Just wondering what people's views or experience of this is. It comes as a slight rant as I have to say my own personal experience is a positive one, yet there is still a strong push to present the "slavery" perception in some media circles.
From just my own workplace, we've taken on people under jobbridge and over 60% has resulted in continuin full time employment. It could be a position that wasn't there before in some cases and created due to exceptional work and in other cases filling roles that had been vacated. Yes some haven't lasted, that may be performance or it may be they get a full time job elsewhere. It should be noted that they probably wouldn't have gotten those jobs without working with us under jobbridge.
In the US, for certain professions, its expected that even as a graduate you do an unpaid internship, with no state funding. Why is there the impression or expectation here that as a graduate you start at a middle management level?
An Indicon report shows the effectiveness (in my opinion) of JobBridge:
That looks ok to me.
Yet what should have been good news regarding the unemployment figures was soured by commentators and the media stating that including JobBridge was massaging the figures, even though in many cases that programme is directly leading to work.
As with all systems, some employers have exploited the programme and are rightly criticised for this, but that isn't an indication of the whole programme.
Is it such a bad thing? Seems to me the main negativity is the expectation that just because I have graduated I should be earning a lot of money immediately. I don't know where this sense of entitlement came from, I graduated 20 years ago and none of us expected to walk into good jobs straight away, we still had to start at the bottom and prove ourselves.
It seems to me that the JobBridge has accellerated the confidence in employers to recruit. I can see that it may be dipping their toes into the job market at little cost, but as we've seen that has usually ended up with a full time job.
From just my own workplace, we've taken on people under jobbridge and over 60% has resulted in continuin full time employment. It could be a position that wasn't there before in some cases and created due to exceptional work and in other cases filling roles that had been vacated. Yes some haven't lasted, that may be performance or it may be they get a full time job elsewhere. It should be noted that they probably wouldn't have gotten those jobs without working with us under jobbridge.
In the US, for certain professions, its expected that even as a graduate you do an unpaid internship, with no state funding. Why is there the impression or expectation here that as a graduate you start at a middle management level?
An Indicon report shows the effectiveness (in my opinion) of JobBridge:
That looks ok to me.
Yet what should have been good news regarding the unemployment figures was soured by commentators and the media stating that including JobBridge was massaging the figures, even though in many cases that programme is directly leading to work.
As with all systems, some employers have exploited the programme and are rightly criticised for this, but that isn't an indication of the whole programme.
Is it such a bad thing? Seems to me the main negativity is the expectation that just because I have graduated I should be earning a lot of money immediately. I don't know where this sense of entitlement came from, I graduated 20 years ago and none of us expected to walk into good jobs straight away, we still had to start at the bottom and prove ourselves.
It seems to me that the JobBridge has accellerated the confidence in employers to recruit. I can see that it may be dipping their toes into the job market at little cost, but as we've seen that has usually ended up with a full time job.