Skilled visa changes??

[wrussell]

The Coalition government’s Short-Term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL) and Medium and Long-Term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) will be abolished if Labor wins government at the next federal election.

The Shadow Minister for Immigration, Shayne Neumann MP, made the announcement during an address to the Absolute Immigration Forum on 19 March.

If elected, a Labor government will replace the STSOL and MLTSSL with one Skills Shortage Occupations List, which will offer pathways to permanent residency.

In his address, Neumann said Labor is committed to reforming the temporary skilled visa system. The minister cited exploitation of temporary visa holders in order to undercut local jobs, wages and conditions as primary motivators.

An incoming Labor government would establish the Australian Skills Authority (ASA) as an independent, labour market testing authority. The ASA will be responsible for creating and maintaining the Skills Shortage Occupations List. What occupations are included will be determined through consultation with industry, unions, higher education and TAFE sectors, as well as state and local governments.

[birdy990]

That's interesting to know. We came over with a 457 visa 4 years ago however decided to return to the UK. We are now looking to return but have found my occupation (recruitment) is on the STSOL and with it only being 2 years with no option of PR, only an extension of 2 years has really put the mocker on things. We do have a saving grace of that my hubby is a bricklayer so our plan was to go over with me being sponsored and then lodge an application for a 189 visa straight away on my husbands skills.

It does feel a bit harsh that they are willing to use your skills for up to 4 years but offer no commitment from their end.

[Marisawright]

10 hours ago, birdy990 said:

It does feel a bit harsh that they are willing to use your skills for up to 4 years but offer no commitment from their end.

.....so if an employer in the UK offered you a contract for 4 years, what would you expect them to offer in terms of commitment at their end?  

On a TSS visa, you are not making any deals with the Australian government, you are making a deal with an employer.  The Australian govt is just providing a visa to allow that to happen.  So it's just the same as taking a job in the UK - what you get "in terms of commitment" is a salary.  Because it's a job in a foreign country, you would also negotiate relocation expenses.    Why would you expect anything more?

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Marisawright

[AJ]

13 hours ago, birdy990 said:

 

It does feel a bit harsh that they are willing to use your skills for up to 4 years but offer no commitment from their end.

That is the whole point of the temporary skilled visa!  They can get the skills when required.  You know that when you accept the visa. 

[Karstedt]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

.....so if an employer in the UK offered you a contract for 4 years, what would you expect them to offer in terms of commitment at their end?  

On a TSS visa, you are not making any deals with the Australian government, you are making a deal with an employer.  The Australian govt is just providing a visa to allow that to happen.  So it's just the same as taking a job in the UK - what you get "in terms of commitment" is a salary.  Because it's a job in a foreign country, you would also negotiate relocation expenses.    Why would you expect anything more?

I think the point he was making is that's a raw deal. It leaves the worker very vulnerable and undermines the employer's ability to retain quality hires. It is not a lack of commitment at the end of the contract... it is in fact a commitment to impede your economic progression at the end of said contract by limiting your job options to something overseas.

3 minutes ago, AJ said:

That is the whole point of the temporary skilled visa!  They can get the skills when required.  You know that when you accept the visa. 

Because all skill are transient right? There is no scenario in which an employee could possibly be wanted/needed more than 4 years? I mean really... we should all put in our 4 years and just die because we are worthless husks after that. Employers love to train and retrain people all the time; they always talk about how much they want people who are not quite right for their company so they can invest in them and then get rid of them.

The problem is not that it's temporary, it's that there is no path to permanent outside of some very cookie cutter scenarios. I have 2 employers that I have history with that both want to sponsor me to get me back in AU permanently, but can't under the current messed up schemes. You know what that means for the AU job market? It means their business is going to me sitting in another country. I'm not kidding, I came to AU and literally took jobs away from it (not to be confused with propaganda about permanent migrants taking AU jobs, because that is a well documented fallacy).

[Marisawright]

6 hours ago, Karstedt said:

I think the point he was making is that's a raw deal. It leaves the worker very vulnerable and undermines the employer's ability to retain quality hires. It is not a lack of commitment at the end of the contract... it is in fact a commitment to impede your economic progression at the end of said contract by limiting your job options to something overseas.

I don't agree. Put yourself in the same position with a British or European firm. You accept a contract for 4 years on the understanding that it's to complete a particular project.  It is made clear that once the project is finished, there is no option for renewal.  Do you feel aggrieved when the four years ends and that's exactly what happens?

I've had contracts like that in the past.  You go in with your eyes open at the beginning and then there are no disappointments.

[shaunfreo]

a Temporary visa is just that , when you’re not needed anymore it’s goodbye, that’s the deal you sign up to 

[Karstedt]

On 19/04/2019 at 02:28, Marisawright said:

I don't agree. Put yourself in the same position with a British or European firm. You accept a contract for 4 years on the understanding that it's to complete a particular project.  It is made clear that once the project is finished, there is no option for renewal.  Do you feel aggrieved when the four years ends and that's exactly what happens?

I've had contracts like that in the past.  You go in with your eyes open at the beginning and then there are no disappointments.

I will reiterate, it is not that contract is done with no option for renewal; it is the commitment by the government to make it more difficult for you find another job by virtue of requiring said job to be overseas. Or, if you want to remove the government and go with random UK company, if the UK company required you to not work in the UK after the contract was over. It is inherently more difficult to get a job when you are not in the same country as the employer.

So the smart worker would require more upfront compensation in this case, than your typical employer will offer in 97% (I pulled that number out of my butt for figurative purposes) of cases. Meaning your applicant pool becomes more concentrated with the desperate or ignorant, as more of the informed and desirable workers say 'that's a crap deal'.

Now businesses know this is a bad deal. Take the IT industry in the US where a LOT of people are working on contracts: The company will almost never tell you until the very last second possible that they are not going to renew your contract. Why? Because as soon as you know your contract is up in 3 months, you are gonna piss off and coast while looking for your next job. Fixing a term with no further options possible is bad policy; it attracts crap people and encourages good people to turn crappy.

I do acknowledge that there are business scenarios where relatively fixed terms are reasonable and not considered 'bad', e.g. construction projects and the like where you are doing a set 'thing'. That kind of work is transient in nature and rolling onto the next project is simply part of the gig. That is not a majority of cases though.

Edited April 21, 2019 by Karstedt
added

[Marisawright]

19 minutes ago, Karstedt said:

I will reiterate, it is not that contract is done with no option for renewal; it is the commitment by the government to make it more difficult for you find another job by virtue of requiring said job to be overseas. Or, if you want to remove the government and go with random UK company, if the UK company required you to not work in the UK after the contract was over. It is inherently more difficult to get a job when you are not in the same country as the employer.

So the smart worker would require more upfront compensation in this case

I disagree. The smart worker will not take a temporary contract imagining that it might be a pathway to a permanent job. He accepts that he has an opportunity to work in a foreign country for a few years, then he can go home.

If the worker wishes to move to that other country, then he needs to find a permanent visa.  If there are no permanent visas then he makes up his mind to stay in his home country, or he looks for another country that does offer permanent visas.

[ramot]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I disagree. The smart worker will not take a temporary contract imagining that it might be a pathway to a permanent job. He accepts that he has an opportunity to work in a foreign country for a few years, then he can go home.

If the worker wishes to move to that other country, then he needs to find a permanent visa.  If there are no permanent visas then he makes up his mind to stay in his home country, or he looks for another country that does offer permanent visas.

I agree, Marisa, it’s the same scenario for the majority of expat contracts. You are employed for a certain length of time with no guarantee of renewal. You either accept the conditions or don’t take the job. That’s both my experience and my husband’s having worked on overseas contracts in our time. No complaints from us, we knew the deal. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by ramot

[Karstedt]

7 minutes ago, ramot said:

I agree, Marisa, it’s the same scenario for the majority of expat contracts. You are employed for a certain length of time with no guarantee of renewal. You either accept the conditions or don’t take the job. That’s both my experience and my husband’s having worked on overseas contracts in our time. No complaints from us, we knew the deal. 

Nobody is arguing that 'no guarantee of renewal' is a problem. We all agree that is ok.

[VERYSTORMY]

I think you are missing the point of the 482 and its previous incarnation, the 457. The idea is that it allows an employer to hire someone when they can't find the skills locally and gives them enough time to train someone into those skills. Hence the requirement for a training benchmark- a rough attempt to get the employer to do that. The idea being that the local newly trained member of staff then takes over the role. 

[Karstedt]

8 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

I think you are missing the point of the 482 and its previous incarnation, the 457. The idea is that it allows an employer to hire someone when they can't find the skills locally and gives them enough time to train someone into those skills. Hence the requirement for a training benchmark- a rough attempt to get the employer to do that. The idea being that the local newly trained member of staff then takes over the role. 

Except the 457 had a permanent transition pathway even if your occupation became otherwise invalid, differentiating it from the 482 where only 'some' occupations have a permanent pathway. This is the point of crappiness. I simply can't understand why anyone would support preventing an employer from retaining an excellent hire permanently.

It is also insidious to imply that people are aware of and agree with the position that a temporary visa is purely and only a means for employers to fill a role, 'until they can find a local replacement'. If a job description says that your role is to fill a gap until a local replacement is found, because we don't really want you and are accepting you purely as an act of desperation, almost nobody would be interested sans significant overhead compensation (such compensation is not the norm obviously). Whether the job is out of state, or out of country makes no difference, it's garbage. Hence, to imply this is the widely known and accepted position is insidious because such terms are not reflected in reality. You could however, argue that this position is the official one, and intentionally kept quiet in order to maximize exploitation. But that leads us back to attracting ignorant workers.

Here is a parallel example as it might pertain to relationships. You meet someone and you both feel that 'spark', but they tell you:

Quote

We can only go on 3 dates, and we can never progress to 'relationship' status. No matter how good it might be, we can never be together because you are crap compared to the one I am waiting for.

Does that sound like someone you want to date? If you said that to someone as a 'test' and they still want to date you, would you still want to date them? I'd be like, 'piss off weirdo'.

[Quoll]

Well, I guess if people don't understand the concept "temporary" then that really is not the fault of Immigration. A lot of people are quite happy to take contractual work and move on whether for their cv or an adventure. There is no reason why temporary should become permanent just because someone loves the country. No one is under any obligation to take a temporary role if they don't want to, but to take it assuming that the rules will change and it will miraculously become permanent and then whinge when it doesn't  is, itself disingenuous.

[Karstedt]

1 hour ago, Quoll said:

Well, I guess if people don't understand the concept "temporary" then that really is not the fault of Immigration. A lot of people are quite happy to take contractual work and move on whether for their cv or an adventure. There is no reason why temporary should become permanent just because someone loves the country. No one is under any obligation to take a temporary role if they don't want to, but to take it assuming that the rules will change and it will miraculously become permanent and then whinge when it doesn't  is, itself disingenuous.

Everyone here agrees with that.

[ramot]

3 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Except the 457 had a permanent transition pathway even if your occupation became otherwise invalid, differentiating it from the 482 where only 'some' occupations have a permanent pathway. This is the point of crappiness. I simply can't understand why anyone would support preventing an employer from retaining an excellent hire permanently.

It is also insidious to imply that people are aware of and agree with the position that a temporary visa is purely and only a means for employers to fill a role, 'until they can find a local replacement'. If a job description says that your role is to fill a gap until a local replacement is found, because we don't really want you and are accepting you purely as an act of desperation, almost nobody would be interested sans significant overhead compensation (such compensation is not the norm obviously). Whether the job is out of state, or out of country makes no difference, it's garbage. Hence, to imply this is the widely known and accepted position is insidious because such terms are not reflected in reality. You could however, argue that this position is the official one, and intentionally kept quiet in order to maximize exploitation. But that leads us back to attracting ignorant workers.

Here is a parallel example as it might pertain to relationships. You meet someone and you both feel that 'spark', but they tell you:

Does that sound like someone you want to date? If you said that to someone as a 'test' and they still want to date you, would you still want to date them? I'd be like, 'piss off weirdo'.

You were very vulnerable if employed on a 457 visa. Yes there was a potential to apply for PR, Obviously success stories, but so many sad stories of people being made redundant, companies going under, people having moved to Australia with family hoping for the chance of PR being left high and dry with no option but to go home, never really thinking that possibility through. Even if some costs were met it caused such stress especially when you only had 30 days to find a new employer. That was awful.

Not sure how long you have been on PIO, but as mentioned so many panicked stories over the years of posters who have had problems on the 457 visa.

I know how vulnerable you could feel as my daughter was on a 457 and faced loosing her job twice. Luckily she went onto a partner visa, and off the 457.

Sadly whether or not you find the present system conditions unfair, this is how it is. Immigration have made some dreadful retrospective changes to visas in their time, not sure if you know how students were treated who had applied for PR, front loading their applications with everything required in place, to have everything changed, left in limbo for 3 years and then most refused. Governments have the right to make the rules, irrespective of their impact on individuals. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by ramot

[Marisawright]

4 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Everyone here agrees with that.

But you don't.  I think you're labouring under a misapprehension.  The 457 visa was NEVER meant to be a way for an employer to hire someone "on approval" with the aim of keeping them permanently.   It was ALWAYS  a temporary visa.    The "pathway" to PR was routinely misinterpreted, but it was always just the POSSIBILITY of PERHAPS being eligible to apply for PR at the end of the contract.  As Ramot says, while some people managed it, large numbers did not make it. 

All the 482 has done is make the situation clearer.

[Karstedt]

20 hours ago, Marisawright said:

But you don't.  I think you're labouring under a misapprehension.  The 457 visa was NEVER meant to be a way for an employer to hire someone "on approval" with the aim of keeping them permanently.   It was ALWAYS  a temporary visa.    The "pathway" to PR was routinely misinterpreted, but it was always just the POSSIBILITY of PERHAPS being eligible to apply for PR at the end of the contract.  As Ramot says, while some people managed it, large numbers did not make it. 

All the 482 has done is make the situation clearer.

But i do agree with what he said .

My point from the get go is that the current temp visa is a bad deal for XYZ reasons. Nobody has contested my reasoning; the disagreement has been been based on a unrelated tangent about intentions. The contention being that, because of such and such intent, unrelated to the concepts of good business and talent aquisition, that it is in fact good business. I was trying to clarify my point repeatedly and people kept going back to 'intentions'. You guys can be right about the intentions, and that has nothing to do with my disagreement with the visa policies.

As for the 457; it having a PR pathway implies that it was open ended. If the intent truly was as you said, then the PR pathway was obviously an insidious attempt to lure and exploit labor. Not because of 'intentions' to make the transition to PR on either side (employee and employer), but because the limitation itself poses a career obstacle. To accept said obstacle, without significant extra compensation, narrows your selection field, resulting in a higher concentration of poor candidates. The number of people fitting the cookie cutter mold of qualified enough, determined to leave under any circumstance, and actually decent employees is extremely slim. What you end up with is something like this:

Applicant A - Top notch employee

Applicant B - Acceptable hire

Employer 1 - Offering a typical job contract of 2 years

Employer 2 - Offering exact same job but guaranteed to give you the boot after 2 years because they don't really want your kind

Both employers prioritize their candidates A > B. Applicant A will choose Employer 1, leaving Employer 2 applicant B.

While you will get some special case 'type A' applicants going with employer 2, the vast majority will be 'type B' applicants. This is my position about it being bad policy. Regardless of intentions, it is designed to bring in the lowest common denominator.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Karstedt
typo

[Ausvisitor]

Don't agree, there are plenty of people who want a job in Australia for a defined amount of time and have no interest in staying. This visa is for them...

There are lots of people who want to live in Australia "forever", this visa is not for them

It's really simple. 

The only people who are upset at the restrictions on temporary visas are those that were not able to gain a PR visa and instead opted for a temp visa in the misguided hope that "they will bend the rules for me"

[Karstedt]

22 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

Don't agree, there are plenty of people who want a job in Australia for a defined amount of time and have no interest in staying. This visa is for them...

Don't agree with who? I didn't say anything of that sort...

[Quoll]

So, basically what you're saying is that you don't like temporary visas. If employers didn't like employing temporary visa holders they wouldnt employ them. Seems pretty good policy to me, why import people when you can train  up local talent to do the job.

[Ausvisitor]

6 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Don't agree with who? I didn't say anything of that sort...

It was this statement I didn't agree with -  Regardless of intentions, it is designed to bring in the lowest common denominator.

[VERYSTORMY]

On 21 April 2019 at 21:08, Karstedt said:

Except the 457 had a permanent transition pathway even if your occupation became otherwise invalid, differentiating it from the 482 where only 'some' occupations have a permanent pathway. This is the point of crappiness. I simply can't understand why anyone would support preventing an employer from retaining an excellent hire permanently.

It is also insidious to imply that people are aware of and agree with the position that a temporary visa is purely and only a means for employers to fill a role, 'until they can find a local replacement'. If a job description says that your role is to fill a gap until a local replacement is found, because we don't really want you and are accepting you purely as an act of desperation, almost nobody would be interested sans significant overhead compensation (such compensation is not the norm obviously). Whether the job is out of state, or out of country makes no difference, it's garbage. Hence, to imply this is the widely known and accepted position is insidious because such terms are not reflected in reality. You could however, argue that this position is the official one, and intentionally kept quiet in order to maximize exploitation. But that leads us back to attracting ignorant workers.

Here is a parallel example as it might pertain to relationships. You meet someone and you both feel that 'spark', but they tell you:

Does that sound like someone you want to date? If you said that to someone as a 'test' and they still want to date you, would you still want to date them? I'd be like, 'piss off weirdo'.

First, the 457 never had any defined pathway to PR. Far from it, and if you look through old posts, you will see that exact information being reiterated for years.

I myself arrived on a 457, then had a second 457 with a different employer, so know a little about what the 457 was and wasn't. For example, when I arrived, if you lost your job on a 457, you had 28 days to find another employer. I was one of 12 close friends that arrived within months of each other all on 457. I waved off nearly all of them when their 457's were cancelled. Two of us went on to gain citizenship. 

People should be aware of the nature of a temp visa. It is what it says on the can. A temporary visa. An employment contract, should for a temp visa holder state it is subject to visa. This totally alters it from a normal permanent contract. If people chose to remain ignorant of that, and yes, many do, that is their fault. Not the visas. Not the employers.

My post is correct, valid and stands. 

[MaggieMay24]

On 23/04/2019 at 09:46, Karstedt said:

But i do agree with what he said .

My point from the get go is that the current temp visa is a bad deal for XYZ reasons. Nobody has contested my reasoning; the disagreement has been been based on a unrelated tangent about intentions. The contention being that, because of such and such intent, unrelated to the concepts of good business and talent aquisition, that it is in fact good business. I was trying to clarify my point repeatedly and people kept going back to 'intentions'. You guys can be right about the intentions, and that has nothing to do with my disagreement with the visa policies.

As for the 457; it having a PR pathway implies that it was open ended. If the intent truly was as you said, then the PR pathway was obviously an insidious attempt to lure and exploit labor. Not because of 'intentions' to make the transition to PR on either side (employee and employer), but because the limitation itself poses a career obstacle. To accept said obstacle, without significant extra compensation, narrows your selection field, resulting in a higher concentration of poor candidates. The number of people fitting the cookie cutter mold of qualified enough, determined to leave under any circumstance, and actually decent employees is extremely slim. What you end up with is something like this:

Applicant A - Top notch employee

Applicant B - Acceptable hire

Employer 1 - Offering a typical job contract of 2 years

Employer 2 - Offering exact same job but guaranteed to give you the boot after 2 years because they don't really want your kind

Both employers prioritize their candidates A > B. Applicant A will choose Employer 1, leaving Employer 2 applicant B.

While you will get some special case 'type A' applicants going with employer 2, the vast majority will be 'type B' applicants. This is my position about it being bad policy. Regardless of intentions, it is designed to bring in the lowest common denominator.

Although you aren't incorrect, you are looking at it from the perspective of the employer and the employee, while the government is looking at it from the perspective of the Australian labour force.  So the program is designed to assist employers with short-term skill gaps for what I assume they deem to be occupations there should be enough supply of or more easily trained during 2-4 years on a 482, with the option of a pathway to PR for more highly skilled occupations to go on to a PR visa after the 482 runs out.

My company has just sponsored an intra-company transfer on a 482.  Unfortunately the occupation is on the short-term list and we've looked into the situation from every angle imaginable with the assistance of our migration agent, but under the current legislation we cannot find any possibility for this employee to stay beyond the 4 years.  He was doing the exact same occupation in one of our overseas companies and he's got the industry experience we find very valuable for this position.  So we have an employer and an employee who are highly motivated to make this work in a system that doesn't cater to our situation.

I myself was a 457-->186 immigrant who wouldn't be able to do the same thing today since my occupation is on the short list and rightly so since you can trip over people in my field in the street there are enough of us out there.  But since I was also an intra-company transfer from overseas, I came with a heap of company experience that is very helpful to my employer.  Doesn't mean someone from outside couldn't pick it up within 6 months but for my employer, I was the easier hire.

[rammygirl]

There are still too many people who post on here about migrating with a temp visa, selling up etc. Then get annoyed when people point out it is a temp visa with little or no chance of PR. It worries me that they make a massive life decision with the promise from an employer that all will be right. 

These are not young singles either but older with kids, some understand the risk and intend on applying for independent PR some seem oblivious to the pitfalls.

We have seen people on the forums who had several 457s hoping for sponsorship which never came (or their occupation went off the list) and they had to leave.  Irony is that some of them could have applied for PR independently at the start but didn’t because they believed the employers would sort it and they would save some cash.  They then find they are no longer able to..........