HRD forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Access to wage subsidy a helping hand

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 04 Jul 2012, 12:00 AM Agree 0
Your organisation may be eligible for a new government wage subsidy of approximately $5,700 for each job placement.
  • in the wings | 12 Jul 2012, 05:41 PM Agree 0
    It is incorrect to compare American findings with Australia in this instance. It is my experience with long term unemployed in Australia that most (not all) do not want a job as it interferes with their lifestyle too much.If unemployment benefits were reduced or had a time limit we would have less unemployment than we do now. There is only so much employers can do to make jobs appealing to those who really don't want to work for a living.
  • Jody Jackson | 13 Jul 2012, 02:01 PM Agree 0
    What an ignorant comment to have made, in the wings. You have probably never experienced the crushing blows of being repeatedly knocked back, interview after interview. This kind of opinion is exactly the sort of ignorance that tars all unemployed people with the same brush.
  • Shane Higgins | 13 Jul 2012, 02:08 PM Agree 0
    I find it amazing that hirers would not consider an unemployed person "because they are unemployed for a reason". I would think many CEO's of companies, if aware of this ridiculous practice, would have something to say. There is a myriad of reasons people are unemployed and many of them are not at all negative. Some have decided to move on from where they were, some may have been overseas and returned, some parenting duties for a period, and the list goes on. To work on this theory is to reduce your applicant pool considerably and shows an ignorance beyond belief.
    I own a job board for older jobseekers and some of these jobseekers are in the category of long term unemployed, not because they want to be, not because it interferes with their lifestyle; they don't have one. Certainly some long term unemployed are in that position because they chose to be, but I would argue not many.
  • in the wings | 13 Jul 2012, 03:14 PM Agree 0
    I have been on both sides of the fence so do understand the issue better than you give me credit for. Instead of jumping in making emotive accusations I suggest you read what is said before jumping into print. I presume this comment is the one which got you so inflamed: "It is my experience with long term unemployed in Australia that most (not all) do not want a job as it interferes with their lifestyle too much." You apparently chose to ignore two very important words in brackets. I was not tarring all with the same brush but I have first hand experience in watching positions remaining unfilled even though pay and conditions are more than adequate and the work is not too onerous. I have offered these positions to long term unemployed acquaintances and was told that it would interfere with their social lives.
Post a reply