Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Unemployed must apply for 40 jobs per month and work for the dole; Federal Government's $5.1 billion overhaul of the job services system
Topic Started: 28 Jul 2014, 03:53 PM (3,716 Views)
Lef-tee
Default APF Avatar


Elastic
29 Jul 2014, 12:50 PM
Lef-tee
29 Jul 2014, 07:27 AM


It really is as simple as that. 100 dogs out looking for bones but only 95 bones in existence - the fact that some dogs must come home without a bone is such a starkly obvious reality that a young child can understand it. If the jobs exist they can be found - if they aren't there at the time, no amount of searching will magically turn up what isn't there.

If they can make people work for the dole then they can re-institute their old (once very successful) approach of government acting as employer of last resort. They don't want to because it runs counter to the prevailing ideology and because some elements in society benefit from the existence of a pool of unemployed.




I didn't realise that police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, paramedics, schoolteachers etc etc etc were not actually out there on the job each day, performing functions that civillization as we know it would collapse without.
Thanks for your post Leftee, it saves me from repeating the obvious.
This government is a bunch of imbeciles.
Government once acted as employer of last resort. There was virtually no involuntary unemployment for three decades in Australia following WW2 because it was government policy not to allow it to exist. How times have changed - we now allow unemployment to exist (as it naturally does in a capitalist market economy unless steps are taken to mitigate it) but blame the unemployed for being unemployed.

We can come up with umpteen schemes for training the unemployed to be more job-ready - and then expect them to all find jobs that are not there.

Forget work for the dole and all the other training schemes that are helpful only if the jobs are actually out there - provide instead a gaurantee of a job at the minimum (and only the minimum) wage and conditions set down by law and banish the scourge of unemployment.

Unfortunately, it won't happen because there would be ferocious opposition to it by business groups who benefit from the existence of a reserve army of unemployed.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Industry concerned about Coalition's 40-job-applications-a month plan

Daniel Hurst, Guardian Australia political correspondent

The Leader of the Government in the Senate Eric Abetz during question time. Eric Abetz says having to apply for one job in the morning and one in the afternoon was not too much to ask. Photograph: Mike Bowers

Business groups have raised concerns the Abbott government’s plan to force unemployed people to apply for 40 jobs each month could lead to a deluge of poorly targeted applications.

The opposition and business groups suggested targeted employment searches would be a more effective goal for all parties, while the Greens accused the government of being out of touch with the plight of the unemployed.

On Monday the government released its draft plan for a new employment services model to apply from July next year, including new wage subsidies to encourage employers to hire, train and retain job seekers.

The assistant minister for employment, Luke Hartsuyker, said most job seekers would be required to look for up to 40 jobs a month and most job seekers under 50 would be required to participate in a work for the dole program for either 15 or 25 hours a week for six months each year, depending on their age.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s director of employment, education and training, Jenny Lambert, said she understood the government had set the job search target to encourage activity.

But Lambert wanted further talks with the government about whether the 40 number was appropriate, or whether there could be better assistance through employment services about the type of applications being submitted.

“There may be another way of doing it that’s not about numbers,” she said.

“What we don’t want to do is to flood the business community with a whole range of job applications just for the sake of people fulfilling their requirements. That would not be a good outcome for anybody; we’ve got to get the balance right between getting job seekers more proactive about their applications and ensuring employers receive good quality applications about what the person brings to the job.”

The Business Council of Australia also welcomed aspects of the employment services plan, but said it was “concerned about the practicality of asking people to apply for 40 jobs each month in the current softening labour market”.

“It would be better to allow jobseekers to concentrate their efforts towards applying for the jobs they have the best chance of acquiring,” said the group’s chief executive, Jennifer Westacott.

“The proposed increased focus on rewarding job outcomes is positive a step, but some of the outcome payments – such as a payment at four weeks” employment – don’t match up with what we know about sustainable employment outcomes.

“We need a job services system built on evidence about what really works. The ‘work for the dole’ scheme needs to avoid the well-known risks that such participation actually makes people less likely to move off welfare and must lead to meaningful jobs for people.”

Anglicare Australia’s acting executive director, Roland Manderson, said pushing people into low-paid, short-term work, or merely applying for jobs they could not win, was not the solution.

Manderson voiced support for the extension of wage subsidies to young people and the long term unemployed, but said there were barriers to employment that a one size fits all approach did not recognise.

“As people with disability or an illness, or the old or the young will tell you: far too often the jobs aren’t there,” he said. “In that case, requiring people to work for the dole and apply for 40 jobs a month is merely a pathway to demoralisation. A better approach is to work with employers to create jobs with a long term future and then support the jobseeker into them while they get going.”

The employment minister, Eric Abetz, said having to apply for one job in the morning and one in the afternoon was not too much to ask, but there would be exemptions “in certain circumstances”. He said the job service provider would help the jobseeker to properly target their applications.

Asked by the ABC whether being rejected from 40 jobs a month could harm people’s confidence, Abetz said: “Well, I could ask the other way around. What does it do a person’s self-esteem, physical and mental health if we as a society were to say to them, ‘Poor you, you don’t have employment and we won’t require you to look for employment’?”

Abetz added that there were “a lot of employment opportunities … that are being undertaken by backpackers and 457 visa holders”.

Labor’s employment spokesman, Brendan O’Connor, said the government was “tearing up” the principles of mutual obligation in the light of its budget decision to withdraw Newstart payments from young people for months at a time.

A spokesman for Hartsuyker last month confirmed the 40-job-search requirement would apply even during the six months for which young jobseekers lost their Newstart payments as a result of the “earning or learning” budget decision.

“During the six-month waiting period, young job seekers would be required to attend appointments with their employment-service provider and look for 40 jobs a month,” the spokesman said last month.

O’Connor said the withdrawal of Newstart payments, which faces opposition in the Senate, could lead to antisocial behaviour and homelessness.

“What’s most concerning about the changes being proposed by the government is that they seek to have those young jobseekers under the age of 30 being provided no support whatsoever for the first six months and yet would require them to look for 40 jobs a month – 40 jobs in about 30 days, more than one job a day and yet provide not one cent,” O’Connor said.

“So it won’t matter whether a jobseeker under 30 is looking every day, every week, every month for six months this government believes that they can require them to undertake obligations of job search and job activities and yet not provide any support whatsoever.”

The Australian Council of Trade Unions described work for the dole as a “punitive” scheme and argued the government’s employment plans failed to put enough emphasis on outcomes – particularly delivering long-term jobs.

The Greens leader, Christine Milne, said the 40-application requirement was “ridiculous” when the jobs were not available, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and the government was out of touch. “I just can’t help but think that people sitting in Canberra on a deckchair outside smoking a cigar telling a young unemployed person in Burnie, Tasmania, ‘you apply for 40 jobs’, well, where?”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/28/industry-concerned-about-coalitions-40-job-applications-a-month-plan
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
lulldapull
Default APF Avatar


Like many of the retirees, pensioners and property speculators that post here, this news is irrelevant to them. They made the easy money in the last 20 years, during the good times...............now chilling out sitting on millions, enjoying margaritas, could give a fuck about where this economy is going. Even though they know it's fucked alright. :tu:

Ain't that right boys? :lol

P.S. Just for kicks I had a look on seek, and hands down I've never seen it this bad. There were a total of 5 jobs I found I could apply for (in all of Australia)......... :lol 5 years ago there were 6000+

What a fucking change.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Foxy
Member Avatar
Zero is coming...

lulldapull
30 Jul 2014, 12:18 AM
Like many of the retirees, pensioners and property speculators that post here, this news is irrelevant to them. They made the easy money in the last 20 years, during the good times...............now chilling out sitting on millions, enjoying margaritas, could give a fuck about where this economy is going. Even though they know it's fucked alright. :tu:

Ain't that right boys? :lol

P.S. Just for kicks I had a look on seek, and hands down I've never seen it this bad. There were a total of 5 jobs I found I could apply for (in all of Australia)......... :lol 5 years ago there were 6000+

What a fucking change.
I have no idea how this system works.
Peter
http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/g/n/2/1/u/8/image.imgtype.afrArticleInline.620x0.png/1456285515560.png
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
SittingOnDeFence
Default APF Avatar


lulldapull
30 Jul 2014, 12:18 AM
P.S. Just for kicks I had a look on seek, and hands down I've never seen it this bad. There were a total of 5 jobs I found I could apply for (in all of Australia)......... :lol 5 years ago there were 6000+

What a fucking change.
What industry are you in?

What's even scarier is the amount of opportunity in a lot of industries for graduates - practically nothing
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Guest
Unregistered

lulldapull
30 Jul 2014, 12:18 AM
Like many of the retirees, pensioners and property speculators that post here, this news is irrelevant to them. They made the easy money in the last 20 years, during the good times...............now chilling out sitting on millions, enjoying margaritas, could give a fuck about where this economy is going. Even though they know it's fucked alright. :tu:

Ain't that right boys? :lol
I think you will find many are still dependant on a healthy economy for their income streams. Rents across Australia have been lagging for some time and that will only get worse if the economy gets worse. Their is a massive supply of rental property in Australia now, all competing for a group of people whose incomes are stagnating and whose jobs are going.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Job seekers could be forced to turn to crime, expert warns

July 30, 2014
Dan Harrison, Anna Patty

Young job seekers denied unemployment benefits could be forced to turn to crime or sex work to survive, employment services providers have warned.

Under changes proposed by the federal government, job seekers aged under 30 will be ineligible for payments for six months after applying for benefits. But despite not receiving any money, job seekers will be required to apply for 40 jobs a month and meet other activity requirements for unemployment benefits such as attending monthly meetings with an employment services provider. If they fail to do so, their waiting period will be extended by four weeks.

David Thompson, the chief executive of Jobs Australia, which represents non-profit employment services providers, said he could not see how some young job seekers would be able to survive, let alone meet the additional costs of finding out about and applying for jobs.

''For those people who don't have access to other forms of support like from their family, I just don't understand how anyone can imagine it's going to be possible for them to do these things.

''Some of them presumably will do things like steal things, do burglaries, maybe sell drugs, and maybe sell themselves. I just don't think we should be contemplating anything like that in this country.''

Business groups welcomed the plan, but urged governments to introduce mandatory apprenticeships and traineeships as part of the tender process for major infrastructure projects such as the WestConnex motorway.

The chief executive of the NSW Business Chamber, Stephen Cartwright, said he thought there was no doubt some welfare recipients did not want to work.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/job-seekers-could-be-forced-to-turn-to-crime-expert-warns-20140729-3cs3h.html
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Guest
Unregistered

These program directions have nothing to do with those unfortunate people suffering, yes suffering, unemployment.

The punitive measures are part of an effective political narrative directed at the working population. The narrative is to sow dissent in the community, divert attention from the current state of wealth and income in this society and imply fellow citizens have their hands in their working pocket.

Piketty’s statistics blow this propaganda out of the water. The top decile of the population in so called egalitarian Australia have 45% of the nation’s net wealth while the bottom half of the population have sweet FA at less than 10% of the country’s total net wealth.

Demonise the unemployed and poor and paint them as bandits and you can take away their income support, education and health rights. The result is less tax for the upper decile and comfortable middle, leading to even greater concentrations of inequality in income and net worth.

It is class war out there on a daily basis and I can tell you one thing. The bottom 60-70% of the population is getting whipped.

Full marks to the LNP pantomime of protecting us from the unemployed.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Abetz concedes 40 jobs per month Newstart rule could be 'box-ticking'

Daniel Hurst, political correspondent
Tuesday 29 July 2014 14.31 AEST

The employment minister, Eric Abetz, has conceded that the government’s planned new requirement for unemployed people to submit 40 job applications a month risks becoming a “box-ticking” exercise.

Abetz emphasised that the government did not want “red tape and inconvenience to employers” and would listen to feedback, in an apparent acknowledgment of concerns raised by business groups that the rule could cause a deluge of poorly targeted applications.

On Monday the government released its draft plan for a new employment services model to apply from July next year, including new wage subsidies to encourage employers to hire, train and retain job seekers and a requirement that most jobseekers look for up to 40 jobs a month. Most jobseekers under 50 would also be required to participate in a work for the dole program for either 15 or 25 hours a week for six months each year, depending on their age.

In an interview with the ABC’s Lateline program, Abetz said the government had issued a draft request for tender and would be guided by further advice “before we settle on the final terms”.

Asked whether there was a risk the 40-application rule would become a box-ticking exercise, with people applying for jobs for which they were not suitable just to reach the target, Abetz said: “I think that is potentially a fair criticism. We as a government do not want box-ticking to take place. We don’t want red tape and inconvenience to employers, but what we do want is a genuine attempt by the job seeker to obtain employment, and with the help of a job service provider, we trust that that will assist them in doubling, redoubling their efforts to obtain employment.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/abetz-concedes-40-jobs-per-month-newstart-rule-could-be-box-ticking
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Tougher job-seeker rules will have negative impact, say interest groups

Lenore Taylor, political editor
Tuesday 29 July 2014 16.03 AEST

The Abbott government’s tougher requirements on job seekers are likely to backfire, harming rather than helping their chances of finding work, job agencies and welfare groups have said.

Asked to assess the likely net impact of the policies unveiled to date by the Coalition against their goal – more people finding work – experts said some measures could help but the net effect would probably be negative.

The Coalition has unveiled new draft contracts for job search agencies, requiring 40 job applications a month on top of 15 to 25 hours’ a week “work for the dole” for some unemployed people, dole payments for only six out of twelve months for job seekers under 30, tough compulsory periods of non-payment for those who refuse a job or fail to meet requirements and a new system of employer subsidies.

Immediate attention has focused on the requirement for 40 job applications a month. Business groups have warned they will be swamped with pointless job applications and the employment minister, Eric Abetz, said he was listening to business concerns because “we as a government do not want box-ticking to take place. We don't want red tape and inconvenience to employers.”

But a previous government study concluded the policy might also not help the unemployed find a job.

An evaluation in November 2007 of Howard government policies by the then department of education, employment and workplace relations warned that increasing of job application requirements “does not appear to have translated into increased employment outcomes”.

It said more study was needed but “there is a danger that requiring a minimum number of job applications may encourage job seekers to apply for positions for which they are not qualified, particularly in areas with limited employment opportunities or when the job seeker has specialist skills. There is scope for job seekers who have limited motivation to find work, to meet their activity test requirements by deliberately applying for inappropriate positions or submitting poor-quality applications. The survey findings suggest that increasing mandatory job applications must also be accompanied with steps to maintain the quality of job search.”

Asked to assess the overall impact of the government’s policies, David Thompson, the head of Jobs Australia which represents non-profit job search agencies, said: “Some of the flexibilities for job agencies in the new contracts might help but when you add the other measures the overall impact on the aim of getting more people in to work will not be good.”

He said tough compliance requirements could not get around the fact that there were 10 unemployed or underemployed job seekers for every vacancy, and the idea of denying payments to under-30s for six out of every 12 months “will have an unspeakable impact on people”.

Peter Davidson, a senior adviser at the Australian Council of Social Service, said he could “see nothing [in the government’s policies] that will make a difference except perhaps the expanded wage subsidies for employers”.

“Work for the dole has been proven not to be effective because the work is too far removed from a regular job, and is usually just a make-work scheme, and the denial of benefits will drive younger people further out of the labour market.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/tougher-job-seeker-rules-will-have-negative-impact-say-interest-groups
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy