[paraclete]

Unemployed to be forced to apply for 40 jobs a month as part of $5 billion dole overhaul - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Sometimes you find a disconnect from reality and this is it!

Some public servants actually think that business has the time and resources to sift through multiple applicants to find the ONE

I wonder where this ridiculous idea came from? Could it have found its way to our shores from somewhere else and even if it is home grown, there are not forty jobs for every applicant, but there are forty applicants for every job, so the emphasis is on making jobs migrate to applicants not applicants migrate to jobs will never be implemented

I just wonder what is between the ears of the planners?

[smoothy]

I think someone is out of touch with reality in your part of the world. Last time I was unemployed a ittle over 20 years ago, we were required to show 5 places every week we applied to for a job, and at that time the Help wanted section of newspaper was way larger than its been in recent years. Where in the heck do they expect someone to come up with 40 unique employers to apply with every week that might even possibly have anyone employed in a specific job field.

In ten weeks that might be more employers than even exist within a suitable driving distance to where they live.

And then add your very valid point, of what the heck are employers supposed to do with this flood of applications. I guess it's a ploy to employ those in the mail delivery business... The document destruction business, assuming they do the responsible thing and don't simply put it in the trash for identity thieves to have a field day with. Imagine the paper usage, the trash generated...not every job can be applied for electronically.

[paraclete]

No smoothy it is a play to remove the unemployed from benefits and therefore from the statistics, very shortly you will hear there are no unemployed here, just those in training and those who are not participating, our government (conservative) or maybe radical arsehole, have lost all perspective, they came to power with low unemployment statistics, the only unemployed are the unemployable so either you move, train or starve, probably in that order. What we have here is a decline in mining and a boost in construction

I run a charity, so we could benefit from work for the dole, but what on Earth do I do with all these applicants? I'm already seeing a boost in volunteers but none stick, so they waste my time because all they are doing is putting the name of my organisation on their dole application

[talaniman]

Looks like you're politicians are no different than ours and just want to look good on paper (by pushing paper around, no less), rather than do anything at all. Must be an election upcoming. The dole is a popular target of conservatives everywhere it seems.

[smoothy]

That's very much like the games they played to claim inflation is under control by removing food and energy from the list... (started doing that back under Clinton and they kept excuding more and more things) making any claims worthless.

They wave claims around bragging about saying at least there is no inflation... when energy prices have nearly doubled and prices of food staples have increased significantly as well.

[talaniman]

Price and wage manipulation has been around since they invented commerce and trade and has always been, and will always be, about maximizing profits. With or without government help.

[tomder55]

it's better than our alternative where an unemployed person can collect benefits for an extended period of time without being asked to provide any evidence that they are job hunting .

[talaniman]

Rules for Collecting Unemployment | eHow

Unemployment claims must be filed by a certain day each week. If your claim is not filed by a certain day, you may be disqualified from receiving benefits for the week. Most states allow you to file online, by phone and at the nearest Department of Labor office for your state.

New rules make it harder to get unemployment benefits - Jun. 15, 2012

The new requirements are part of Congress' overhaul of federal extended unemployment benefits, which President Obama signed in February. The law not only reauthorized federal benefits, but it also increased the unemployment system's focus on helping people find jobsrather than distributing checks.

[paraclete]

Things have now entered the sereil as we progress from the Abbottoire to the Abbottalypse. A conservative government that has displayed a tendency to attack the most vulnerable is a great disappointment.

They signalled long ago that work for the dole would feature in their initiatives but to demand that job seekers deluge potential employers with applications demonstrates a decidedly unfriendly approach to business. I see employers thinking twice before they advertise vacancies in newspapers and becoming innovative in culling applicants. ie, no PHD, no job offer. There is already a policing regime in operation with Centrelink, the agency controlling government payments to the unemployed, disabled, pensioners, etc. A true single payer

There are members of my family who have been seeking work for a long time, and who apply when jobs are offered, but to suggest they must lodge 40 applications a month suggests there is a huge unfilled job market. One member recently went to a retail mass interview where there were 120 applicants and she didn't get the job. Neither is moving an option unless you have the job tied up before you move. Accommodation is scarce and high priced in cities where there are job opportunities

[paraclete]

It seems we are all sheep being led to the slaughter, as the Abbott government leads us deeper into the Abbottalypse. With "Big Joe" Hockey at his side and Scott Morrison to decide whether boats exist or not, everyone must coff up a $1000 or two to bring the budget out of deficit. If you are not working and by definition not contributing then have they got a deal for you, you can work for the dole, quite literally spend your waking moments working for a pittance, or you can deluge potential employers with your applications. 40 applications a month can't be too much to ask a job seeker can it? That's just one an a half a day after all, should be able to have that done by ten and spend the rest of the day at the beach. The unemployed are going to make their contribution by removing themselves from those embarrassing statistics while AustraliaPost does a roaring trade and email trash bins are emptied frequently

[paraclete]

Why was this moved from Australia where it represented a valid comment on things Australian? There was already a thread on this topic in current events

[tomder55]

and yet it isn't reasonable for the government to insist that if you are being paid by the government to be unemployed ,that you should make maximum effort to secure a job. How many applications a month is reasonable ? That I can't tell you . 40 is 10 a week .

[tomder55]

everyone must coff up a $1000 or two to bring the budget out of deficit

That's a bargain. Every American has a bill of $40,000 just to give services to illegal aliens .....ooops I mean illegal immigrants .....ooops I mean migrants ....ooops I mean refugees .

[paraclete]

and yet it isn't reasonable for the government to insist that if you are being paid by the government to be unemployed ,that you should make maximum effort to secure a job. How many applications a month is reasonable ? That I can't tell you . 40 is 10 a week .

Let me try, yes, try, to get this on your level Tom. The thinking you display is the same of our planners sitting in their ivory towers far from reality, yes ten a week doesn't seem to be much, after all you have your resume' and all you have to do is compose a covering letter addressing the specific requirements of the job, this requires some communication skill, fine if you a graduate but if you are not, well... In the cities there are indeed jobs available, if you are in a regional centre the jobs available require specific qualifications and many of the jobs are public service jobs which have to be advertised even if an internal selection is going to be made, so the selection available is far below the number of applicants who might be qualified.

Now let me tell you of my own situation here, I run a small charity, in the last month I have been contacted by four people for various positions but even being given the job they did not start, all they wanted was to be able to fill in their form with an interview indicating they are trying, this situation is going to explode and frankly I DON'T HAVE THE TIME and nor do the hundreds of thousands of small business owners who occasionally have a vacancy. What is going to happen is they are not going to advertise and they will think twice before they go through the process of putting someone on.

So a reasonable number is not two a day but one a day, which leaves time to attend an interview and what happens when there aren't that many jobs available, they start submitting applications for jobs in other places they have no intention of taking unless it is handed to them on a platter and that is a ridiculous outcome

We have seen various manestations of this process such as mandatory interviews with a case officer every fortnight and none of it improved the participation rate because it is dependent upon jobs being available, the applicant having the requisite skills, etc

[tomder55]

The applicants aren't thinking properly. So long as they document that they tried to contact a business ,with a resume in the mail ,faxed ,or emailed , or perhaps with a question like "are you hiring ?"...then they should easily fulfil their obligation.

[smoothy]

Also... businesses are not required to interview any much less most applicants. Only those they feel are worth a closer look. And the initial resume pre-screening can be very arbitrary... THose printed on colored paper, in the trash, those with no experience applying for a job that clearly needs it... in the trash... etc, etc, etc.

The job I have when it was advertised got well over a thousand applicants 20 years ago (I can't remember for sure but it might have been 2,400 I was later told). For a single position.

They didn't interview more than 20 people out of those. I was the one they hired.

[paraclete]

What I see is no one has the time to play tag with job applicants whether they are interviewed or not, obviously preeselection is a process but why make it onerous for business, I see this sort of thing as a death spiral, if they want to change the nature of unemployment benefits they are doing it anyway with some very draconian measures such as a six months wait for younger applicants. And why should my or any other business have to put up with applications for jobs that don't exist just to satisfy a silly notion

[smoothy]

I agree... on the preselection... you don't have to acknowledge every applicant. Some places do, most don't from personal experience, maybe one out of every ten ever has. On the other hand....checks shouldn't be handed out to anyone that doesn't have a regular documented actual effort being make to find employment.

No really happy middle ground on this. one way sucks for employers, on the other you have people drinking beer and collecting a check while making zero effort to find work.

[paraclete]

Yes smoothy there are loafers or people who have been educated to expect something for nothing and so entry into the system should be restricted and policed but applicants should be applying for jobs that fit their skillset or retraining not this scattergun approach. If there are no jobs that fit their skillset they should be in retraining and I have no objection to a system that assists them to get the skills that are in demand, not skills that no one wants and that system should be involved in feeding students into jobs they have trained for

I think we are going to see a lot of white rocks in the future as mining gives way to reclamation