Jetstar charges job seekers for interview costs

ghotib · 14 July 2006

This is not cost recovery Lukem, not unless the employer reimburses the applicants' expenses and pays a reasonable fee to cover the applicants' opportunity costs: after all they could be looking at other jobs while they're going through one employer's selection processes.

Yes I agree that sounds ridiculous, but no more than the Jetstar line.

Visual's explanation phony skills shortages sounds depressingly realistic to me, except that there's an element of deliberateness to it that I think is overstated. I think we're looking at market failure - it's becoming impossible for people to buy services at a price that can people can afford to produce them.

lukem · 14 July 2006

ghotib said:
This is not cost recovery Lukem, not unless the employer reimburses the applicants' expenses and pays a reasonable fee to cover the applicants' opportunity costs: after all they could be looking at other jobs while they're going through one employer's selection processes.

Sorry ghotib, what do you mean? It's cost recovery for Jetstar. Why would they pay people to apply for a job?

ghotib said:
I think we're looking at market failure - it's becoming impossible for people to buy services at a price that can people can afford to produce them.

Would you be able to elaborate on that plz

3 veiws of a secret · 14 July 2006

and I thought we had a skills (& labour ?)shortage ....Abbot & Costello must be proud of their policies in the Liberal party

visual · 14 July 2006

I`ve said this on another thread,the only shortage in Australia seems to be people willing to be paid in REMBIBI(chinese internal currency)

If we really had a shortage of skill,wouldnt it make sense for an employer to train people ,and how did they notice that they had a shortage skill all of a sudden,you`d think that it would be a gradual think,almost everyday now you read stories of skill shortage and then when you investigate further the jobs are poorly paid,hence the lack of people willing to do them.

There was a story on 60 minutes i believe,where these Korean workers ,were living as a group in a single house and paid way less then they were promised,but still they stayed,how is an Australian worker supposed to compete with that?And once these workers achieve what they want ,that is bring their families over are they still going to be happy with what they are paid now.

Sorry off topic,but still

professor_frink · 14 July 2006

lukem said:
Sorry ghotib, what do you mean? It's cost recovery for Jetstar. Why would they pay people to apply for a job?

Why would they pay people to apply for a job? They shouldn't.
Just like they shouldn't charge people to interview for a job. The costs involved in hiring staff are a cost of doing business and should be paid for by the company doing the hiring. Not the potential employees

If I was ever asked to pay for a job interview or take a personality test I'd politely tell the employer to go away in short, jerky movements

visual · 14 July 2006

professor_frink said:
Why would they pay people to apply for a job? They shouldn't.
Just like they shouldn't charge people to interview for a job. The costs involved in hiring staff are a cost of doing business and should be paid for by the company doing the hiring. Not the potential employees

If I was ever asked to pay for a job interview or take a personality test I'd politely tell the employer to go away in short, jerky movements

Unless of course their intentions were altogether different, and they were aiming for a different outcome.

3 veiws of a secret · 14 July 2006

"tell the employer to go away in short, jerky movements" .....What dressed to the kilt like Stephen Hawkins ,and tell them you prefer to be a pilot ?

ghotib · 14 July 2006

lukem said:
Sorry ghotib, what do you mean? It's cost recovery for Jetstar. Why would they pay people to apply for a job?

I take your point that it's cost recovery. I said it wrongly. I meant that it's unreasonable for an employer to recover this cost from job applicants. If you were negotiating a consulting contract, would you pay for your client's lawyers? That's the closest analogy I can think of.

Would you be able to elaborate on that plz

Oh boy. I've been thinking about this for a long time but I haven't managed to condense my thoughts into an elevator statement yet. Give me a couple of days and I'll try to get back to it?

Ghoti

Duckman#72 · 14 July 2006

professor_frink said:
Just like they shouldn't charge people to interview for a job. The costs involved in hiring staff are a cost of doing business and should be paid for by the company doing the hiring. Not the potential employees

I'm with you Lukem

Yes the easy way is to throw the cost back at the employer isn't it. The employer bears the crunch - reduced margins, lower profits, increased wages, increased red tape and government regulations. And all the time while these additional burdens are being thrown at the employer - the consumers will not want a single cent increased to their fees/charges.

The concept of paying for the test is nothing new. The before applying for a job with the mines you need a Generic Mine Pass - the cost of which is borne by the applicant (admittedly they get it to keep).

As for unemployment - I'm beginning to wish unemployment levels would rise a couple of percentage points so that employees would remember what is like to feel satisfied at being gainfully employed. It is all very well to cater for the employee, and I'm all for a fair go, but don't forget it is small business/employers that are the lifeblood of the economy. All the wonderful perks and conditions the Unions have fought to turn us all into public servants won't be worth a pinch of **** if the economy turns on its head.

Duckman

visual · 14 July 2006

Duckman#72 said:
, but don't forget it is small business/employers that are the lifeblood of the economy. All the wonderful perks and conditions the Unions have fought to turn us all into public servants won't be worth a pinch of **** if the economy turns on its head.

Duckman

Duckman,do you mean like the small business that employed my son,and had him convinced that penalties did not apply in his business,so while he took public holidays off,my son and other kids kept his business going at normal rates,also penalties did not apply saturday or sunday!!!!!!!!!!
when I got involved my son lost his job,so ye,I wish unemplyment would rise so that ,ars*****s like him would remember why people need money,but I suppose criminals will always find a way of scamming who they percieve to be weaker than themselves.

ihavenoname · 14 July 2006

Would I ever work for a company that charges potential employees an interview fee? Not in my lifetime...

Doesn't give me the impression they'd look after their employees.

Duckman#72 · 14 July 2006

visual said:
Duckman,do you mean like the small business that employed my son,and had him convinced that penalties did not apply in his business,so while he took public holidays off,my son and other kids kept his business going at normal rates,also penalties did not apply saturday or sunday!!!!!!!!!!
when I got involved my son lost his job,so ye,I wish unemplyment would rise so that ,ars*****s like him would remember why people need money,but I suppose criminals will always find a way of scamming who they percieve to be weaker than themselves.

Visual, you are too emotionally involved for this discussion.

You are falling into the trap of the unions who cry - "look at the Spotlight worker". Please don't pretend that small business in general behave in the manner that your son's employer did. A small proportion of employers who act like wankers doesn't alter the fact that small business are not the cash cows that some make them out to be.

Smurf1976 · 14 July 2006

Hiring staff is a cost of doing business. Not much more can be said really - it is a cost of doing business as is renting or owning office space, plant and equipment, tax, fuel, wages, insurance and so on.

What next? All turn up to the airport with a jerry can of kerosene to fuel the plane?

One thing to consider is that government policy forces people to apply for jobs regardless of actual suitability for the role. Apply or lose your unemployment benefits. It's hard to see how forcing someone to spend money for something they know to be a waste of time (some people just have no chance of getting the Jetstar jobs and they know it) is fair.

As to the underlying causes, INFLATION! There's more and more evidence of businesses feeling the squeeze as costs rise but they try to hold down selling prices. At some point something has to give and, with today's surge in oil prices, it doesn't look like it will be the cost side that backs down. And so we'll see consumer prices rise, the inevitable result of years of running an inflationary monetary policy.

Inflation is popular in the early stages as stocks and houses go up. It tends to get less popular once it spreads to commodities and even less popular when it turns up at the checkout. We're well on the way now with years of inflation already, to use an American term, "baked in the cake".

"Stocks boom" gave way to "house prices soar" has given way to "petrol up again". Just wait until that becomes "supermarket prices soar". It's not far away IMO and Joe Public won't be happy when it arrives. Too late to stop it however.

mit · 14 July 2006

Duckman#72 said:
Visual, you are too emotionally involved for this discussion.

You are falling into the trap of the unions who cry - "look at the Spotlight worker". Please don't pretend that small business in general behave in the manner that your son's employer did. A small proportion of employers who act like wankers doesn't alter the fact that small business are not the cash cows that some make them out to be.

I'm no lover of Unions but the problem is that the Liberal party is legislating through ideology not from facts.
It has been show overseas that although maybe 90% of businesses large and small are decent and want the best for their staff, the bastard companies will be the ones who lower their costs and win market share. The other companies must either follow suit or go out of business.

It has been shown that lowering minimum wages and conditions does nothing for lowering employment. Again the bastard company will just pocket the money or pass it onto customers to hit competitors who maintain a higher wage.

I think the old way was best with the Government, Industrial Commission and Unions in three corners battling it out. It seemed to make sure that workers wages stay okay without going back to the rorts of the '70s.

On the other hand I am against the labor party getting rid of AWAs. I think that some people were better off with AWAs than under a union.

MIT

Julia · 14 July 2006

At least the potential outcome in this instance would have been a paid job.

Some organisations require volunteers to pay their own costs for obtaining a Blue Card which will enable them to offer their services for free in a voluntary position involving children.

Julia

visual · 14 July 2006

mit said:
On the other hand I am against the labor party getting rid of AWAs. I think that some people were better off with AWAs than under a union.
MIT

Mit,you`ll find that even if labour wins they`ll not get rid of AWAs,some of the excuses will be ,too expensive,too entrenched in the work place,plus the stronger workers who wield more power will not want to get rid of them,

On the other hand AWAs specially now work against young people,I get the feeling at the moment anyway they are being used to train young people to expect less, for example they sign AWAs that gets rid of penalties that we used to take for granted.
Young people who are getting jobs now have no choice but to sign if they want the job,so even if labour gets in how will the weaker workers get back what they dont even know they lost in the first place.Can`t imagine employers agreeing to reinstate costs that they didnt want to pay in the first place.Anyway

lukem · 15 July 2006

mit said:
It has been shown that lowering minimum wages and conditions does nothing for lowering employment.

!! Are you serious?

I assume you mean unemployment. How can you say that lowering (or better yet abolishing) minimum wages wouldn't reduce unemployment?

visual · 15 July 2006

Luke,
I cant speak for Mit,but how about if you pay people poorly they will choose to stay unemployed or combine a certain number of hours with their welfare entitlements,so as to maintain them ,after all that is happening now,how many times have we heard that getting a job will affect my payments?

lukem · 15 July 2006

I don't believe in social security. Therefore there is no incentive to remain unemployed..

visual · 15 July 2006

yes,but I`m talking about those who receive it,and who for some reason feel that what they get for free is something they want to maintain.So poorer pay will inevitably mean a better organizing of their welfare entitlements.
Plus dont forget theres plenty of people who will help in exactly this area,not to mention said employers who will help,because they are such caring people. so paying cash in hand to ensure that said welfare entitlements are not lost,
The employer wins,doesnt have to pay superannuation or other costs, the employee wins he doesnt have to pay ,for registration,only paying half, for medicines only pays a few dollars,gets discount on gas,electricity,and water,
gees almost makes you want to go on welfare doesnt it?

Jetstar charges job seekers for interview costs

ghotib

THIMKER

lukem

3 veiws of a secret

3 veiws of a secret

visual

professor_frink

Moderator

visual

3 veiws of a secret

3 veiws of a secret

ghotib

THIMKER

Duckman#72

visual

ihavenoname

Duckman#72

Smurf1976

mit

Julia

In Memoriam

visual

lukem

visual

lukem

visual

Similar threads

Jetstar charges job seekers for interview costs

THIMKER

3 veiws of a secret

Moderator

3 veiws of a secret

THIMKER

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency