That is a fair sounding consideration - I think we’d want to look at the knock on effects but it doesn’t sound terrible as a compromise… in general though, having a separate system for temporary work just lowers worker empowerment.
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.
That is a fair sounding consideration - I think we’d want to look at the knock on effects but it doesn’t sound terrible as a compromise… in general though, having a separate system for temporary work just lowers worker empowerment.
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn’t practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can’t possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.