John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:



Errrrm you did with your irrelevant thread title....

John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:


I don't presently have "suggestions" for that, but at least you are now talking about the meat of the problem. Now all you need is to come up with a relevant title...

John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2014 at 3:34pm:


Well yeah it certainly is a scam, that scam is called privatisation though.

I think there is a fair chance as well that the "scam" regarding training may be a state level one too....

Neither party Labor or Liberal state or federally have offered up anything responsible, manageable or practical in provision of education and/or employment...

Certainly, real issues, but as I said to another erstwhile poster on the board about his own misrepresentative titles, all you do is demean the validity of the serious topic that follows on from the bogus thread title.

No probs, but when you wanna get fair dinkum about the issues it will be evident, the politicised language of the thread title will no doubt disappear.

I don't really care personally, it is your credibility that your poor choice of words shoots in the foot.

John Smith wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

I also had a problem with the thread title, but for entirely different reasons.

The title makes no mention of the exploitation of the unemployed in relation to training courses. I was looking for the thread to add to it but found it to be difficult to find because its title was too vague.

Training courses that are more or less mandatory for basic occupations should be free, govt. funded, whether through TAFE or private. I am thinking of the kind of things John mentioned, whether it's cleaning, fork lift operation whatever.
But it doesn't alter the  situation that there are not enough jobs to go round, at least at present and maybe for quite a while to come. Blame globalisation, move to service economy, technology etc for all of that, not necessarily politicians of either side.
(I taught in TAFE accounting for a while and I don't have a lot of respect for the organisation, but it's there and better than nothing.)

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 10:51am:

We need some sensible limits to prevent someone who's unemployed becoming a perpetual student of training courses. A sensible balance needs to be struck.

At present the existing limits on funding are far too restrictive and end up with a lot of harmful outcomes. If a particular job requires multiple qualifications, something as simple as studying component courses in the wrong order can cause loss of government funding for the remaining courses that are studied out of sequence. Yet studying courses out of sequence is frequently necessary because offered course dates are inflexible and there's no guarantee that the dates will be in the correct sequence. The result can often end up reducing someone's employability.

Furthermore, the decision making has no transparency and there's no simple structured appeals process to overturn even the most asinine of outcomes.

As a bare minimum, someone should be able to gain access to funding for missing components by demonstrating that they need those courses to gain employment, or because they needed to study courses out of sequence due to course availability.

Quote:

I assign full blame to any politician who refuses to acknowledge the lack of jobs, who formulates policy on the unstated assumption that everyone can get a job at the same time, or who assumes axiomatically that anyone without a job isn't trying. At present, that's representatives from most political parties. However, the Liberals have amply demonstrated the most disconnection from reality on unemployment issues, so I have no problem with singling them out for special shaming.

The lack of jobs is also more insidious than many people think. A simple comparison of advertised positions to Newstart recipients - or other similar raw comparisons - does not take into account the following factors (among others):
1. Most positions are filled by job swappers and not the unemployed. Statistics on this are quite difficult to find.
2. Not everyone who is unemployed and looking for work is claiming Newstart. Some may be claiming other benefits, or may be claiming no income support at all.
3. Not everyone who wants a job is counted as unemployed. Some people may have given up looking.
4. Not everyone who is looking for work is unemployed. Many people are looking for more work - the underemployed.
5. Not all job vacancies are advertised.

If these factors are taken together, we should see that official statistics do not paint a true picture of the labour market for the unemployed.

Bam wrote on Oct 20^th, 2014 at 11:38am:



All good points, especially that one.

The majority of vacancies are not advertised.

Only about 20 percent of all available jobs are publicly advertised.