lol

It's a way for businesses to get disposable $5/hr labour in 6-monthly cycles tarted up as improving youth employability.

Transparent af.

Better than them being unemployed.

Which they will be again after their "internship" at a supermarket/cafe is over. It's a laughably bad policy.

Plus, it may be better than being unemployed but worse than doing something sensible with the money like, say, putting it towards higher/education grants for the unemployed.

That's very cynical of you scoll. I'm sure if you put your political bias aside and look at the merits of the policy you would see value in it. This kind of subsidised employment/training scheme has been suggested by social/welfare/youth agencies in the past as a way to increase employment, skill up young people and reduce dependence on welfare.

They will be more employable with experience.

Better than telling prospective employers they played XBOX for 6 months instead.

Yes, because taxpayers funding $20k for Arts/humanities degrees is much smarter than giving them on the job training and practical skills.

Or they did an Arts degree for 3 years

Gotta love conservative thinking

"*splurts coffee* Doing X must mean doing the absolute minimum of X that will result in the worst result possible! Rabble rabble"

It's almost as if it were impossible to tailor grants to skills/industries with higher labour needs :lol:

Edited by Scoll: 4/5/2016 03:58:25 PM

Isn't that what apprentiships are for?

As if an arts student didn't do casual work in a cafe for at least part of that 3 years already. Where do you think all those "baristas" come from? :lol:

Don't forget the environmental scientists and organic chemists ;)

Most of them are probably still baritas :lol:

Plenty. I will say the one benefit that it has over WFD is that it may allow young people to do something relevant/work on skills that will help in terms of getting a job in the future over having everyone doing hard labour in a field which wastes six months of everyone's life.

Now the real problem here is how this will be exploited. Its a short trial period so the jobs will hardly be groundbreaking, it'll be your retail, hospo, receptionists, admin assistants, laborers and a host of other entry level positions.

Unfortunately for some already in these positions on a part-time/casual basis they will be kicked to curb in preference of those 'interns.' Why would a business continue to maintain employment of these people when you can bring in these interns not a pay them a cent in wages for the first three months and get $1,000 on top of that, then spend the next three months (if they progress) paying them a proper wage to get $10,000 at the end of the period only to sack them shortly after and let the cycle continue.

You'll see less jobs created in these industries over the fours years that this program is run, so these businesses can take advantage of this scheme. While genuine businesses who hire good people will be left behind while dodgy competitors load up on this free labour scheme.

It's bullshit, if a jobseeker puts in a hard days work they should be paid appropriately just like everyone else - not this $5 an hour rubbish. Likewise if a business requires more staff they should be putting on jobs not raking in the cash while not paying wages.

Edited by Roar_Brisbane: 4/5/2016 04:22:13 PM

Are they being paid $5 an hour or is that what the government is contributing or is that what the business pays with the employer topping it up to the award wage?

$5/hour is illegal surely?

http://budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-11.htm

Basically those under 25 Jobseekers (provided they are in the right stream) will be given a choice to take up this scheme where if they do they'll be given an additional $200 a fortnight on top of their payments.

They'll undertake a six week training program via a dodgy Job Search Agency to develop 'basic employability skills'

Then spend the next 3 months working for a business for 15 to 25 hours a week, meaning that extra $200 a fortnight they will receive will be about $4 to $5 an hour, while the business will contribute nothing during this period.

If the job seeker progresses, they'll be up to the hire stage where they'll spend the next 3 months receiving an actual wage while the business will receive a wage subsidy of up to $10,000.

After that the program is over, the job seeker will have earned enough money that they may no longer be entitled to welfare, the business has no obligations to keep them on (and why would you? when you could get potentially another intern for free for the next six months) so they'll get the sack and let the cycle continue.

It's truly horrendous policy.


Edited by Roar_Brisbane: 4/5/2016 04:54:51 PM

The biggest problem with these types of programs is that there is absolutely ZERO analysis to measure their effectiveness.

Because once the govt peddles out the "announceables" and cuts a couple of ribbons, they stop paying attention.

Both sides of politics are guilty of this.

We can't have a genuine debate about how valid or invalid this (or any previous) training package is, because no one bothers to find out.

Classic example of policy based on symbolic PR value, rather than any type of research or cost-benefit analysis.

So they're getting $200 on top of their payments? So they're not being paid $5 an hour?

However the programme seems to be rushed and absolutely out of touch. I don't disagree with anything you say.

They get the extra $200 every fortnight for working 15-25 hours a week, which works out to $4-6 an hour.

You fuckers are so cynical.:lol:

There's no substance to the wild claim that employers will dump existing staff to take advantage of PATH volunteers. To do so would mean to lose valuable experience and skills of those existing staff as well as risk a complaint to the fair work ombudsman for unfair dismissal which could result in that company being denied further access to the program and withdrawal of existing grants/subsidies. I don't think you will find too many business that will simply sack staff and risk their reputation in order to pinch a few pennies on wages.

Also we're talking about a capped number of places here - 120,000 over for four years or 30k a year, that's quite manageable and of course there will be a vexing process to ensure participating organisations are of good character and offering genuine NEW positions. The PATH contracts could also contain conditions of grant payment such as minimum employment period (lets say a year) that would reduce the financial incentive for employers to take on PATH recruits simply as a cash grab

There are obviously things the government can do to reduce/eliminate the possibilty of rorting and strike a balance between subsidsing wages and filling genuine hiring needs, what I find interesting is that despite seeing no detail everyone just assumes the program will fail. Look past your bias you will see there is merit in trialling this concept, I think it will be a great success.

Yes it is :lol:

They basically carbon copied most of Labors policy from the last 12 months :lol:

Pls rusty, pls tell me where the budget emergency has gone?

How does all this roll in the world of LNP rhetoric as to how this deficit has blown out almost three fold since the LNP took Government?

Of and you can't use the Senate as an excuse :lol:

I will get my cuppa ready as I can't await your response.

-PB

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes because people shouldn't choose how or what they want to study.

Need more cigar chuffin lads like Joe Hockey!

-PB

Anyone they can choose what they want to study, doesn't mean Mr taxpayer has an obligation to fund it. Degrees that aren't paid back are just a fucking waste of money and waste of time for the recipient if they don't lead to a career in that field. I would know, I've got one.

The absence of budget emergency talk doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. We might not feel it right now but given the current global economic volatility if there were to be another GFC like event we would certainly feel it. Australia is ranked like #2 most vulnerable to a global economic shock, unlike last time this time we wouldn't have the same leverage to buy ourselves out of recession. Irelands pre GFC net debt to GDP was something like 25% and post GFC shot up over 100%.

The talk of budget emergency was a direct reaction to the sovereign risk Labor has put Australia in with their profligate spending commitments around health, education and disability and falling resources revenue, and the first budget was designed to reign in the deficit and give Australia the same pre GFC capacity to respond to external shocks. Given the political failure of that policy the new government is betting there won't be another GFC in the near future but it they get it wrong we will be up shit creek and could feasibly go the same way as Greece and Ireland or worse. It's not like we can turn to NZ to loan us money in order to pay our debts.

So the budget emergency hasn't gone away, it's still there and the current government is responding to it in a politically palatable way. Labor on the other hand would just continue to increase the deficit and keep on increasing it because their political lives depend on throwing money at health and education and buying votes. The current deficit is directly due to the fall in commodity prices failing to keep pace with Labors extravagant spending commitments around health, education and disability, which obviously Abbott /Hockey tried to fix but their reforms were blocked by the inept senate.

I rarely agree with Scoll on anything, but you guys are naive morons if you don't see how this "internship"system will be abused.

But yeah sure, keep attacking the lazy stoner art student stereotype :roll:



Edited by 433: 5/5/2016 12:45:03 AM

I don't think it's horrendous policy. It should hopefully get a few into full time employment after the initial training phase.

It's either this or long term unemployment.

Yes exactly. On track record though, especially because it's going through job network providers, there's a high probability it's going to be abused.

Absolutely there is a high likelihood of the program being abused. I was just commenting on it from the perspective of whether the program itself is of value, separate from exploitation issues.

Then take that up with how HECS is recouped, maybe we adopt the American model and get the money back asap.

Might make people think twice about undertaking study in a field where there is no viable employment opportunities.

But to say that someone shouldn't study X degree of Y degree because it's something like Arts or Humanities is just stupid, equal opportunities exist in this country.

As for obligations of Mr Taxpayer funding it, isn't society as a whole the beneficiary of a higher educated group of people, even with the "wasted" degrees?

-PB

This :lol: If you think businesses won't sack these people so they can bring in a whole bunch of new free 'interns' you're seriously misguided. Even more so if they work at a supermarket like a Woolworths or Coles, then they will 100% be sacked at the end of the 'internship' just to save some $$$

Edited by sydneycroatia58: 5/5/2016 09:18:40 AM

Yep I understood that :)