A few questions have started to emerge over the Government’s Job Ops scheme. One big one for me is the eligibility criteria. Is an employer with an existing vacancy eligible for the $5000 subsidy from the Government if they simply fill it with a young person?
The Minister claims only new jobs are covered, presumably to give the appearance that this package is creating work rather than simply reallocating existing jobs to young people. But a café owner who recently took up the scheme said the subsidy meant she could employ two rather than one staff member, which suggests she was already on the look out.
Was it the Government’s intention to spend $20 million subsidising employers who were already ready and willing to pay for staff? If it was, then we should call a spade a spade.
Good idea Jacinda (to call a spade a spade).
Maybe you should now try and apply that to your own posting as well. If your anecdotal cafe owner now hires 2 people instead of one, how is that not creating an additional job?
Please also provide us with your wisdom on how you think jobs are actually created? Do you really think that $5,000 is going to get people to look around in their business to see where they can hire someone, or would it be more likely to attract people who already had the idea they could do with another hand, and who are influenced by this small stimulus.
This will always be a grey area, so black and whites (or ’spades’) are impossible. What you are doing is political grandstanding and nitpicking and that is helping nobody.
In the interview on National Radio with the cafe owner she said she had created the EXTRA job because of the subsidy. Also she talked about the risk of taking on a young person who hadnt had a job since they left school 9 months prior and the subsidy encouraged her to do this. Hats off to the lady, a good kiwi doing her bit.
What a ridiculous post.
You said:
“But a café owner who recently took up the scheme said the subsidy meant she could employ two rather than one staff member, which suggests she was already on the look out.”
Actually – it suggest that she wanted two satff but only with the scheme could she afford the second person.
This scheme assisted her – allowing her to take a young person off benefit (yes – they have to be on unemployment benefit to get the grant).
If the scheme wasnt there – she not have the funds to hire a second youth and (s)he would be sitting on unemployment.
This is a great scheme and shame on you for trying to score points off it. Thank goodness they are showing initiatives to get youth working.
It’s pretty easy to see when you strike a nerve eh Jacinda? The righties all start frothing at the mouth.
You make a good point. I can’t help but think that the result of this scheme won’t be that *more* people end up with jobs, just *different* people. I haven’t yet been convinced that that’s a good use of my tax dollars.
I suppose you could argue that whatever the cost it’s likely far better value than Tony Ryall’s scheme to save jobs which has saved just two. All for the bargain price of several million dollars per job saved? I doubt we’ll close the gap with Australia with “innovation” like that. Luckily that the government’s been hard at work making traveling there easier I suppose.
While on the surface this *subsidy* looks like a good idea, it will actually create distortions in the economy. For business, the recession is more than simply not being able to afford to hire; that may a factor but not the only factor. A subsidy to *employ* of course will be taken up, not necessarily because a business needs more staff, but because it’s *free*money. A recession creates all sorts of issues for business, and a government program (as always) can’t pick which issue is important for each individual business. The best thing is to let business choose where best to apportion capital & cash flow, they know, they are there. They may need to reduce debt, or improve capital equipment, or may need to fold all together. If you really want business to get back on its feet &/or survive then let them keep their money to spend on what they actually need. This way the right amount of people, are employed in the right amount of professions, for the right amount of need.
This is a very strange post – the “evidence”/anecdote you provide seems to argue against the point you are making rather than for it.
One of the weaknesses of schemes such is this is that the jobs they ‘create’ are probably not sustainable. However, as part of a short term stimulus during a recession it can be justifiable to create jobs for the sake of keeping people engaged with the workforce.
Your anecdote shows that this is what the scheme is doing.
Would like to know (or see contract) whether there is a fixed term of employment or if the employer can apply the “Fire at Will Bill” once the subsidy has expired and, if this happened at say…. 60 days (for want of a number) into the term of employment if the Employer would have to pay back the amount received.
Would the employer be obliged to keep the worker past the 90 days.
Just pondering. Anyone?
Not sure I get the point here Jacinda – are you saying this is a good or a bad thing?
The 90 day probation does not apply as it is a 6 month contract the employee is on.
You cant fire at will either here, back in the UK Labour brought in a two year probationary period as standard, at least the Nats made it voluntary.
The Minister claims only new jobs are covered, presumably to give the appearance that this package is creating work rather than simply reallocating existing jobs to young people.
Searching for a job or hiring somebody can hardly be considered very interesting but when it interminglew with politics, it becomes really disgusting.