Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Union rejects 12 month work visa proposal and want employers to set aside more ‘training money’ in exchange for 457 visas.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 4209
- 5 Comments
Union rejects 12 month work visa proposal and want employers to set aside more ‘training money’ in exchange for 457 visas.
With the Coalition government on the ropes with its leadership crisis, the ACTU has started flexing its muscle with a ‘scathing response’ to the government’s proposal to introduce the short-term mobility visa and relax 457 visa requirements, according to reports in The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald.
Australian workers will lose out from a proposed short-term working visa which will serve to benefit big employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has said in its response to the discussion paper on skilled migration released by the department of immigration (DIBP).
DIBP has been considering relaxing entry requirements for overseas workers, including the introduction of a new short-term visa class for specialised workers to stay in Australia for up to a year.
Under this change, overseas workers would not need to apply for a 457 work visa, which imposes entry requirements including English language tests and forces employers to prove they have looked for local workers before seeking overseas labour.
The ACTU heavily criticised the proposal in DIBP’s paper to introduce a new short-term mobility visa that would allow employers to hire specialised workers for up to 12 months adding that short-term visas would erode working conditions and allow employers to bypass labour market testing (LMT), English language competency and even skills testing, according to The Guardian.
In other media reports, the Union is said to have linked the proposed visa to youth unemployment saying that easing visa restrictions would worsen the youth unemployment crisis gripping the nation.
The ACTU however supports the proposal in the paper that employers set aside money from every successful 457 sponsorship and put it in a fund to boost the skills and training of Australian workers.
Assistant Immigration and Border Protection Minister Michaelia Cash said the skilled migration program was aimed at plugging skill shortages, and she strongly disputed union claims that Australian jobs were under threat from overseas labour. She said any changes would complement rather than replace the existing workforce.
"An effectively managed temporary labour-migration program will not threaten Australian jobs," a spokesman for Senator Cash said. "Rather, it will secure the future of business and grow employment opportunities to enable businesses to employ more Australians," the spokesman was quoted as saying in the SMH report, "It is essential in restoring growth in the economy. It is essential in lifting our productivity."
Comments
-
Thursday, 05 February 2015Thats an excellent idea Michael. Then the unions would also have no argument about work standards. Doesnt deal with the English language issues and not sure every occupation has a union. Forcing someone to join a union would normally be considered a bridge too far as Nicholas below states, but then if we look at the Migration Act it is full of bridges too far - kids in asylum, privative clauses, exemptions from Discrimination Acts, turning refugees away at sea - so being forced to join a union (which is probably good for you anyway) as part of a condition of a visa grant isnt such a big ask.
-
Thursday, 05 February 2015
Hi Michael, that is not a cynical aside but a critical issue. To speak frankly, the main advantage of 457 workers to employers is that they do not have a full set of industrial rights. They can be sacked in whatever manner and are out of the country in a flash. They come and go quickly making them difficult to organise or even advise of their industrial rights making them structurally vulnerable to exploitation. They have no collective bargaining power, and over time, the result is reduced overall wages for Australians. This is why the Liberals love the program.
To even imagine, however, that membership in a union could be made compulsory (like the classic liberal unions / professions you refer to ) is an ideological bridge too far for a conservative government, good idea as it is! -
Thursday, 05 February 2015
Australian Employers who wish be to approved as 457 Visa Sponsors have to do the following already:-
spending an equivalent of at least two per cent of your payroll in payments to an industry training fund that operates in the same industry as you; or
spending an equivalent to at least one per cent of your payroll in the provision of training to employees of your business who are Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents.
must provide evidence to show that you have completed labour market testing in the last 12 months.
A 457 Visa Employee has similar protection through Fair Work Ombudsman and Commission and the Award they are employed under.
If a 457 Visa Employee is released from their Sponsorship they have 90 days to find another Sponsor or apply for another visa or they may ask their sponsor to pay for their airfares back to their home country.
With current Trade Union Membership in Australia at around 17% (abs.gov.au), what contributions are they making to Training, and it may be ironic if they take union membership from 457 Visa employees and then lobby against them -
Thursday, 05 February 2015
Why should unions pay for the training of staff employed in the private sector? While 457 holders have the same formal rights they are not integrated into the industrial system, often do not speak good English, and if they want to stay in the country are wise not to assert their rights (even if they know how). Good luck in fighting an employment related battle through the Fair Work Commission and Federal Court if you are not in Australia.
The point of union membership, to ensure people can assert their rights, and not just have rights. If 457 members pay their union dues they would have the representation, curtailed as it is by the 90 day rule, it being a separate issue as to whether 457 holders drive down wages and allow employers to avoid the cost of training young Australians. And the unions are well entitled to agitate on that one.
Immigration blog
Although this may sound like a cynical aside, I suggest that the unions' pain could be assuaged by requiring 457 holders to agree to participate in the unions through normal membership. Then the unions become the 457 workers' advocate and the employers would have the workers and the union protect its members. This works for lawyers and doctors who are required to join their respective professional associations. That way, the department can leave the market to its own balancing factors.