Nats try to confuse between churn & real job growth

17 comments on “Nats try to confuse between churn & real job growth ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   29 February 2012 at 11:45 am

   ” when Bennett says ’10,000 people came off the dole last month’ but fails to mention the 11,000 who went on it.” …….. it is called wilful deceit.

   Liars.

   Trying to deceive the people of New Zealand.
2. Dv 2

   29 February 2012 at 11:49 am

   I have got to try that on my bank.

   What do you mean i have got to put down my expenditure as well to get the mortage!
3. Tombstone 3

   29 February 2012 at 11:53 am

   And we need National supporters to pull their heads out of their arses and start being realistic about the halve truths being touted by the likes of Bennett and Key. Let’s also not forget that many of those job vacancies being factored into the listed job numbers are in fact ‘ghost jobs’ – nonexistent jobs being advertised by the many employment agencies out there who just want to lure you in so they get your name on their books in case an actual job does materialize and they can call on you. Take those ‘ghost jobs’ out the equation and the number of real job vacancies will drop dramatically. Labour need to expose these flaws in National’s number crunching.
   • RedLogix 3.1

     29 February 2012 at 12:24 pm

     Let’s also not forget that many of those job vacancies being factored into the listed job numbers are in fact ‘ghost jobs’ – nonexistent jobs being advertised by the many employment agencies out there who just want to lure you in so they get your name on their books in case an actual job does materialize and they can call on you.

     Or the fact that many jobs finish up being advertised several times by multiple agencies….
     • aerobubble 3.1.1

       29 February 2012 at 12:45 pm

       The skill shortage did not go away, as many with skills seek better pay in OZ anyway. So its pretty basic business to advertize ghost positions just in case they nab a good employee (who is disenchanted with their present employer). The real question is where is the jobs growth coming from Bennett and Key are eluding too. Anyone with sense knows Key is against a Green Job recovery.
     • tc 3.1.2

       29 February 2012 at 12:59 pm

       Bingo….most jobs in IT are listed about 5-7 times and even then they often don’t exist as the employers ‘testing the waters’, ‘realigned the expectation’, ‘changed focus’….employment agencies get shonkier by the year
     • RedLogix 3.1.3

       29 February 2012 at 1:50 pm

       Or they are just going through the motions of ‘externally advertising’ a role that they already have an internal candidate lined up for….
       • tc 3.1.3.1

         29 February 2012 at 4:18 pm

         It’s all about going through the charade that this job is ‘open’ when it’s gone internally or to a mate/member of that particular club.

         Seen an SOE stack selection panels to ensure the ‘right’ candidate is chosen….an expensive farce, especially when other candidates are clearly superior the reasons given for dropping the non-contenders were f’n hilarious. Some managers specilaise in sitting on these panels fying about troughing it all the way.
   • Vicky32 3.2

     29 February 2012 at 7:22 pm

     Let’s also not forget that many of those job vacancies being factored into the listed job numbers are in fact ‘ghost jobs’ – nonexistent jobs being advertised by the many employment agencies out there who just want to lure you in so they get your name on their books in case an actual job does materialize and they can call on you.

     Exactly! And then, as I see RedLogix says below, duplicates and triplicates! In remember having applied for a job once through an agency, talking to the woman  on the phone, hearing her say “Just a moment” and then her coming back to tell me the job was gone. I asked her to explain, and she told me that her agency had seen the job on SEEK, and had advertised it themselves in the hope that the employer would see candidates that her agency referred! It worked sometimes, she told me, and her agency got paid by the employer, rather than the agency the employer had originally listed with. This time it had failed to work, the agency who’d originally been contracted to fill the vacancy had succeeded. The agency I was dealing with never had had the job and so should not have advertised it!
     I see now, that many SEEK and TradeMe vacancies say “No agencies please” below their “apply” link.
4. Clashman 4

   29 February 2012 at 1:03 pm

   I have looked for work on Trademe and there are alot of instances of multiple listings for the same job.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     29 February 2012 at 1:20 pm

     And old listings already filled.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     29 February 2012 at 4:44 pm

     Multiple listings for the same job and several that aren’t actually jobs but fishing exercises by labour hire firms to a) get names on their list and b) see how little people are willing to work for.
   • David 4.3

     29 February 2012 at 4:48 pm

     I’ve been doing this for a few years now….on TradeMe and on Seek.

     Jobs can be listed by multiple “agencies”.
     Jobs can be listed again due to no suitable applicants (and as listing cost is less than labour cost of searching through several hundred CV’s).
     Jobs can be listed for internal promotions due to weird company rules/procedures.
     Jobs can be listed, and then company decides not to fill position.
     Jobs may be “ghost jobs” by agencies fishing for people.
     Jobs may actually be for another country (normally Australia or USA).

     So, using a count of jobs advertised on TradeMe or Seek or anywhere else, is really just plain dumb.
5. deemac 5

   29 February 2012 at 3:16 pm

   having recently applied for numerous part time jobs, I know they are like gold dust. Over 100 people applied for the last vacancy I went for. And I live in Wellington – the chance of being the lucky applicant outside the big centres must be like winning lotto. It is just cruel to pretend that these jobs exist in the numbers required to make a dent in the unemployment stats.
   • David 5.1

     29 February 2012 at 4:51 pm

     Only 100 competitiors for the job. You did well. I regularly got 200 competitors over here in the BOP, with the highest being 600. The local new Spotlight store interviewed over 1,000 people, and who knows how many thousand didn’t make it to that stage…..
6. QoT 6

   29 February 2012 at 6:29 pm

   Of course not, but that’s what National is telling you when they rabbit on about there being 10,000 jobs on Trademe.

   Oh gods do not get me started on this one again. I’m still pissed off at Patrick Gower falling for that bullshit – really showed up who hadn’t had to actively seek work in a while …
7. Hami Shearlie 7

   29 February 2012 at 11:32 pm

   Paula’s hypocrisy is astounding. Now, she states she went back on the DPB because she was exhausted with two part time jobs. She only had one child (and we all know how that turned out), so how is it that she expects women with multiple children to work full time when the youngest is 14? Won’t they get exhausted too? Won’t their kids ever get sick? Sorry I forgot, they don’t count. Paula’s changed all the rules, and aint it interesting to now find out she got a government loan to buy a house in Taupo when she was only a teenager? But can anyone on DPB get that now, no, Paula’s choked off that little lifeline too. And I wonder, what will all the kids who are teenagers be getting up to in the house, or out of it, while Mum is working? Never mind, if they get into trouble the Nacts will simply say it was down to bad parenting. And of course, the mother will be blamed if any crime is committed. These mothers have no-one to share the burden of parenthood with, and no-one to lean on in times of trouble!! But then, no doubt Paula thinks she got all the perks because she was more worthy!!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS