457 - $78k minimum salary? The proposed changes could mean the end of this subclass

[flag of convenience]

Just begs the question whatever happened to the large numbers from the Sub Continent that under took cooking courses when it was all the rage, several years back, primary due to it being designated as a shortage by government, hence the large over subscription in order to remain in the country.

[VERYSTORMY]

But regardless of immigration, not many businesses would be prepared to spend $4k per person on training and why should they. If you run a mechanic workshop you wouldn't hire an untrained person for a mechanic, to later train them up at your own expense. Of course you expect to employ people who are suitable and qualified for the tasks you give them...

 

Actually, that is exactly what I do expect. I expect them to be taking people from scratch and training them. That is the sensible method of growing a business. When I was a kid, every tiny little back street repair business had at least one kid going through the trade. The big companies had masses - When I was young I sat the internal test for ICI to become an apprentice. They took on several hundred a year then. Now, they take on about 3. That is the issue. There is no point in businesses juggling international labour in order to avoid training. It doesn't work for them in the long term or the rest of us society which ends up with lots of untrained and unemployed kids.

[VERYSTORMY]

Under the current scheme, employers must spend 1% of their total yearly payroll on training their Australian staff. Most employers I deal with are spending much more than that already, with many spending way beyond this requirement. Forcing employers to give money to the Government will leave less money for training of their staff. This recommendation would hurt the genuine employers who already regularly spend money to up skilll their Australian workforce.

 

As for why do we need to sponsor cooks, because there is a huge shortage. The reason for the shortage is that Australians are not taking on the trade, as few want to do the apprenticeship. Of the small numbers who do start an apprenticeship, few stick it out when they see that the reality of a commercial kitchen is nothing like Master Chef.

 

Sorry, but that still does not convince me of the need to sponsor cooks. The businesses need to look at why they cant get people. Just bringing in people to do it isn't a well thought out long term plan. My guess is it comes down to a combination of the same issue London has with chefs. Long hours, hard work, poor pay and often given a lot of hassle (to say the least) from above. But, there are businesses that have sorted this out. Taken the time to come up with better rosters, increased pay and other measures. For example, my brother in law has 3 restaurants and they are part of a bigger business. So, now every member of the business gets to spend a period of time as a "board member". Literally everyone from pot wash onward. The result is the staff feel a lot more engaged and a retention increases, so less time and money bringing in new staff. Managers of many businesses have to be creative in the way they recruit.

 

Even here in a quarry, we have to compete with demand from major projects for operators. We do it not by money - they could all earn more in other roles and the roles here are more demanding and dirty. But, we do other things that keep the staff happy

[BELAW]

Actually, that is exactly what I do expect. I expect them to be taking people from scratch and training them. That is the sensible method of growing a business.

 

I passionately disagree. If I have to train someone, that's not an investment into the knowledge base of my business - that's an investment into that individual's future.

 

We employ 12-15 staff across two offices and just from the experience of running this particular business (I don't want to drag other past experiences here) I can recite a dozen cases such as:

- One employee we loved and nurtured very much, had a bright future ahead in-house, but chose to leave because of a personal conflict with someone

- One whose husband got re-stationed in another town and the whole family moved away

- One who finished an Advanced Diploma, the next day extorted us for a higher salary (successfully) yet left a few months later and used the degree and the higher pay slip as bargaining chips at the new place

 

The list goes on; I could give you heaps of examples. As a business manager I consider every person should invest into their own future and get themselves trained in the field of their choice. At their own cost.

 

That's not to say we're not offering all kinds of retention programs and staff benefits. There's a wonderful crew here, we are quite relaxed not clocking arrival and departure times, we go out for drinks together, we all get bonuses and not just the solicitors - so what you wrote about your brother-in-law's restaurants is quite applicable to our law firm as well.

 

At the same time, just because we're a good gang I still wouldn't be able to justify hiring an untrained person, and having to spend our money on training him/her. That's not our function and the legal industry in Australia is barely scraping by since 2008 anyways. And such "gift" could be abused (the extortion for higher wages) or discarded ungratefully (leaving us voluntarily or by circumstance).

 

If the person already has the skills we require, we will pay the person to perform those tasks

But we're not a charity and not a government, we can't train our staff for the sake of society becoming better trained. There has to be a direct financial return to justify any expenditure - for example if a mechanic workshop employs an apprentice and provides the training instead of wages. What I spend on training has to be saved in wages or somewhere else...

[flag of convenience]

I passionately disagree. If I have to train someone, that's not an investment into the knowledge base of my business - that's an investment into that individual's future.

 

We employ 12-15 staff across two offices and just from the experience of running this particular business (I don't want to drag other past experiences here) I can recite a dozen cases such as:

- One employee we loved and nurtured very much, had a bright future ahead in-house, but chose to leave because of a personal conflict with someone

- One whose husband got re-stationed in another town and the whole family moved away

- One who finished an Advanced Diploma, the next day extorted us for a higher salary (successfully) yet left a few months later and used the degree and the higher pay slip as bargaining chips at the new place

 

The list goes on; I could give you heaps of examples. As a business manager I consider every person should invest into their own future and get themselves trained in the field of their choice. At their own cost.

 

That's not to say we're not offering all kinds of retention programs and staff benefits. There's a wonderful crew here, we are quite relaxed not clocking arrival and departure times, we go out for drinks together, we all get bonuses and not just the solicitors - so what you wrote about your brother-in-law's restaurants is quite applicable to our law firm as well.

 

At the same time, just because we're a good gang I still wouldn't be able to justify hiring an untrained person, and having to spend our money on training him/her. That's not our function and the legal industry in Australia is barely scraping by since 2008 anyways. And such "gift" could be abused (the extortion for higher wages) or discarded ungratefully (leaving us voluntarily or by circumstance).

 

If the person already has the skills we require, we will pay the person to perform those tasks

But we're not a charity and not a government, we can't train our staff for the sake of society becoming better trained. There has to be a direct financial return to justify any expenditure - for example if a mechanic workshop employs an apprentice and provides the training instead of wages. What I spend on training has to be saved in wages or somewhere else...

 

A perfect example as to why the abuse of 457's needs to be cracked down. A person from abroad will require training to enable them to partake efficiently within local conditions. Depending on country of last residence this can differ in time accordingly. For example certain practices that may be well suited to one environment does not necessary sit well in another, or in fact be legal.

 

Obviously having a worker under 'contract' will likely make them somewhat docile to complaint and not readily able to move to an alternative employer. Pretty much one sided in many aspects and if this becomes the 'norm' in terms of acceptance then the young in this country are going to face a very grim time indeed. Regardless to what standard of qualification gained.

 

I would put it to you if the work place is as described, few will want to leave with such conditions. Unless of course there are other factors not being brought to light.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I passionately disagree. If I have to train someone, that's not an investment into the knowledge base of my business - that's an investment into that individual's future.

 

We employ 12-15 staff across two offices and just from the experience of running this particular business (I don't want to drag other past experiences here) I can recite a dozen cases such as:

- One employee we loved and nurtured very much, had a bright future ahead in-house, but chose to leave because of a personal conflict with someone

- One whose husband got re-stationed in another town and the whole family moved away

- One who finished an Advanced Diploma, the next day extorted us for a higher salary (successfully) yet left a few months later and used the degree and the higher pay slip as bargaining chips at the new place

 

The list goes on; I could give you heaps of examples. As a business manager I consider every person should invest into their own future and get themselves trained in the field of their choice. At their own cost.

 

That's not to say we're not offering all kinds of retention programs and staff benefits. There's a wonderful crew here, we are quite relaxed not clocking arrival and departure times, we go out for drinks together, we all get bonuses and not just the solicitors - so what you wrote about your brother-in-law's restaurants is quite applicable to our law firm as well.

 

At the same time, just because we're a good gang I still wouldn't be able to justify hiring an untrained person, and having to spend our money on training him/her. That's not our function and the legal industry in Australia is barely scraping by since 2008 anyways. And such "gift" could be abused (the extortion for higher wages) or discarded ungratefully (leaving us voluntarily or by circumstance).

 

If the person already has the skills we require, we will pay the person to perform those tasks

But we're not a charity and not a government, we can't train our staff for the sake of society becoming better trained. There has to be a direct financial return to justify any expenditure - for example if a mechanic workshop employs an apprentice and provides the training instead of wages. What I spend on training has to be saved in wages or somewhere else...

But surely you have a contract in place that if they leave they refund the cost you paid in training.

[flag of convenience]

The current exemptions with regards to labour market testing for ANZSCO skill levels needs to be removed. In fact labour market testing needs to be required for ALL 457 visa nominations.

What a farce this has all become.

[robfromdublin]

I passionately disagree. If I have to train someone, that's not an investment into the knowledge base of my business - that's an investment into that individual's future.

 

We employ 12-15 staff across two offices and just from the experience of running this particular business (I don't want to drag other past experiences here) I can recite a dozen cases such as:

- One employee we loved and nurtured very much, had a bright future ahead in-house, but chose to leave because of a personal conflict with someone

- One whose husband got re-stationed in another town and the whole family moved away

- One who finished an Advanced Diploma, the next day extorted us for a higher salary (successfully) yet left a few months later and used the degree and the higher pay slip as bargaining chips at the new place

 

The list goes on; I could give you heaps of examples. As a business manager I consider every person should invest into their own future and get themselves trained in the field of their choice. At their own cost.

 

That's not to say we're not offering all kinds of retention programs and staff benefits. There's a wonderful crew here, we are quite relaxed not clocking arrival and departure times, we go out for drinks together, we all get bonuses and not just the solicitors - so what you wrote about your brother-in-law's restaurants is quite applicable to our law firm as well.

 

At the same time, just because we're a good gang I still wouldn't be able to justify hiring an untrained person, and having to spend our money on training him/her. That's not our function and the legal industry in Australia is barely scraping by since 2008 anyways. And such "gift" could be abused (the extortion for higher wages) or discarded ungratefully (leaving us voluntarily or by circumstance).

 

If the person already has the skills we require, we will pay the person to perform those tasks

But we're not a charity and not a government, we can't train our staff for the sake of society becoming better trained. There has to be a direct financial return to justify any expenditure - for example if a mechanic workshop employs an apprentice and provides the training instead of wages. What I spend on training has to be saved in wages or somewhere else...

 

Do you not consider on-the-job training to be an important component of retaining talent?

 

I certainly don't consider training to be a 'gift'. It is often an important part of keeping ones skills relevant. If that training does not increase the business's knowledge base then the business must do better at knowledge sharing. In fact, you can often substitute formal external training with a good internal program, thereby giving staff the skills they need but not necessarily the bit of paper that means they can move elsewhere.

[flag of convenience]

No I'd say the game is to import them on 457's at little cost, under award wages if at all possible in cases, and milk the system for all it is worth.

Doing away with legal entitlements like holiday pay, long service leave loading and other irritants.

[BELAW]

I would put it to you if the work place is as described, few will want to leave with such conditions. Unless of course there are other factors not being brought to light.

 

We created a private chat room, you and I. :wink:

 

You're right: only a very few want to leave. I think we lost 3 people in the last 3 years, and not all of them actually wanted to leave.

 

Our office(s) is actually the nicest place any of us worked at so far. But there can always be other circumstances (think of the lady whose soldier husband got re-stationed) and the biggest being money, of course. Some people will trade a harmonious workplace for more money, or won't even have a choice if you consider being divorced and left with two children to care for alone - a higher salary might not just be a wish but a necessity.

 

I also see an exodus of legal secretaries from the industry, becoming PAs for high level execs. The job is similar but less stressful at higher wages. Stuff happens. Anyways, all of that is beside the point and I've gotten far off topic, sorry.

[BELAW]

Do you not consider on-the-job training to be an important component of retaining talent?

 

I certainly don't consider training to be a 'gift'. It is often an important part of keeping ones skills relevant. If that training does not increase the business's knowledge base then the business must do better at knowledge sharing. In fact, you can often substitute formal external training with a good internal program, thereby giving staff the skills they need but not necessarily the bit of paper that means they can move elsewhere.

 

The power of the mighty internet: we only get a chance to discuss fragments of subjects, which are then easy to pull apart.

 

I totally agree with you, and I do invest in training my staff. We pay for our solicitors' CPD courses (which is the legal responsibility of the practitioner, not the employer), we pay their professional memberships, every year we take on work experience law students (no, it's not free labour for us, there's a lot more effort going into making them useful, than what you could get out of their labour - not to mention issues with reliability and ownership of ones work, when one knows they won't be staying for long).

 

We do invest a lot. I just don't believe that to be the "duty" of the employer.

We make this investment to foster a fulfilling workplace and sure, it benefits the firm - unless someone abuses this opportunity which happened in the past as in my example above.

 

 

We started that discussion when someone said the 457 sponsoring employers should very well be required to spend at least $4k on training per employee.

 

I disagree with that notion; I don't think it's the employer's job.

I can't imagine a world where I'd apply to be a bus driver without a driver licence, expecting to be hired, trained and licensed.

 

Naturally I agree with all sensible parts of everyone's comments: yes when you hire an engineer (Aussie or not) you have to train them about your specific work environment and procedures, yes the training is not a gift and nothing else, yes the employer gets a benefit from training employees.

 

But no to the formerly raised idea of "457 sponsors should train our local unemployed instead of hiring overseas cooks". That's not a valid alternative. If I run a restaurant, I want a competent cook. If I can't find one, and if the government makes it impossible to hire an overseas one (which is possible in the future) then I still won't open a cookery school - I just won't have a cook and might go bankrupt.

 

(I have to say though that we never sponsored a 457 worker, this is just from the position of running small business already sucked dry by Fair Work, and having drafted a myriad of visas and listened to employers as well as 457 applicants).

[VERYSTORMY]

I think you are being VERY short sighted to both your own business and your industry. Yes, some will leave, but some will stay and the ones that leave can be replaced with people who have been trained by other companies - what goes around comes around. Otherwise, you find yourself in the boat that my industry did in the mid 2000's. Companies hadn't bothered taking anyone as a trainee for a number of years. Then, a combination hit of increase in work and the sudden dawn that 70% of existing staff were within a couple of years of retirement. The result was carnage. I know of large projects that lost 10's of millions simply because they couldn't get the staff (let alone a huge amount of injuries caused by over work / skipping tasks). The only reason they could not get the staff was because as an industry we hadn't trained people for years. The funny part is that after having entire conferences dedicated to making sure it doesn't happen again, they are now doing it again and it will bite even harder next time.

 

Businesses have to be employee sustainable. Both to the society in which they operate and within their own industry. Just thinking we can "borrow a worker" from another country, doesn't cut it. It is like saying well, I need some tea bags, so I will borrow one from the neighbours. Then, continuing to not buy your own and relying on your neighbours to lend you a couple. But, what happens when your neighbours start to do the same thing and stop buying there's in the assumption a neighbour will lend them some. Sooner or later, you will end up in the no tea mess.

[BELAW]

I think you are being VERY short sighted to both your own business and your industry. Yes, some will leave, but some will stay and the ones that leave can be replaced with people who have been trained by other companies - what goes around comes around. Otherwise, you find yourself in the boat that my industry did in the mid 2000's. Companies hadn't bothered taking anyone as a trainee for a number of years. Then, a combination hit of increase in work and the sudden dawn that 70% of existing staff were within a couple of years of retirement. The result was carnage. I know of large projects that lost 10's of millions simply because they couldn't get the staff (let alone a huge amount of injuries caused by over work / skipping tasks). The only reason they could not get the staff was because as an industry we hadn't trained people for years. The funny part is that after having entire conferences dedicated to making sure it doesn't happen again, they are now doing it again and it will bite even harder next time.

 

Businesses have to be employee sustainable. Both to the society in which they operate and within their own industry. Just thinking we can "borrow a worker" from another country, doesn't cut it. It is like saying well, I need some tea bags, so I will borrow one from the neighbours. Then, continuing to not buy your own and relying on your neighbours to lend you a couple. But, what happens when your neighbours start to do the same thing and stop buying there's in the assumption a neighbour will lend them some. Sooner or later, you will end up in the no tea mess.

 

You make it sound like we were in disagreement whereas I don't think we are. (I wasn't hoping for a qualifying personal comment.)

 

 

I repeat, my firm provides heaps of training to our staff. Most of them reciprocate this by contributing to how great our workplace is, and the odd bad apple will extort you for whatever you can't give them. But I still disagree with training being the employers' duty.

 

With your example: if I want to make tea I will need a tea bag. Whether I borrow it from a neighbour or buy it in the store: I still need a tea bag that's already made and I can't be expected to give birth to my own tea bag factory.

 

I take your argument about what could happen to industries when they don't take on trainees. I just don't accept this being the duty of employers, rather see it as a responsibility of government. So for example, prior to 2008 the Australian legal industry was reasonably profitable, as opposed to today when payroll costs are 50-60% of turnover, then the rest is taken by professional subscriptions, indemnity insurance, computers, licences, rent, finance costs etc. Is there a profit left? Firms get to keep anywhere from 5% of their turnover to -5% (making a loss), prompting lots of bankruptcies and mergers.

 

I can see similar trends everywhere from the local car mechanic to the restaurant. (No, I'm not suggesting they should employ overseas workers for less money - in fact we actively fight against that.) But if the local mechanic is struggling to stay afloat - he will not be a good provider of apprenticeships.

 

If fostering apprenticeships is the interest of the future - I'd see it much more appropriate if government did something about it. And they actually are the organisation who have the means. And whose duty it is. As soon as my struggling mechanic will not be financially (further) disadvantaged by taking on an apprentice, I'm sure he will.

[flag of convenience]

We created a private chat room, you and I. :wink:

 

You're right: only a very few want to leave. I think we lost 3 people in the last 3 years, and not all of them actually wanted to leave.

 

Our office(s) is actually the nicest place any of us worked at so far. But there can always be other circumstances (think of the lady whose soldier husband got re-stationed) and the biggest being money, of course. Some people will trade a harmonious workplace for more money, or won't even have a choice if you consider being divorced and left with two children to care for alone - a higher salary might not just be a wish but a necessity.

 

I also see an exodus of legal secretaries from the industry, becoming PAs for high level execs. The job is similar but less stressful at higher wages. Stuff happens. Anyways, all of that is beside the point and I've gotten far off topic, sorry.

 

Not a problem. But such a delightful work place would surely be appreciated by the local crop of qualified employees rather than 457 intruders that you appear to favour? If no local are qualified to perform a particular task, by all means after labour testing seek a suitably qualified candidate from abroad, but not in place of a local ...

[BELAW]

such a delightful work place would surely be appreciated by the local crop of qualified employees rather than 457 intruders that you appear to favour?

 

A) definitely. As I said just a few comments higher: "we never sponsored a 457 worker, this is just from the position of running small business already sucked dry by Fair Work, and having drafted a myriad of visas and listened to employers as well as 457 applicants".

 

And B) having acted for a large number of Far North QLD businesses as 457 sponsors I have a different view about the skills shortage. We're all the same - we can't disconnect from our personal experiences on the job. I may be lucky for only having experience with 457 visas where the employer was actually in dire need of a skilled employee, and even if there could have been locals who applied ("I've been driving MC trucks for 20 years but I promise I'm very smart, and no doubt I can meet your expectations from a restaurant manager") they only resorted to sponsoring a foreigner as a last option. Especially that it cost them $2,500 in professional fees and VAC, plus all the risk of monitoring and sanctions, and the odd chance of having to cover deportation fees. 457 in our experience is not a source of "cheap" labour, or maybe I'm just too naive to find shortcuts...

[flag of convenience]

The power of the mighty internet: we only get a chance to discuss fragments of subjects, which are then easy to pull apart.

 

I totally agree with you, and I do invest in training my staff. We pay for our solicitors' CPD courses (which is the legal responsibility of the practitioner, not the employer), we pay their professional memberships, every year we take on work experience law students (no, it's not free labour for us, there's a lot more effort going into making them useful, than what you could get out of their labour - not to mention issues with reliability and ownership of ones work, when one knows they won't be staying for long).

 

We do invest a lot. I just don't believe that to be the "duty" of the employer.

We make this investment to foster a fulfilling workplace and sure, it benefits the firm - unless someone abuses this opportunity which happened in the past as in my example above.

 

 

We started that discussion when someone said the 457 sponsoring employers should very well be required to spend at least $4k on training per employee.

 

I disagree with that notion; I don't think it's the employer's job.

I can't imagine a world where I'd apply to be a bus driver without a driver licence, expecting to be hired, trained and licensed.

 

Naturally I agree with all sensible parts of everyone's comments: yes when you hire an engineer (Aussie or not) you have to train them about your specific work environment and procedures, yes the training is not a gift and nothing else, yes the employer gets a benefit from training employees.

 

But no to the formerly raised idea of "457 sponsors should train our local unemployed instead of hiring overseas cooks". That's not a valid alternative. If I run a restaurant, I want a competent cook. If I can't find one, and if the government makes it impossible to hire an overseas one (which is possible in the future) then I still won't open a cookery school - I just won't have a cook and might go bankrupt.

 

(I have to say though that we never sponsored a 457 worker, this is just from the position of running small business already sucked dry by Fair Work, and having drafted a myriad of visas and listened to employers as well as 457 applicants).

 

Thank goodness for Fair Work Australia. Helps at least in part to keep the basta..s honest. A worker would be thrown to the jackals acting as an individual.

 

As I have said, 457 has a place but only after LABOUR TESTING. If there are no cooks in the entire state, something I have trouble believing, unless (specialised naturally in a certain cuisine) then there is no earthly reason the local market place cannot be accessed first to fill the position.

 

There are certain standards employers must adhere to in Australia and no watering down of acceptable norms should be allowed. Your analogy of a bus driver without a licence lacks any serious substance. How can a person be a bus driver sans a licence? It is not possible. But the same person with a licence has the right to feel very grieved if they remain out of work, while a driver is recruited, without market testing from, Hong Kong, India, South Africa, UK or Ireland.

[flag of convenience]

A) definitely. As I said just a few comments higher: "we never sponsored a 457 worker, this is just from the position of running small business already sucked dry by Fair Work, and having drafted a myriad of visas and listened to employers as well as 457 applicants".

 

And B) having acted for a large number of Far North QLD businesses as 457 sponsors I have a different view about the skills shortage. We're all the same - we can't disconnect from our personal experiences on the job. I may be lucky for only having experience with 457 visas where the employer was actually in dire need of a skilled employee, and even if there could have been locals who applied ("I've been driving MC trucks for 20 years but I promise I'm very smart, and no doubt I can meet your expectations from a restaurant manager") they only resorted to sponsoring a foreigner as a last option. Especially that it cost them $2,500 in professional fees and VAC, plus all the risk of monitoring and sanctions, and the odd chance of having to cover deportation fees. 457 in our experience is not a source of "cheap" labour, or maybe I'm just too naive to find shortcuts...

 

Some employers do the right thing others don't. Just to save guard all aspects of the working place, including the exploitation and harassment of foreign workers, procedures need to be in place to ensure all come out with the best possible outcomes.

 

You may recall of recent, Fijian workers in Country Victoria coming away with $10 in the pocket after expenses in the agriculture business?A shocking exploitation of imported casual labour.

 

Many Back Packers also report nasty experiences at the hands of out back employers. I can vouch for that myself in the past. One thing could be to give contact details to every foreign worker Fair Work Australia. Who knows may even encourage the employment of more folk already on the ground here in Australia?

[Bungo]

I passionately disagree. If I have to train someone, that's not an investment into the knowledge base of my business - that's an investment into that individual's future.

 

We employ 12-15 staff across two offices and just from the experience of running this particular business (I don't want to drag other past experiences here) I can recite a dozen cases such as:

- One employee we loved and nurtured very much, had a bright future ahead in-house, but chose to leave because of a personal conflict with someone

- One whose husband got re-stationed in another town and the whole family moved away

- One who finished an Advanced Diploma, the next day extorted us for a higher salary (successfully) yet left a few months later and used the degree and the higher pay slip as bargaining chips at the new place

 

The list goes on; I could give you heaps of examples. As a business manager I consider every person should invest into their own future and get themselves trained in the field of their choice. At their own cost.

 

That's not to say we're not offering all kinds of retention programs and staff benefits. There's a wonderful crew here, we are quite relaxed not clocking arrival and departure times, we go out for drinks together, we all get bonuses and not just the solicitors - so what you wrote about your brother-in-law's restaurants is quite applicable to our law firm as well.

 

At the same time, just because we're a good gang I still wouldn't be able to justify hiring an untrained person, and having to spend our money on training him/her. That's not our function and the legal industry in Australia is barely scraping by since 2008 anyways. And such "gift" could be abused (the extortion for higher wages) or discarded ungratefully (leaving us voluntarily or by circumstance).

 

If the person already has the skills we require, we will pay the person to perform those tasks

But we're not a charity and not a government, we can't train our staff for the sake of society becoming better trained. There has to be a direct financial return to justify any expenditure - for example if a mechanic workshop employs an apprentice and provides the training instead of wages. What I spend on training has to be saved in wages or somewhere else...

 

It is a good job not everyone thinks like you. If they did then eventually the existing trained workforce will all get old and die and there would be nobody able to do the jobs because everyone refused to take them on when they were starting out. We can't learn everything in a classroom, everyone needs some workplace training and everyone needs that first job.

 

A responsible business owner shows some social responsibility too and any business with some kind of scale should be thinking about trainees. Obviously not every recruit can be green, most won't be, but having an intake is responsible.

 

So I welcome a review of this visa too, including salary levels. Lower salary positions are low pay precisely because they do not typically require a high level of skill, years of training, advanced qualifications, exceptional abilities and if the demand for people able to do the role was so high then it wouldn't be low pay because of competitive forces. It is concerning that people are being sponsored for low skill, low pay jobs when there are others struggling to get off unemployment and could pick it up if only given a chance.