the shelves for tesco on an internship, I mean, ffs.

Cutie18Ireland

Jobsbridge is not 20 hours its fulltime 37-40 hours a week. CE schemes are 20 hours.

padd b1975

It's not without it's problems, but when used correctly by both employers and employees it's a good scheme.

With the economy improving all the time, it could be time to wind it down and let the business community stand on it's own too feet.

The intern system without outside interference works brilliantly in the US, and still could have a use in our economy, but only if applied correctly.

Warper

Warper wrote: »

Obviously the wealthier people in society are delighted with this as it gives them another way to exploit the poorer people in our society. I thought slave labour was banned a long time ago, obv not.

What a statement, why bother asking peoples opinion & thoughts if your mind is already made up?

johny33

I was on jobbridge for 9 months. I had diploma and a course and jobbridge gave me the experience. I got the contract with the company after those 9 months and it's 2 years now since.
jobbridge works out 6.35 ph, which is not the best, but you don't pay taxes
Actually, I was offered a job (paid 9.50 ph, but nothing I would want to do for the rest of my life) at the same time as I was offered position in jobbridge and I chose the second one. I'm happy with the job now and I'd be happy to get a career in it.

Wolf Club

Warper wrote: »

No its 20 hrs

A lot of the ones I've heard of we 30-39 hours a week and ran for 9 months. Overall the whole thing is a scam. Obviously there are the completely disgraceful positions (sandwich artist, car wash engineer, etc) but even the "successful" ones (where people get decent jobs upon completion) are pretty exploitative. I haven't yet heard of one where an intern was learning for the entirety of the internship. It's usually 2 weeks (if even) of training for the position and then 8.5 months of doing job at the same level as a paid employee but getting peanuts for it.

Foxhound38

I'm on one now. Had no office experience coming in so I hadn't a hope otherwise. Company I'm with are great, training me in with all aspects of the organization and treating me as every bit a part of the team. It's given me skills I can use anywhere even if the current crowd don't keep me on although I hope they will. The extra 50 and lack of signing on anymore is nice, as is getting the money in my bank account each week. And getting up and going to do a days work each day has an intrinsic value for me - sitting on my hole all day while I was out of work was a disaster for me psychologically etc.

Overall my experience has been great, although I'd say it very much depends on the company you end up with.

hfallada

The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment. If you go to an interview, even if you have the right education and skills, but the employer sees you havent worked in over 5 years. She/he will be thinking can this person adjust to live in a workplace again. With job bridge you can refresh your skills and have up to date experience. NYTimes got a 1,000 CVs that were identical. Half were currently in a job and the other half were long term unemployed( 1 year). The long term unemployed were significantly less likely to get an interview, than a person with up to date experience.

Like all Government schemes, there was abuse of job bridge. With the right framework, job bridge could be a success

starlit

You could be getting interviews left right and centre and not be a match for the job even with potential and the right skills/qualifications and experience. You still up against other candidates that is a better fit and seen to be better qualified and more experienced.

I felt hard done by candidates that hadn't even finished their degree and I had a degree and a postgrad, some experience in IT and yet they bypassed me yet did a good interview!? If I didn't answer a question the way an interviewer wanted me to answer or didn't give back an example they wanted they drew me out straight away.

mikom

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked?

My sandwich artist down the local SUBWAY swears by it.

starlit

Basically I am not what they are looking for which annoys me why they bother to interview me.

WinnyThePoo

Warper wrote: »

No its 20 hrs

Nope its between 35 hours and 40. Speaking from someone on the scheme.

ectoraige

I don't know where this 20 hours is coming from, Jobbridge is minimum 30 hours per week, max 39 hours, with either six or nine month contracts. Most places use them for 39 hours per week, on 9 month contracts.

They can serve three purposes:
1) Provide working experience and training in a field that an applicant doesn't have direct experience or knowledge in;
2) Act as an extended interview and training process for companies considering hiring new staff;
3) Serve as cheap disposable labour for companies requiring unskilled labour.

If it were only case 1, then you can see some benefit to it. Otherwise, it's exploitation of those without an income. There is some argument for case 2, in that it encourages companies who are hesitant about hiring new staff to do so. However, six months is far too long a time for what is effectively an on-the-job interview - 6-12 weeks should be more than enough. Moreover, if a company needs the staff, they need the staff and are going to hire anyway. Assisting the employer in ensuring he has a good interview process would be of more overall benefit. The knock-on effect is people who are already have skills and experienced have to go through JobBridge to secure a job that they should have been able to walk into from day one, with huge cost to both the state and to the persons themselves.

Enough said about case 3, the sole HGV drivers and shelf-stacker positions are well documented, and are thouroughly despicable practices.

I should note that I obtained my current position through JobBridge, my manager needed more staff but the beancounters were reluctant. It was 30 hours per week, for 6 months, and they took me on full-time at the end. However there's nothing really that I gained from the Internship that rendered me any more employable than I had been, other than the fact that I was now experienced using their specific toolset.

The main positive effect is the improvement in mental health - it's far better to be doing something productive, than to be sitting idle, even when the reward is small.

My personal gripe with Jobbridge is there is no assistance provided for childcare. When I was unemployed I was able to at least take care of our children. When I started the Internship we had to pay creche fees, for which the extra €50 per week was of little help. We worked out that the net cost of the scheme to us over the six months was about €3,000 Luckily we were in a position to take the hit in the hope that I got a job in the end, but if I had not, I don't think I would have been able to participate in another internship. If we had rent to pay at the time I wouldn't have been able to do it in the first place, and so would have had to limit my job search to companies outside of JobBridge. This is a shrinking set though, so I do believe the proliferation of JobBridge internships is making it harder for those with families to secure employment. The knock-on effect is more children being raised in low-income families, which has a far more detrimental effect on society in the long-term than having too many low-income young workers.

In short, the maximum period should be reduced to 3 months, and there should be support provided for childcare. The plan as it is is short-sighted, and makes it too easy to exploit those at greatest disadvantage.

Warper

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nope its between 35 hours and 40. Speaking from someone on the scheme.

Sorry i was getting mixed up with CE. Is JobBridge compulsory?

ash23

ash23 wrote: »

Good in theory but shouldn't be used for jobs that require minimal training.

It would be good to use in connection with additional training. For example a jobsbridge in an office alongside an ECDL course or computer/payroll training.

A jobsbridge in a garage with mechanics course etc.

A job in a kitchen with HACCP training or on a building site with HSA training.

ECDL? Anyone who has a non-arts degree will know more than what's covered by the ECDL.

lazybones32

If this is considered to be a positive, proactive step in reducing unemployment in Ireland (job creation would be better imo), it just serves to highlight how bereft of initiative, ideas and competency, those who hold Govt. actually are.

In my field of work, 2 of the largest businesses in the County are offering to hire workers via jobsbridge. I could understand if margins were razor-thin but I deal with these Companies and I know they (the Companies and the people who own and operate them) are not short of money.

Greed.

ash23

Deleted User wrote: »

ECDL? Anyone who has a non-arts degree will know more than what's covered by the ECDL.

And those who don't have degrees?
Point is that if you want to look for office work, it's a handy thing to have and I was using it as an example.

Lots of sectors have minimum competency or minimum training requirements. Someone working on a jobsbridge and getting the relevant skill set while doing so would be more employable at the end of it than someone who has just done the job but not obtained any of the required qualifications.

No point in giving someone a job in a bank and not getting them to work towards their QFA or similar because it's a minimum requirement in the sector.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

ECDL? Anyone who has a non-arts degree will know more than what's covered by the ECDL.

He's right you know. I passed my ECDL but when i broke down on the side of the road, I couldn't even find the dipstick on my Macbook Air.

There should be some night-time computer training as well as a bit of skid pan traning to avoid crashes.

allybhoy

Our company (IT provider) took five lads in off jobridge over a period of time, 3 of them are now engineers with us, other two lads were wasters who will probably never find full time employment. The three who we took on were hard working and eager to learn and have since done very well for themselves in the company and gone on to get further qualifications that will help them in their career. Im sure there are plenty of other success stories out there but you never hear about them. Your more likely to hear about the other guys who were lazy, incompetent and useless and will blame everything but themselves...including the government. Not saying every company and situation is like this but there are a lot of success stories out there that you simply dont hear about.

Rubberchikken

i thought some jobs have a person doing up to 39 hours a week on job bridge? i stand corrected if so.

don't have an issue with it as such, but some companies take the pee and they have to be flushed out (pun not intended).

in a proper company, a person could learn some valuable things but it really all depends on how professional and fair the person/people in charge are, and that can be a gamble.

truedoom

Wolf Club wrote: »

I haven't yet heard of one where an intern was learning for the entirety of the internship.

I did. was in an IT helpdesk.

Learned a **** load every day.

Network Administration, Windows Server Administration, Building servers.

Even got a load of experience with building Citrix Xenapp environment and managing that.

Had a great experience with Jobsbridge tbh, but i'm one of the few.

Ferris_Bueller

I think JobBridge has taken away too many entry level jobs. I graduated from college in May and have found it difficult to get employment relative to my degree, I've been working part time for the past 2 years so I'm ineligible for all of these JobBridge schemes that are going, and there are very little actual jobs going for people like myself. I'd gladly work for minimum wage in a lot of these advertised internships but JobBridge is actually encouraging me to go on the social welfare, hopefully it won't come to that stage.

Wolf Club

truedoom wrote: »

I did. was in an IT helpdesk.

Learned a **** load every day.

Network Administration, Windows Server Administration, Building servers.

Even got a load of experience with building Citrix Xenapp environment and managing that.

Had a great experience with Jobsbridge tbh, but i'm one of the few.

That's good to hear, I'm glad it worked out for you.

Another issues I'd have with it is companies advertising a position that is well above the station of the job actually being offered. A guy I know started one recently that was advertised as "Data analytics", the only thing he's had to do since starting is use Excel.

KomradeBishop

hfallada wrote: »

The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment.

No, it's the lack of enough jobs...

Iwasfrozen

I like jobbridge. It's a good opportunity for graduates to get more experience. You have to be careful though. Only ever do a scheme if it's 1. Relevant to your interests / career choice and 2. You have an understanding with the manager / HR that you will be employed at the end.

Otherwise don't do it.

hfallada

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, it's the lack of enough jobs...

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

Iwasfrozen

hfallada wrote: »

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

More than that there are only a lack of jobs if you consider the number of available jobs fixed. A view that flies in the face of contemporary economics. Even the type Komrade subscribes to.

Valetta

Warper wrote: »

What do you think of the current Govt's scheme that if you are out of work for a certain period of time, eg 6 months that you have to work 20 hrs a week for an extra €50 to stop you from getting your dole docked? Of course the primary reason for this is getting people off the live register which is a total underhanded way of falsifying the current state of the unemployment problem.

Personally i think its one of the worst policies the current Govt have come up with. It is basically a cheap form of slave labour enforced upon the unfortunate ones in society that have lost their job or simply can't get a job. It is utterly demeaning paying someone 50 quid a week for 20 hrs labour. Its equivalent to €2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage. They should pay the person the minimum wage at least. Quite frankly its scandalous.

The fact that practically no one gets a full time job from it also highlights the greedy companies that avail of this form of cheap labour. All in all the whole JobBridge thing sickens me.

Where did you come up with that little nugget?

KomradeBishop

hfallada wrote: »

Here is hard evidence and not your opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-human-disaster-of-unemployment.html?pagewanted=all

A large amount of people didnt work in this country during the boom. Was it because of no jobs?

That's not evidence that there are enough jobs. I think you'll notice we're not in a boom now either.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

More than that there are only a lack of jobs if you consider the number of available jobs fixed. A view that flies in the face of contemporary economics. Even the type Komrade subscribes to.

We're talking about the present - there are not enough jobs now - we're not talking about some undetermined point in the future, when more jobs have been made available (who knows when we'll have enough jobs to bring unemployment back to desired levels?).

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're talking about the present - there are not enough jobs now - we're not talking about some undetermined point in the future, when more jobs have been made available (who knows when we'll have enough jobs to bring unemployment back to desired levels?).

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

66ad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

How are policies like supplying free labour, going to create more payable jobs. When they can just hire an intern for free?

Iwasfrozen

66ad wrote: »

How are policies like supplying free labour, going to create more payable jobs. When they can just hire an intern for free?

1. The intern over the course of the placement will have gained experience and skill in the desired sector which a new intern will not have. The company will have to invest time and effort training a new intern. This is assuming a worthwhile placement and not some micky mouse placement making sandwiches which I've advised against taking.

2. Jobbridge is designed to work with Jobsplus so after nine months there will be a financial incentive available for the company to take interns on. (I can't remember how much exactly but it's a couple thousand, nothing to be sniffed at)

66ad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. The intern over the course of the placement will have gained experience and skill in the desired sector which a new intern will not have. The company will have to invest time and effort training a new intern. This is assuming a worthwhile placement and not some micky mouse placement making sandwiches which I've advised against taking.

2. Jobbridge is designed to work with Jobsplus so after nine months there will be a financial incentive available for the company to take interns on. (I can't remember how much exactly but it's a couple thousand, nothing to be sniffed at)

1. Most companies are looking for experince in the jobsbridge intern they are adveritising.

2.Why pay someone when you can just hire someone with the experince for free.

Iwasfrozen

66ad wrote: »

1. Most companies are looking for experince in the jobsbridge intern they are adveritising.

2.Why pay someone when you can just hire someone with the experince for free.

1. I would say that should be against the rules, in my view.

2. Because you'll have to spend time training him, he's not going to be motivated and he'll leave you high and dry as soon as he gets a real job. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Don't think I'm defending Jobbridge here, government interference in the market is nearly always negative and this is no exception but for those who can't get a job you might as well make the best you can out of it and next election vote for a government that will stay out of the market.

Ace2007

allybhoy wrote: »

Our company (IT provider) took five lads in off jobridge over a period of time, 3 of them are now engineers with us, other two lads were wasters who will probably never find full time employment. The three who we took on were hard working and eager to learn and have since done very well for themselves in the company and gone on to get further qualifications that will help them in their career. Im sure there are plenty of other success stories out there but you never hear about them. Your more likely to hear about the other guys who were lazy, incompetent and useless and will blame everything but themselves...including the government. Not saying every company and situation is like this but there are a lot of success stories out there that you simply dont hear about.

being curious, how long did you keep the other 2 working, when it was clear they wouldn't be kept on (probably take you about 1/2 months) where they told and let go, or where they kept on for the full 6/9 months?

secondly do you actually hire anyone straight from say college and pay them a wage and train them up, or do you take the "free labour" option and see whose good/not good and then make a decision?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We're discussing the validity of policies aimed at producing more jobs. By definition that means looking into the future to take into consideration the anticipated results of these measures.

So yes, there are not enough jobs now but policies like this will facilitate getting people back to work which will in turn lead to more job creation.

No, we aren't discussing any of that. This is what I was replying to:
"The greatest barrier to employment is not lack of education or skills. Its long term unemployment."

In reply to that, I said that no - the greatest barrier is that there are not enough jobs.

Simple factual statement about the present - not interested into being roped into a wider discussion.