Killarney, mac, my wife works for one of those "Centrelink's 'recruitment consultants'", one that is actually a charity.

She deals with the long term unemployed, who have been out of a job for 2 years or more. About 25% of these are unemployable either due to ability of attitude. 50% have given up, or got to like being unemployed, & about 25% would like to get back to work, but don't know how to get over the reputation they gain from so long out of work.

She manages to get about 10% of them into a job per month, some into quite good jobs, but about 20% stop going with in a month.

I can only assume it is the same for all of them, but her organisation only get any funds from government for actual placement of unemployed. They don't get a cent for numbers on their books, or for trying. Payment is only for success, so perhaps not the rip off you think they are.

I too am suspicious of many JSA's (Job Services Australia) providers. I was very surprised when Catholic Care was caught defrauding the system a couple of years ago.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/false-claims-boost-chance-of-survival-in-jobs-game-20111218-1p0vb.html

Hasbeen,

Fair comment, perhaps I was too cynical, however I was indicating my doubts as to the effectiveness of government funded private employment consultants as a solution to the problem of long term unemployment, even if they all do their jobs conscientiously and efficiently.

Of course some simply work the system, the link Paddy King provided is very informative.

When I hit the age of 50, I hit a brick wall so far as looking for work was concerned. Prior to that age, I had never been out of work for more than 2 weeks.

So began my first experiences of "recruitment agencies."

The first thing they did not like was my resume. Because I have had senior positions at building sites, had hired and fired tradesmen myself, and had spent all of my working life working on the tools, I knew for a fact that the best way to spot a good tradesmen was to look at his tool kit. Good tradesmen have good tool kits and bad tradesmen, without exception, have bad tool kits.

My resume would stress that I had the best toolkit in all of Christendom, and this had won me many jobs in the past with employers who knew what I knew. But not the employment agencies. "We don't care what tools you have!" was the constant refrain, as they put the red pencil through my tool list. "We want to know your goals, and what achievements you have attained!"

What really peed me off was the constant ploy of calling you in for an interview only to be told that the job would not start "for a couple of weeks." Months would pass, while the same damn job advert would reappear on SEEK every month. Even when the job entailed special and rare qualities or rare tickets which few people had, it was obvious that the recruiters or their customers had no intention of hiring an older person and were determined to keep looking forever for a young one with the same experience and tickets.

The $61 billion Barrow Island job in WA is looking for electricians at the moment and they are recruiting them in the USA because they claim that they can't find enough experienced electricians in Australia. The reason they can't find them, is because they are depending on recruitment agencies who use all use a recruitment formulae for assessing applicants that does not work.

Hasbeen

No doubt your wife's organization acts responsibly (although we only have your anecdotal word for it). However, I wasn't referring to HR firms engaging in recruitment-only activity.

What I have learned about Centrelink HR contractors is also largely anecdotal. Without going into details, I have found that much of the policing of Centrelink recipients' jobseeking activity is being contracted to HR firms, leaving actual Centrelink staff to mainly administer the paperwork. They (the HR firms) are required to regularly interview Centrelink recipients and write regular reports on their jobseeking behaviour.

These firms also spend a great deal of time designing and presenting 'training' seminars to Centrelink recipients, for whom attendance is mandatory/strongly recommended or else they lose their benefits/receive stern warnings.

This serves nothing more than a political purpose to ensure the government looks as if it is doing everything it can to help the unemployed find work. It also provides a warm fuzzy sense of self-righteousness for those who subscribe to 'the unemployed don't want to work' school, rather than acknowledge that the jobs are just no longer there.

Sorry Killarney, but most of that post was ideological claptrap.

Yes the "job seeker", so called as they are supposed to be looking for work to receive the dole, is expected to appear for a monthly appointment. You seem to forget they are being paid over $1500 a month by me & my tax payer mates for that hour of interview. God I'd love to earn $1500 an hour.

Granted that about half of my wifes associates were about as useful as tits on a bull, & did not help many unemployed, but many do work hard for those who want work. To be able to help, the placement officer must know what the job seeker has been doing, & establish an idea of the person.

In passing, 4 of her fellow workers lost their own jobs recently, as they were not placing enough unemployed. This could have been to try to find better staff, or because they did not bring in their costs, I don't know.

Yes she breaches those who don't fulfill their commitments. However it is only after people have missed 3 appointments that they lose the dole for a week. In passing, that does tend to have them turn up in the office, often very abusive, but there.

They even get away with no show for one job interview, only being breached when they miss a second.

You do seem to believe it is a right for these people to live off the taxpayer, rather than a privilege to be supported while they find a job, with or without help.

continued