From top: Joan Burton and Enda Kenny at a JobBridge announcement in 2013; Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar at the launch of the Indecon review of JobBridge yesterday at the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin
Long live the new scam!
This morning.
Further to the announcement by Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar yesterday that JobBridge is to be wound down and that it will be replaced with another scheme next year – the details of which have yet to be released…
On RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, presenter Cathal MacCoille spoke to Alan Gray, economist and managing director of Indecon Consultants – which carried out a review of JobBridge and recommended it be changed.
From their discussion:
Cathal MacCoille: “First of all, JobBridge, how good was it for how many?”
Alan Gray: “It’s a very interesting evidence-based survey, Cathal, it was done by a team of Irish and international experts… and what it showed was very high levels of progression to employment. Now, those people previously unemployed, who were on JobBridge, have now found jobs.”
MacCoille: “64%”
Gray: “64%.”
MacCoille: And that’s high is it?”
Gray: “It’s extremely high.”
MacCoille: “How many of those, that’s good for them, but can you figure out how much of that was due to the pick up of the economy anyway, or because of them being on JobBridge?”
Gray: “That’s a critical issue and, as part of the analysis, a very detailed econometric research was done to compare how that group did, compared with a counterfactual of what would have happened anyway. And the result…”
MacCoille: “Let’s stop for a moment. You compared a controlled group who were on JobBridge, with a controlled group who weren’t?”
Gray: “Exactly.”
MacCoille: “And found what?”
Gray: “And it showed that JobBridge enhanced the probability of getting a job by 32%. That’s probably the highest impact on employment of any labour market programme.”
MacCoille: “How do you get to that conclusion?”
Gray: “Basically, what you do is you control for all other factors, it’s like a scientific experiment, Cathal, it’s like medical research. Where you get an exactly similar group on the labour market, who were unemployed, you track their employment outcomes and you compare it with those on JobBridge and you make sure its statistically robust and it showed that JobBridge had really a quite surprisingly positive impact on employment progression.”
MacCoille: “And yet, you’re, this study comes down for a replacement. Why?”
Gray: “It does, I think the merits of giving the levels of subsidy that the State gave for JobBridge – in a labour market where unemployment is much different than when this scheme was introduced has changed. There was also a number of very positive aspects of JobBridge but some areas of dissatisfaction…”
MacCoille: “With the money particularly?”
Gray: “Particularly.”
MacCoille: “No surprise.”
Gray: “No surprise on that, yeah.”
MacCoille: “Now, so, because there is going to be consultation before this, the precise terms and conditions, as I said, of this are announced for the new year. What, from what you’ve, this study, what would you recommend?”
Gray: “So the Indecon economists have recommended a much more targeted scheme. One where employers enhance skills – most employers already enhance skills as part of JobBridge but we want to ensure that a greater proportion of interns are learning new skills. We also want to ensure a lower level of State subsidy and contributions from employers, who are also benefiting…”
MacCoille: “Because there was none on this scheme...”
Gray: “There was none at all.”
MacCoille: “And you’re saying it should be what?”
Gray: “We’re saying that employers should at least pay the top-up level which was €52 and that, after three months, all interns must receive at least the minimum wage.”
MacCoille: “Which is €9.25 an hour.”
Gray: “Exactly.”
MacCoille: “What about, because this came up with JobBridge constantly and you can guess it will come up with whatever replaces it – regulation, investigation, ensuring that the spirit of the thing is actually the reality for everyone?”
Gray: “I think that was important, particularly in a scheme that was so large and was almost an emergency measure to the level of unemployment. It was hard to ensure adequate monitoring.”
MacCoille: “And was there enough?”
Gray: “I don’t think so, Cathal. It was understandable because the scheme was being introduced in a crisis period, it had a lot of benefits and interns but we’re recommending a more targeted scheme, probably a lower number of participants but more active monitoring and control.”
MacCoille: “The new scheme, as I understand it, would be the medium and long-term unemployed?”
Gray: “That hasn’t been decided yet. One of the benefits of the existing scheme is it was early intervention so that people, as soon as they became unemployed, once they were unemployed for a short period, they got the benefits of JobBridge – that kept them close to the labour market and probably enhanced the employment market.”
MacCoille: “Just coming back to the regulation issue…”
Gray: “Yeah.”
MacCoille: “…which is key. In terms of the way the, even the way the thing is regarded by everybody – quite apart from people who may have, you know, are losing out because they’re getting a hard time, they’re not getting what they should get out of the scheme – so, how should the regulation be better?”
Gray: “I think case officers from the Department of Social Protection should monitor it at a number of points during the internship at the start, during the internship and at the end. But I think the regulation aspect has got more media attention than it actually deserves, Cathal. While there were problems, it wasn’t the major issue and 70% of interns experienced that they had quality work experience and that’s different than some anecdotal evidence that was reported in the media. And one thing to say on that is our research surveyed over 10,000 interns. So it wasn’t just a random bits of feedback and most interns were very satisfied/.”
MacCoille: “Sure, I suppose though, the problem is, if you’re one of the dissatisfied ones – and you’ve good reason to be dissatisfied, well then, that’s for you. That’s a real personal setback. And therefore, we need to ensure that that doesn’t happen, in so far as we can.”
Gray: “I fully accept that, Cathal. And that’s why we’ve recommended a tightening of eligibility criteria. A contribution from employers which will minimise the possibility of rogue employers using it and also enhanced monitoring.”
MacCoille: “And give them a greater investment in the thing – if they’re putting some of their own money into it.”
Gray: “Exactly.”
Listen back in full here
Previously: JobBridge on Broadsheet
Rollingnews
“And it showed that JobBridge enhanced the probability of getting a job by 32%.”
Interesting.
By my calculation 48.5% of the Control Group found employment without using Job Bridge
almost 1 in 2. and we all know that 1 in 2 smokers die of a tobacco-related disease,
Horse manure. You can’t have a control group. Jobbridge fundamentally changed the job market. The people in the “control group” were not looking for work in a Jobbridge free environment. I know for a fact that real jobs were replaced by Job Bridge interns and those looking for work had less potential jobs available to them as a result.
They cannot compare the job market with Jobbridge during the last 5 years the the job market without Jobbridge in that same time because both did not exist.
Yeah exactly. I should of put “control group” in inverted commas.
A Pro Job Bridge counter argument would be that Job Bridge candidates secured better employment than the “Control”. Which quite conspicuously isn’t mentioned.
The stated stats seem very poor for what is said to be
“probably the highest impact on employment of any labour market programme.”
Why have a such an opinionated headline to cover, and conflict the transcript of an interview which did a lot to dispel this form of off the cuff bias?
+1
It’s the Broadsheet way. Non-critical soft-left groupthink. It’s what makes posting to this site such fun.
You forgot astroturfing in your buzzword bingofest.
Lots of businesses got next to free slave labour and displaced higher paid graduates to do so. That was the whole point of Jobbridge. It was lobbied for by Irish business groups who represent some of the greediest unethical scum there is.
They used the recession to maintain their profits, not by improving their product but by using Government subsidised labour.
So all those little mini Michael O’Leary’s who love capitalism so much, used socialism to keep their greasy pennies in the till.
“It was lobbied for by Irish business groups who represent some of the greediest unethical scum there is.”
And your evidence to support this comment?
Their actions in abusing Job-Bridge.
“And your evidence to support this comment?”
Working in business for 20 years and dealing with Irish companies who dodge their taxes, don’t pay their invoices, bribe politicians and civil servants to get contracts, fire people for having the ‘wrong’ political persuasion, use company funds for personal spending, engage in espionage to undermine competitors, fire women who become pregnant under the guise of redundancy only to rehire shortly afterwards. And all from supposedly respectable families and schools.
Could you not get a job in any decent company?
Or did you do the right thing and report them? I suspect not. I suspect you enabled them by keeping schtum but complained all your 20 years and spoke in the pub about how you would stick it to the man, just after one more pint…
A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed.
Are you lost?
The ‘Moyest’ role is up for audition, I guess.
Have you just woken up after a 40 year snooze?
Speaking from my own experience it was a great scheme. I graduated 4 people from jobbridge to full time employment and 2 more got jobs elsewhere after or during their internship. It was hurlers on the ditch and extreme cases that forced this decision. However, Im glad that the employer now pays a bit. When I mentioned that I paid extra on here I got slated for “breaking the rules”, which really shows where the Broadsheet posse are coming from.
Where are they coming from?
Sociology departments in provincial Irish universities.
As opposed to the Smurfit bean counter college?
+200 points in my Leaving
Mostly their sofa’s I imagine.. too proud to take a job from some capitalist.
how many will you take on now that you have to provide training and a minimum wage then tone?
As many as the business needs scotts. You want to apply? There is a queue but seeing as you’re obviously a positive, helpful type, I’m sure we could find you something.
i wouldn’t mind a change to be honest. only thing is i can’t get out of bed in the morning and i hate cnuts telling me what to do – i’m basically the perfect civil servant.
i’d better stay put really but thanks for the offer.
Feather-bedded public servants with gold standard pensions are in no position to lecture employers on their recruitment plans.
I’m sure it was great for you. You got over 80,000 of free labour.
€80,000. That’s excluding PRSI contributions so it must have saved you well in excess of €100,000. Great scheme form your perspective.
It’s a training scheme. They weren’t in the mines. Thank God we have a successful model that allows us to pay salaries, provide training and develop the potential in people. You seem like great craic though.
You had six (or is it more) people working who weren’t receiving a salary. I support people being paid for work. What does being great craic have to do with it?
They were receiving 1,000 a month plus what I chose to pay them. They were completely happy, and happier when they were made full time. They didnt have to leave the country or stay on the dole. They had a purpose, they traveled, they learnt skills and grew their confidence. Now they are the future of the company. The fact that you dont see this, or chose not to see it is an indicator of the depressing, regressive, grumpy, negative view of the world you have and the way you’d rather see people stay on the dole rather than get on with improving their lot. That makes you no craic mister.
The market was flooded with free labour which made it harder for people to get actual jobs. What Jobbridge meant was that in order to be considered for jobs people first had to work for free for 9 months. Jobbridge was a major interference in the job market which I think was wrong.
“Whatever I chose to give them”. There’s a reason we have protections for workers like the minimum wage. You seem happy to take advantage of people which makes you a lot worse than “no craic”.
Under this scheme I was prohibited to give them anything. So i broke the law to give them more money. The recession was a major interference in the job market. 80k a year were leaving. Companies like mine trained people so they were fit for work. People like you stood and threw stones. When you have something to contribute besides your trotskyist sh1te talk, do let me know. And Id love to know what unfortunate creature is lucky enough to have you as an employee…
Tony.
If you weren’t generating enough revenue to employ those people as regular employees on a normal salary, then you clearly have a flawed business model, unless of course your business model was based on free labour supplied by the Government, in which case it’s not a sustainable model.
What you have done if Jobbridge didn’t exist?
Found some other way to suck the marrow from their bones to build my evil empire I guess
Would you have been able to employ the people who worked for you under jobbridge if you had to give them actual employment and pay them a full wage tony?
hahahaha, good man!
The people who worked for me had little or no experience, so I probably wouldn’t have hired them. Having the state part subsidise them while they got the necessary experience helped both us and the intern get them on to permanent, well paid work.
You answered a question I didn’t ask. My question was whether you would have had the means to hire them?
If you mean did I have the means to spend on people with no experience? Absolutely not. That would be a stupid decision- bad for my business and it would endanger the jobs of the other employees in my company. Anything else Einstein?
Nice dodge yet again. And what is this business that you run?
It’s funny that you say I am slithering but you won’t say what your business is and whether you could afford to pay people for the work you got for free. If you are such a fan of job bridge why don’t you lay your cards on the table, give the details on what your business is etc. It shouldn’t be a problem for you as you believe jobbridge was a brilliant scheme.
It is literally none of your business what my business is. Why are you so curious?
He should just have gone bust during the recession putting even more people out of work instead of having more paid positions now than when JobBridge started.
No compromise!
…ScamBridge may be gone but it will forever be associated with it’s architect…
its
One of the key lessons learned from the depression in the 80s was that people were caught in the can’t get a job without experience, can get experience without a job dilemma. Those who had long periods of inactive unemployment early in their lives found it extremely difficult to catch up later in life and when the economy grew in the 90s.
Jobsbridge was designed to try deal with that. It obviously worked for many people but the quality of some experience, the inability to deal with complaints early and the pay should have been dealt with. Like other initiatives put in place by last govt, it was done quickly to deal with an emergency.
It needed to end, now that we are in different circumstances but there’s no new and improved version to replace it.
“Jobsbridge was designed to try deal with that.”
No it wasn’t. It was set up to provide free labour for large companies and drive down salary expectations.
No, it was designed to give people experience at at time when no-one was hiring young people.
It worked for some, obviously not for others.
What makes you such an expert? I’m being serious.
You truly do wear the shiniest tinfoil hat of them all.
There’s no S in JobBridge. It’s right there in the picture “JobBridge”
More people on JobBridge got jobs than people who were not on JobBridge.
Ok, I believe that.
There is though one glaring missing factor in this calculation, the human factor.
People who signed up to JobBridge were far more likely to get a job due to their determination to get back into the workforce, something that was missing from the people who did not sign up for JobBridge.
They were a different group of people with a different attitude.
People who wanted a job got more jobs than people who didn’t want a job.
+ €80,000
Ant that’s who the scheme was designed for. The kind of people employers look for. Plenty of schemes for those who don’t want to work.
No one contacted me. Did they pick the people they wanted to survey?
How much is the second one going to cost and why isn’t Jobsbridge just being adapted to the new system?
Are you going to pay out extortionate money to consultants and graphic designers for the new system?
Jokers.
the gov. have big business close to their heart. and when recession came, jobsbridge was basicaully “sure look, yer not doin anythin now that theyrs no jobs, so ya may as well go work for free for the people we DO look after”
It wasn’t free, they were paid 1,000 a month plus whatever people like me gave them. And you wont get much work with that spelling young man!
Last time I checked, soi disant ‘big business’ – as well as its slightly less evil sibling ‘SMEs’ – employs people. Governments hire 40-year drains on the public purse of today and for decades hence.
I’m willing to bet that every single whining, entitled, something for nothing, evil employer comment on here is by an Irish person. Whenever possible I employ non-irish staff because they turn up on time, work hard and actually bring some benefit to the company. The more Irish brats that leave the country the better.
Send them all back in a time machine to 1983 Ireland.