Moving state on 176? (Numerous threads merged)
#91
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
The skill argument holds as much water as the one about detention centres. No promise is made to practice professions that formed the basis of the skilled migration route - though most people would of course prefer to practice what they're qualified to do.
Have you never experienced the frustration of life being tougher to navigate thanks to past dishonesty/abuse/poor behaviour by a few? Those who take SS with no intention of honouring their commitment is the stuff that those frustrations are made of.
And another thing: Would you trust someone who reneges on their promises?
Have you never experienced the frustration of life being tougher to navigate thanks to past dishonesty/abuse/poor behaviour by a few? Those who take SS with no intention of honouring their commitment is the stuff that those frustrations are made of.
And another thing: Would you trust someone who reneges on their promises?
Imagine a building site where you (general you) are a project manager and in a need of an architect. You interview a guy, do all the background checks you ought to do and hire a guy. As soon as he arrives, he curls his lip, says that he only wanted out of the place he has been at, never really wanted to be in your company, does not want to be an architect at all, and would rather plant flowers and watch the sky.
If I was that PM, I would fire his sorry ass that very instant. Also the HR would have a severe case of a boot stuck in their lower intestines for not filling the position with a right candidate. The outcome - time lost, cost of hire sunk, project replanning needed, nerves damaged, HR person needing stitches in a place that the sun does not shine to, and most importantly, the scrutiny on the next hire would be much more severe, in the name of not stepping twice into the same pile of, umm, you get the picture.
But here is a twist - the architect-pretend is on a contract that does not let you fire him. Then what would you do? How much of this can be realistically scaled up to the state level or a federal program? I realize the difference between government procedures and commercial company runnig its own little thing, but does it have any benefit to think in terms of economic contribution rather than let things float downstream on their own?
#92
.
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: "What I did, I did without choice. In the name of peace and sanity."
Posts: 3,385
#93
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
Let's scale it down to a manageable scale, for the sake of argument.
Imagine a building site where you (general you) are a project manager and in a need of an architect. You interview a guy, do all the background checks you ought to do and hire a guy. As soon as he arrives, he curls his lip, says that he only wanted out of the place he has been at, never really wanted to be in your company, does not want to be an architect at all, and would rather plant flowers and watch the sky.
If I was that PM, I would fire his sorry ass that very instant. Also the HR would have a severe case of a boot stuck in their lower intestines for not filling the position with a right candidate. The outcome - time lost, cost of hire sunk, project replanning needed, nerves damaged, HR person needing stitches in a place that the sun does not shine to, and most importantly, the scrutiny on the next hire would be much more severe, in the name of not stepping twice into the same pile of, umm, you get the picture.
But here is a twist - the architect-pretend is on a contract that does not let you fire him. Then what would you do? How much of this can be realistically scaled up to the state level or a federal program? I realize the difference between government procedures and commercial company runnig its own little thing, but does it have any benefit to think in terms of economic contribution rather than let things float downstream on their own?
Imagine a building site where you (general you) are a project manager and in a need of an architect. You interview a guy, do all the background checks you ought to do and hire a guy. As soon as he arrives, he curls his lip, says that he only wanted out of the place he has been at, never really wanted to be in your company, does not want to be an architect at all, and would rather plant flowers and watch the sky.
If I was that PM, I would fire his sorry ass that very instant. Also the HR would have a severe case of a boot stuck in their lower intestines for not filling the position with a right candidate. The outcome - time lost, cost of hire sunk, project replanning needed, nerves damaged, HR person needing stitches in a place that the sun does not shine to, and most importantly, the scrutiny on the next hire would be much more severe, in the name of not stepping twice into the same pile of, umm, you get the picture.
But here is a twist - the architect-pretend is on a contract that does not let you fire him. Then what would you do? How much of this can be realistically scaled up to the state level or a federal program? I realize the difference between government procedures and commercial company runnig its own little thing, but does it have any benefit to think in terms of economic contribution rather than let things float downstream on their own?
Last edited by PamE; Mar 16th 2011 at 9:58 pm.
#94
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
Two of my friends, who have migrated to Australia in 2008 and stayed in the sponsored state for quite long. Finally, they got the permission to leave the sponsored state due to their inability to find a job. They have the letter given by the state.
Another friend got the state sponsor before the state migration plan was implemented. When the new list was arrived, his skill wasn't included. He got the visa recently and let the sponsored state know that according to recent list, it is confirmed that there is not much work for his skill and got the permission to go to other state.
There is always a loop hole for the people who don't care about the moral obligation. I think moral obligation is not a matter for anyone in this world. People from europe, US, asia or anywhere are same minded. Everyone thinks and works for their own benefit.
Another friend got the state sponsor before the state migration plan was implemented. When the new list was arrived, his skill wasn't included. He got the visa recently and let the sponsored state know that according to recent list, it is confirmed that there is not much work for his skill and got the permission to go to other state.
There is always a loop hole for the people who don't care about the moral obligation. I think moral obligation is not a matter for anyone in this world. People from europe, US, asia or anywhere are same minded. Everyone thinks and works for their own benefit.
The issue is with those who use the SS scheme to get into Australia and have absolutely no intentions of staying the State that sponsored them. Playing the system to get themselves the extra points that SS gives. Many wouldn't qualify for a visa at all without those extra points.
#95
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,786
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
I don't have a problem with the people who move here and genuinely try to find work in the sponsoring State, then admit defeat and take a job somewhere else. At least they have tried to fulfill a promise to DIAC which they made when the visa was granted.
My issue, like others on the trhead is quite simply that we are seeing an increasing number of posters on here who declare they have no intention of living or working in the State - and they often say it before the visa is even granted! Others have appeared online applying to as many States as possible, they don't intend to settle in any of them, they are just out to get sponsorship from anyone they can. Many of them have no idea about life in that State, and aren't really interested. They just want a visa. Some of the State's have cottoned onto that one, Victoria at least (there may be others now) has been seen to turn people down who apply to more than one State on the grounds that if they are applying to more than one they obviously aren't very committed to that one.
Trying your best then telling the State you have tried but need to go elsewhere is one thing, but starting off with the intention of "cheating"is different.
My issue, like others on the trhead is quite simply that we are seeing an increasing number of posters on here who declare they have no intention of living or working in the State - and they often say it before the visa is even granted! Others have appeared online applying to as many States as possible, they don't intend to settle in any of them, they are just out to get sponsorship from anyone they can. Many of them have no idea about life in that State, and aren't really interested. They just want a visa. Some of the State's have cottoned onto that one, Victoria at least (there may be others now) has been seen to turn people down who apply to more than one State on the grounds that if they are applying to more than one they obviously aren't very committed to that one.
Trying your best then telling the State you have tried but need to go elsewhere is one thing, but starting off with the intention of "cheating"is different.
#96
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,786
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
Snap!! Great minds thinking alike?
#97
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
Interesting question though... if people only obtained their visa because of the extra points available via the SS scheme, but never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal, could that be judged as a fraudulently acquired visa?
#98
.
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: "What I did, I did without choice. In the name of peace and sanity."
Posts: 3,385
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
What's the point of going on about LEGALLY entering the country. We all know that what's happening is legal.... it doesn't make it 'right'.
Interesting question though... if people only obtained their visa because of the extra points available via the SS scheme, but never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal, could that be judged as a fraudulently acquired visa?
Interesting question though... if people only obtained their visa because of the extra points available via the SS scheme, but never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal, could that be judged as a fraudulently acquired visa?
#99
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
The status quo encouraged by people like yourself.
The basis of my thoughts are "if they have lied to and/or cheated someone else then if it suits them they'll do the same to me". Perhaps it's the wrong way of looking at it but it works for me.
Legal does not necessarily equal virtuous. The law is not our only moral compass.
Legal does not necessarily equal virtuous. The law is not our only moral compass.
#100
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
What's the point of going on about LEGALLY entering the country. We all know that what's happening is legal.... it doesn't make it 'right'.
Interesting question though... if people only obtained their visa because of the extra points available via the SS scheme, but never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal, could that be judged as a fraudulently acquired visa?
Interesting question though... if people only obtained their visa because of the extra points available via the SS scheme, but never had any intention of honouring their side of the deal, could that be judged as a fraudulently acquired visa?
#101
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 162
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
IMO, the state sponsorship should either be scrapped, and let market forces decide which state attracts what skills; or make the State Sponsorship a legally binding obligation and the SS visa as a pathway to Permanent Residency; a la spouse visa.
But restricting someone on where they can and can not live and not guaranteeing them with employment (and putting restrictions on employment outside the designated area(s) ) could in theory cause legal hurdles. Which I suspect is the reason why the obligation to remain in the sponsoring state is a moral one and not a legal one.
Veering off course a bit, often, migrants do find it hard to find jobs. The state might sponsor them with best of intentions, but often employers tend to shy away from applicants who they feel won't be articulate enough, or might lack communication skills (basically a polite way of saying you speak with an accent we'd rather hear in call centers - I digress).
Just this morning, a recruiter was talking to me about a Project Manager at a client (a Fed Gov Department) who's looking for a contract BA; and wasn't at all subtle in letting the recruiter know that he'd prefer someone who could communicate effectively across all hierarchical levels. Upon seeing the obviously non-anglo-saxon name on my CV; he asked the recruiter where I was born, and on that fact alone, was happy to assume that I somehow lack communication skills. It took the recruiter to tell him that I am "schmick enough" (her words, not mine) for him to agree to consider my CV.
Either that, or as stated earlier, the numbers just aren't large enough for DIAC to spend money on compliance costs.
I do remember there used to be a Regional Residence Visa of sorts (the exact name and subclass escapes me at the moment - a friend of a friend has one) where the visa holder could only be employed outside specified metropolitan post codes for a certain duration before moving on to a Permanent Resident Visa. This wasn't restricted to specific states though, and the holder could work in "regional" areas of any state/territory.
So, as long as the obligation is not a legal obligation, and the person has been legally admitted to Australia after DIAC has conducted whatever checks they wish to conduct; I'll refuse to pass judgement on a person's character.
I prefer to see things in black and white, and there are far too many shades of grey closer to either end of the scale to decide what passes muster and what doesn't.
#102
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
I do remember there used to be a Regional Residence Visa of sorts (the exact name and subclass escapes me at the moment - a friend of a friend has one) where the visa holder could only be employed outside specified metropolitan post codes for a certain duration before moving on to a Permanent Resident Visa. This wasn't restricted to specific states though, and the holder could work in "regional" areas of any state/territory.
Quite so, and again, I still can't get my head around why this issue such a source of rage and judgement (please nobody repeat yourselves )
#103
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 32
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
you can work and live anywhere you want, no one will stop you or really care, and nothing will come of it. Good luck in your new life
#104
.
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: "What I did, I did without choice. In the name of peace and sanity."
Posts: 3,385
Re: job in a state other than state sponsored state
Quite an assumption. I assume you've never come across immigration dawn raids then. One of the most unpleasant things the immigration dept here does. People assume it won't happen to them & the next thing they know, bam, dawn raid, locked up in an IRC. Just because DIAC haven't done that yet, doesn't mean they won't. At some point DIAC will clamp down, & rightly so. Particularly when there are such complacent attitudes to breaking the rules that the applicant agreed to abide by.