>(I don't suppose this is about Bill Bartlett ... ;-)
I wish. ;-)
I do have a couple of my own stories about this new 'Job Network' though. Not as good as that, but I'll tell them anyhow. The only job I've been matched with is one that I wasn't qualified for, It was a simple matter of me not having a drivers licence, a fact which was recorded on my records with the Job Network. It hadn't occurred to me that they wouldn't even be able to match simple details like gender, but it should come as no surprise.
This is a computer database set up by government remember.
.From 1 July it is compulsory for us dole bludgers to log into the Job network on a regular basis. I can't do that from my own computer, because the network can only be accessed by people using the Microsoft Windows operating system. I discovered this after a long exchange of e-mails with the Job network help desk, who seemed quite evasive about it.
I can't help suspecting that Microsoft got the contract to set up the system, but i'm too lazy and cynical to find out one way or the other.
I know of at least one member of the Job Network with an all-Macintosh office, a little organisation down in Hobart catering for people with mental illnesses. Dunno how they are expected to get on, I guess they will just have to go out and tip some more money into Bill Gates pocket.
Oh for a competent software engineer! Talking to these people is like trying to have a conversation with a robot.
As for Jenny Macklin and the labor party, there was another article in today's paper where labor was screaming about the fact that Centrelink doesn't check the details provided by job seekers in their 'Dole Diary'. Unemployed people have to provide details of all the jobs they apply for, but of course there aren't enough bureaucrats to check those details (there probably wouldn't be any unemployment if the government employed enough staff to do so, since not only would the government have to employ tens of thousands of new staff, but private employers would all have to employ new staff to deal with keeping records and answering the phone to bureaucrats. Its a wonderful idea for job creation, but rather unlikely to ever happen.)
But Mackin's moral indignation is misplaced. Selling your body for sex is no more degrading than any other form of employment. Damn sight safer than many jobs too. Wish I could get a job like that, but I'm probably too unattractive. Like many jobs, employers of prostitutes want fresh young meat. I'm too tough and bad-tempered.
So if these young sheilas really want to work, why not force them to sell their body for sex? I don't see the difference between that and selling your body to make gadgets for a boss.
Geddajob, ya bludgers!
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
>
>Sydney Morning Herald
>July 16 2003
>
>"A Tasmanian man was encouraged to apply for a job as a female prostitute
>under the federal government's Job Network program.
>The man, who had registered with Job Network, was yesterday matched with two
>jobs entitled Ladies of All Ages.
>According to the job descriptions, ladies of all ages were needed for a busy
>city escort service.
>The advertisements included a mobile phone number and job reference number.
>A call to the number confirmed the agency offered a full range of escort
>services.
>Labor's employment spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said it was outrageous
>taxpayers' money was being used to recruit sex workers while the Australian
>Democrats were more concerned about jobs that discriminated between men and
>women.
>"The employment services minister (Mal Brough) must urgently explain why
>this advertisement has been distributed through the Jobsearch database and
>detail exactly how many job seekers it has been sent to," Ms Macklin said.
>"Parents of young job seekers will be appalled if their children are
>receiving escort service job advertisements through a government service.
>"The distribution of this ad shows how little the Howard government cares
>about producing real job outcomes for job seekers."
>While prostitution is legal in Tasmania, brothels are not."
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/15/1058035012641.html
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk