Don't do it

[martinw-48]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/renewed-calls-to-increase-newstart/11308340

What would I do if I could afford to replace my broken heater.
I'd miss all the shivering and chatter of teeth.
It's been so enjoyable these last seventeen years
I'd go crazy with the extra time on my hands if I could afford to buy a washing machine.
Twenty years of washing by hand has made sure that the Devil does not get access to my idle hands.
I'll become a rampant criminal with a washing machine in my life.
How dare anyone threaten my love of going to bed with an empty stomach.
I'd definitely be outraged if the government gave me more money to eat.
Definitely would be upset about waiting less than five years for a dental check up
I'd miss all the fun of trying to find clothes in my size at op shops.
That feeling of dread that I might not make it to my appointment with my Job Network Member as the needle of the fuel gauge approaches the E before I'm near town.
How dare anyone take that gut wrenching stress away.
I wouldn't feel alive.
The hunger pains
The feeling in the pit of your stomach every time you get a bill
I thank Josh for his resolve.
I need the pain and stress otherwise what would I do.. I might wake up and feel like I've died if I felt something different

[martinw-48]

I never knew before what the value of the subsidy was but the last employer is my friend and he showed me the paperwork.
So I reiterate what employers are going to pay full wage for someone when they can get a endless supply of slaves because that's what a free employee is

[martinw-48]

Crazy thing is that no one complains about this waste of tax payers money.
Why because so many are gaining from it.

[martinw-48]

I also have two jobs and I'm one hundred percent positive that if the Shire could take advantage of the subsidy they would but it has to be fifteen hours per week and School Crossing work is ten hours max.
I've only done three hours so far this year of crossing work.
Hardly worth the title of job

[springyzone]

---

@martinw-48 wrote:
No checks or balances.
Employers can use as many of these six month scams as they want.
Nobody is going to give you a job and pay the full amount when they can just send you packing and get another subsidized employee.
No employer does stuff out of kindness.
It's all about the bottom line.
They don't care if they have to train a new person.
The last "job" I had that was subsidized the employer received eleven thousand in subsidy and total wage bill including superannuation was eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty dollars

---

I agree that most employers don't do things out of kindness, although some are better than others.

My daughter years ago worked part time in BigW. They had a competition where employees could enter and get a certain amount of money paid off their school or tertiary texts. One time she won it and it was a great help to her.

I thought that was generous of BigW as they didn't have to do that. Mind you, I hear they are struggling to survive as a business and our local BigW closed down, so maybe it wasn't a wise use of funds.

With the 6 month subsidies, maybe they need to have some sort of rider on it that if a business collects it for an employee, that employee has to be given the offer to work there for at least a further 3 months or the employer has to pay back a certain % of the subsidy. Maybe half.

Obviously if an employee left of their own volition, it wouldn't apply, but it might cause an employer to pause for thought if they knew they had to pay half of the subsidy back.

When I first went into teacher training, there was a small weekly 'studentship'. We're not talking much. I think it started at $14 a fortnight. However, at the end of training, we had to commit to teach for 3 years or else we had to pay every cent of that studentship back. We had the first term of training 'free' ie if we decided we didn't like it we could leave and keep what we had been given without penalty, but after that,if we left, we had to pay it back. 

If we had to commit to 3 years, then I don't think it is unreasonable to ask employers to pay back some of the subsidy if the job does not conitnue past the 6 month mark. After all, if the employee was not suitable, an employer would know that way before 6 months.

[martinw-48]

Does not matter what you think should happen.
The truth is that there are free workers supplied by the tax payers and that is wrong

[springyzone]

---

@martinw-48 wrote:
Does not matter what you think should happen.
The truth is that there are free workers supplied by the tax payers and that is wrong

---

This is a discussion forum, so in that sense, it is all just discussion of opinions and it does not matter what any of us think. 

If an unemployed person gets a chance to get experience at a job for 6 months and gets 6 months of a higher wage, that in itself is not a bad thing. I don't think too many taxpayers would mind that happening.

Where it is going off the rails is if too many employers just use it as a never ending round-about of subsidised workers, without any jobs turning into longer term employment (longer term employment is what i imagine the government wishes to happen).

That aspect is a loophole & it shouldn't be beyond the skill of Government to plug it and make employers more accountable.

Taxpayers on the whole understand the need for taxes but don't like to see other people getting too many freebies or rorting any system. That's what I think, anyway.