|
Post by zorro1 on Sept 29, 2011 11:07:47 GMT 7
Great post spacey. A real eye opener
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Sept 29, 2011 15:02:49 GMT 7
Thanks Zorro.
I forgot to mention the $3,000 bonus they get if one of their clients does find work, regardless of whether the agency did anything at all towards that.
So, for every person on Newstart Allowance, plus probably half of the people on parenting payment, there is one of these agencies getting paid at least half as much as the welfare recipient would receive, plus other assorted bonsues.
Requiring people on DSP to attend these places, will add to another burdeon to that already wasted-money fund. Can the country really afford to have these places operating? Being privately owned and operated, the staff there would be on better wages than the public servants at Centrelink, who do a much harder job.
In their ads for staff, they always say they have great working conditions, incentives and fexi-rosters. I guess any company that can employ staff to sit around all day simply talking to people, while achieving nothing concrete, has the right to say its a great environment in which to work.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 7, 2011 11:02:20 GMT 7
In the 1990s, some CES staff engaged in highly illegal Breaching competitions. At the Friday night 'happy hour' booze up, the winner's prize was a bottle of booze up to the value of $60. In short, Breaching was a 'vocational sport' for some CES staff. Some others CES case managers misused Breaching for ‘administrative convenience’, i.e. to make sure that welfare recipients attended appointments, the clients were Breached. Job Network agencies exploited a fatal flaw in the Job Network funding which enabled them to sign up a long-term unemployed person and collect an up-front fee of up to $3,000 that was paid to provide training and job search support. However, the agencies would find an excuse to breach the client and then sigh up a new client and then the process was repeated. In just 4 months the Job Network was facing bankruptcy and its collapse was only prevented by Centrelink implementing a secret moratorium on Breaching. Victims of the scam were not compensated for the hardship suffered. Under the SA Felony Murder statute, deaths resulting from this criminal activity could be classified as Felony Murders. The only problem was that those who knew the truth were keeping their mouths shut. On June 27th 2000, an ALP MP, Cheryl Kernot, issued a press release that revealed that the Howard Government was enforcing Performance Indicator targets, colloquially known as Breaching Quotas. This misuse of Breaching legislation resulted in 346,078 breaches being issued in FY 2000-01 alone at a rate of approximately 3 per minute. This caused a humanitarian disaster bur Centrelink annual reports contained no mention of the humanitarian impact of Performance Indicator targets. Information released in September 2009 by the Department of Employment made it possible to draw up a probability table on the number of deaths that may have occurred. The as yet unreported, secretly classified death toll from Performance Indicator breaching activity is probably in the range of 35 – 700. That is a very wide margin, but greater accuracy will only come when the precise details are extracted from Centrelink’s files. In June 2004 the Australian Federal Police was asked to investigate the breaching quota activity to determine the number of fatalities caused by this misuse of Breaching legislation. In a letter dated July 7th 2005, the Federal Police refused to investigate citing, “gravity/sensitivity” and “government protocols”. In short having robbed and murdered welfare recipients through the deliberate misuse of Breaching legislation, the Howard Government then protected itself from an AFP criminal investigation with “government protocols”. yadnarie48.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/the-railroading-of-josiah-finch/Be afraid of these places. They are corrupt, dishonest, and have a good laugh about you and your circumstances once you leave their premises. Why? Because they are laughing all the way to the bank about your misfortune.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 7, 2011 13:14:25 GMT 7
I worry about Ron Medlicott, he's a very brave man.
|
|
|
Post by Banker on Oct 7, 2011 16:33:19 GMT 7
I worry about Ron Medlicott, he's a very brave man. Strange thing I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 8, 2011 9:27:53 GMT 7
I posted some of Ron's information of the other forum I frequent. These are some of comments from other Australians about employment agencies: 1. good to see this atrocity getting out into the mainstream and not just us social workers getting behind it 2. I don't know what these Centrelink workers even get paid for, a lot of their services are online now so who knows what they are getting up to with less and less face to face contact. 3. This is one of the biggest conspiracies and scams in this country these job services people are corrupt to the core. It actually makes them more money to keep people unemployed than to find them work. 4. With Job Network you got 3 failures 3 chances. If you got an 8 week non payment period for getting 3 failures in 12 months you still could get your benefits paid into a welfare agency who would pay your bills and food etc. Under Gillards draconian laws they TAKE your benefits for everyday you don't go to some stupid thing. And you cant get it back no matter what its gone you've lost food money that's it. 5. Under Communist Juliar Gillards new regime there is NONE of that. If you don't go to the corrupt thieving job services garbage, they take your money and you just ing die. 6. Wow, this is very enraging but totally not surprising. 7. But do you realize what Gillard has done? Basically taking a daily amount from people who can not afford to exist in the first place docking their food money. For not going to some thing with the corrupt job place who steals money from the government. 8. I don't see what you guys are arguing about. Howard started us down this road, no doubt about it, but then Julia took it and improved it so that it became a national disgrace. They both suck imo! 9. and this argument that I am reading is exactly how they get away with it, divide and conquer guys. It is the over-class sticking it to the under-class. They need the unemployed, the unemployed and fear of unemployment and starvation and homelessness is what keeps the employed bowed to the grindstone and silenced from protest Seems I am not the only person in Oz who has experienced corruption at these places. Comments number 1 and 9 were made by the same person. A social worker who seems to be suggesting that her colleagues have been concerned about rorting by these agencies for a while now.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Oct 8, 2011 12:30:58 GMT 7
It came up on the Google Alerts yesterday.... I pegged it was from you straight away.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 8, 2011 15:49:28 GMT 7
Lol, you know me too well.
Ron's campaign to expose the corruption in employment agencies in Australia is, of course, a worthy cause in my books. I will do whatever I can to get the message out to all welfare recipients that they are not to be trusted.
I won't ever go to one again, stating that I won't waste my time and petrol money, on making any more of those monkeys rich.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 10, 2011 11:14:44 GMT 7
Had a couple of my son's friend's over on the weekend, one of whom I ran into at the beginning of this year. He had completed year 12 in December and was looking forward to trying to get an apprenticeship and into the workforce.
He is clean cut (no tattoos or piercings), nice looking, well spoken and intelligent. Instead, he has been unemployed all year. Yet he stayed at school until he was 18, as Centrelink now demands of all young people, so that he would end up being 'employable'.
He is excited that he is finally going to start work next month, at Woolworths. I don't think he realises he has probably only been employed for the Christmas/New Year period and will probably be fired once it is over.
I asked him about the apprenticeship situation. He replied that he was told it would be about two years before he could get into one. He states that there are very few opportunities for that available.
Now, explain to me again, why our government was allowed to cancel unemployment benefits and youth allowance for people aged between 18 - 21, because they are all lazy bludgers who 'don't look for work because they don't want to work'.
The only thing their cancellation of those payments did, was to lower the official unemployment rate. Fortunately his parents still have their own jobs, and are able to support him.
However, if a fresh faced eager-to-work youngster cannot get himself hired, what chance do we have?
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 10, 2011 11:21:27 GMT 7
In relation to the other friend: I was aware two years ago that he and one of his friends had been told by their employment consultant not to worry if they could not get to an appointment, that she would just mark down that they had come. They thought she was the greatest.
I pointed out to him yesterday that it was not done because she was a nice person, but because of how much their company was paid for pretending that they had been interviewing and assisting these kids.
That particular teenager has been unemployed for two years now. In fact, so was his other mate. Great work these places do.
He has now enlisted in the Navy, following in his father's footsteps. However, while he is awaiting to begin that in February of next year, he is obliged to tell any prospective employer that he can only be there for a short time. Therefore, no one will employ him in the meantime. No win again for him.
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 11, 2011 16:06:33 GMT 7
I haven't been watching the news much lately, however, my mother was telling me today that a big new hardware shop is about to open on the Gold Coast.
450 staff were required, 6,500 people applied.
I wonder how far a sick or elderly person would have got in that process, amid such competition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2011 16:40:15 GMT 7
I haven't been watching the news much lately, however, my mother was telling me today that a big new hardware shop is about to open on the Gold Coast. 450 staff were required, 6,500 people applied. I wonder how far a sick or elderly person would have got in that process, amid such competition. I think this could be the new Woolies Masters Store that is being in partnership with a USA Company, but i could be wrong!!
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 11, 2011 17:04:44 GMT 7
Yes, I think so too. I had seen that Woolies want to compete with Bunnings, owned by their 'rivals' Coles (Wesfarmers).
|
|
|
Post by spaceyone on Oct 12, 2011 21:19:05 GMT 7
Just had a quick look at the Australian Constitution, and was surprised to find this:
Part V.--Powers of the Parliament.
51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxiii. ) Invalid and old-age pensions:
(xxiiiA. ) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.
Would that not make work for the dole against the laws of our constitution?
Civil Conscription: Civil conscription is conscription used for forcing people to work in non-military projects.
The main reason they want you guys overseas to come home, is to try to send you back into the workforce. Is that not also civil conscription, just because you are on a pension?
|
|
|
Post by Banjo on Jan 18, 2012 9:52:59 GMT 7
No 'divorce' for jobseekers and job agencies THE Gillard government has defended denying 156 unemployed people the right to change job agencies after they complained they were not getting what they needed and there was an irreconcilable breakdown in the relationship. The government has admitted it makes it difficult for people to change job agencies, which welfare groups say gives the agencies the upper hand. The Australian has learnt that in 2010-11, 292 jobseekers requested a change of provider because of a breakdown in the relationship. Of these, 136 were granted. A spokeswoman for Employment Minister Bill Shorten said the government made it hard for unemployed people to change job agencies to stop them shopping around to avoid their obligations. "The Gillard government believes all Australians benefit from work, and all Australians deserve to have the support needed for them to join the workforce if they are fit and willing," she said. "Job Services Australia assigns a provider to jobseekers to help get them ready for engaging in the workforce. While requests for transfer are accommodated where possible, the approach needs to strike a balance to prevent abuse of the system where a jobseeker might be shopping around, seeking to avoid participation requirements, or has a history of non-compliance. "Some jobseekers ask for a transfer because of differences with their Job Services Australia provider, but mediation resolves many of these, and the application does not go ahead," she said. National Welfare Rights Network president Maree O'Halloran said that under existing rules, jobseekers had limited opportunities to exercise effective choice. Under the rules, an employment services provider must be chosen within two working days, she said, which was not enough time. Ms O'Halloran said the requirements for changing providers were so strict that most people looking for work thought they were stuck for the duration. "Where the employment service provider relationship is not working or is damaging, it should be easier to get a no-fault divorce," she said. "If a jobseeker believes that the relationship has irretrievably broken down, then we believe that they should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to move. It is unrealistic to expect an unemployed person to demonstrate that they will be better served by a different provider. "Very limited information is available about choice of providers, with no specific mention of it in a jobseeker's service guarantee," Ms O'Halloran said. "At the very early stage of unemployment, jobseekers are getting over the shock of a sudden retrenchment and naturally focused on securing income support. "This is probably not the best time to have a conversation about choosing your employment service provider." She said Welfare Rights had had productive discussions with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which appeared open to "options for improving choices and alternatives for better engagement with jobseekers. We hope to see some positive changes in the near future." www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/no-divorce-for-jobseekers-and-job-agencies/story-fn59noo3-1226246801442
|
|