Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The Daily PollTHE GOVERNMENT’S much-heralded JobBridge internship scheme has been the subject of controversy since its launch earlier this year.
The scheme, which sees the unemployed receive €50 a week from the government on top of their social welfare payment, aims to “assist in breaking the cycle” of unemployment by allowing jobseekers to gain valuable experience. However, it has been criticised as a way for less scrupulous employers to exploit free labour. Yesterday, training agency Fás admitted to the Irish Times that it had to remove a number of positions advertised on the site as they were “not in accordance” with the scheme’s aims.
The scheme has also come under fire from employers, who have suggested that excess red tape is preventing jobseekers taking up opportunities.
Writing on TheJournal.ie last night, employer Aaron McKenna argued that the scheme is a good one – but the government needs to be more vigilant in policing the positions advertised.
So what do you think? Is the JobBridge scheme worthwhile?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The usual political response – equivocate. Must be seen to be doing something but nothing too much. When it comes to state bodies and the public service an ‘outcomeless’ response is the one preferred by the establishment. Think PPARS hand washing. Only 200 million down the drain. But woe betide a private sector entity that transgresses.
There are two Irelands. One where if you have a job at all then you don’t know whether you’ll still have it next month, and another where you can funnel public money into paying for luxurious trips around the world for you and your mates, and the worst “punishment” you will get is a generous early retirement package.
I thought Rabbitte was on the money with his remarks with the exception of this one. Surely an external investigation shouldn’t stop RTE taking their own disciplinary action? Though, I’d imagine if somebody was fired or resigned from RTE before or during the external review they would probably wouldn’t be disposed or obliged to cooperate with the enquiry.
One of the questions RTE can or should reveal immediately if the settlement is being paid for by insurance or effectively by the licence payer.
It will be interesting if Reynolds pushes for identification of the person who started this story and he should do.
Has the journal started censoring comments?
That would be a “no” Sheelagh Not started, continuing. I wish they would only do it for really vile comments.
Agreed with most of your earlier comment Sheelagh, can’t understand why it was taken down tbh.
The Journal owns and runs the site, we don’t pay to comment, so they can edit what they like as far as I am concerned.
Read the comments policy folks!
Never mind RTE.Heads should roll in the government. Big fat lying incompetent ones. Which is practically all of the useless articles that so many had hopes and belief in last February.
I feel another protracted whitewash coming on……
Report has to be completes within 2 months. It’s good that it has been time defined.
Heads should have rolled down the steps of the Four Courts. What was wrong with the courts findings?
There were none! The case was settled so there was no case and therefore no ‘findings’. The various apologies on-air and in print were the result of the negotiated settlement which was between the two parties.
Thanks Brian!
The old adage of the law ‘Justice being seen to be done’ gets another kick in the goolies while the erstwhile bewigged council do a bit of horsetrading on the lawn and the court approves the settlement.
Does that work when your up for your TV licence as well?
The only way heads are going to roll in this country, is if we start chopping a few of them off.
The only question rabbid should ask is who’s responsible and where are the letters of resignation.
Spend more public money on an enquiry? No this has cost enough already in legal fees and a settlement there’s no need for any more tax payer money to be wasted on this.
The really kick in the bollo is the Irish tax payer paying a settlement to a priest. ( I’m not saying he didn’t deserve it but that this could happen is my problem)
This has nothing to do with the tax payer. It has everything to do with the licence payer. Plus it doesn’t matter if the subject of the programme was a priest or a person of any other walk of life. The same standards apply no matter what the alleged crime is.
So far as I understand the enquiry comes out of the BAI budget. However, the necessity to do this and the court case settlement means that the BAI budget and the licence payers money (if the settlement is not covered by insurance) is being unnecessarily spent.
The BAI is funded by a levy on broadcasters – not sure what if any of their operating budget comes from the tax payer.
Yes hanly they have. You must agree with the original articial or your comment might be removed. It’s called free speech or lack of in this case
have your say