Qantas suppliers hit by $2bn cost cutting endeavour

[MrHyde]

Slightly OT, Not being a employment law expert or anything, but as far as I am aware you cannot prioritise a citizen over a PR when it comes to recruitment and that could be considered discrimination? Someone on a temp visa maybe, but a PR I think not.

In many cases, a person with PR cannot get Security Clearance with the Federal Government (due to not having enough of a history in Australia for the DoD to vet), and that limits the projects that our people can work on, hence our preference for citizens over PRs. This is from experience where applications for Security Clearance have been rejected by the DoD because the applicant is a PR and not a citizen. The day they became a citizen, another application submitted and that was accepted. One of our contract with a very large Federal Agency also mandates that we can only use citizens when working on their projects and over the last year, we have noticed that clause being inserted by other agencies as well.

We think this clause is a pain as it severely limits our hiring pool, and I believe severely limits the Government's ability to get the best people working for them; but at the same time, if we have someone who can work on any of our projects and someone who can only work on 50% of our projects (and both are equally skilled), our choice is clear on who is better suited to our operating model. If the PR person is well above the citizen, then we factor in how quickly they can become a citizen and whether we have enough future work to support them knowing that they can't work on the breadth of projects at the company. Its the same as whether the person is willing to travel or not. A person willing to travel will be more attractive to us that a person not willing to travel.

Recruitment is not a question purely of technical skill - there are far too many factors to consider to ensure that whoever we hire fits within our culture, fits with our customers, and has the best possibility of being a long term hire.

 

[cmon0005]

In many cases, a person with PR cannot get Security Clearance with the Federal Government (due to not having enough of a history in Australia for the DoD to vet), and that limits the projects that our people can work on, hence our preference for citizens over PRs. This is from experience where applications for Security Clearance have been rejected by the DoD because the applicant is a PR and not a citizen. The day they became a citizen, another application submitted and that was accepted. One of our contract with a very large Federal Agency also mandates that we can only use citizens when working on their projects and over the last year, we have noticed that clause being inserted by other agencies as well.

We think this clause is a pain as it severely limits our hiring pool, and I believe severely limits the Government's ability to get the best people working for them; but at the same time, if we have someone who can work on any of our projects and someone who can only work on 50% of our projects (and both are equally skilled), our choice is clear on who is better suited to our operating model. If the PR person is well above the citizen, then we factor in how quickly they can become a citizen and whether we have enough future work to support them knowing that they can't work on the breadth of projects at the company. Its the same as whether the person is willing to travel or not. A person willing to travel will be more attractive to us that a person not willing to travel.

Recruitment is not a question purely of technical skill - there are far too many factors to consider to ensure that whoever we hire fits within our culture, fits with our customers, and has the best possibility of being a long term hire.

Yes that is fair enough, I was more referring to a standard job in a standard industry.

 

[JohnK]

The ones from South Africa and USA were fired after 2 months because they were completely incompetent.

Nice post.

So if they are incompetent and still employed after 12 months? And not only one. The attitude of the IT Director is piss poor telling leads it doesn't matter if they are incompetent we are paying them peanuts. The morale of your best workers is more important but there is some sort of game going on here I do not quite understand.

I trained people straight out of Control Data and they were more than capable after 6 months. You know if someone is going to be any good or not almost straight away. If someone has been here for 5 years and they don't know how to investigate bugs and can't write a program they don't belong here.

Sorry but not everyone is meant to be in IT.

 

[whatmeworry]

I know most of the major outsourcers heavily utilise 457s and that is their business model. In my view that is perfectly legitimate if the end user gets the benefit as they spend less money on IT and can spend more money elsewhere to grow their business.

Your view is also illegal. There is no real shortage of locally trained IT workers. Really it is employers want to employ people that work for significantly less and for poorer working conditions. This greedy attitude is putting downward pressure on wages and conditions for local workers.

 

[MrHyde]

Nice post.

So if they are incompetent and still employed after 12 months? And not only one. The attitude of the IT Director is piss poor telling leads it doesn't matter if they are incompetent we are paying them peanuts. The morale of your best workers is more important but there is some sort of game going on here I do not quite understand.

I trained people straight out of Control Data and they were more than capable after 6 months. You know if someone is going to be any good or not almost straight away. If someone has been here for 5 years and they don't know how to investigate bugs and can't write a program they don't belong here.

Sorry but not everyone is meant to be in IT.

Now we are getting into pure speculation territory. There might be something in their contract that makes it cheaper to keep them around than get rid of them. Look at Government IT departments. I have met some absolutely brilliant people working in Government and at the same time, I have met some of the absolute worst as well. The brilliant ones are a pleasure to work with. The bad ones, in discussion with their managers, are too hard to get rid off and just keep getting transferred from one area to another to make it someone else's problem or are just not given any critical tasks to do.

As you said, not everyone is meant to be in IT.

 

[Flashback]

In many cases, a person with PR cannot get Security Clearance with the Federal Government (due to not having enough of a history in Australia for the DoD to vet), and that limits the projects that our people can work on, hence our preference for citizens over PRs. This is from experience where applications for Security Clearance have been rejected by the DoD because the applicant is a PR and not a citizen. The day they became a citizen, another application submitted and that was accepted. One of our contract with a very large Federal Agency also mandates that we can only use citizens when working on their projects and over the last year, we have noticed that clause being inserted by other agencies as well.

We think this clause is a pain as it severely limits our hiring pool, and I believe severely limits the Government's ability to get the best people working for them; but at the same time, if we have someone who can work on any of our projects and someone who can only work on 50% of our projects (and both are equally skilled), our choice is clear on who is better suited to our operating model. If the PR person is well above the citizen, then we factor in how quickly they can become a citizen and whether we have enough future work to support them knowing that they can't work on the breadth of projects at the company. Its the same as whether the person is willing to travel or not. A person willing to travel will be more attractive to us that a person not willing to travel.

Recruitment is not a question purely of technical skill - there are far too many factors to consider to ensure that whoever we hire fits within our culture, fits with our customers, and has the best possibility of being a long term hire.

I find this rather interesting as I'm gearing up to apply for SC in the UK. I've got basic clearance right now (which you can get after having been here for 3 years, regardless of Visa status) and once I hit the 5 year mark next September I can apply for SC - I'm still some time away from applying for PR. Interesting that Australia seems to discriminate between the two......