Evaluation of the Australian Wage Subsidy Special Youth ...

54
or on the general CES vacancy display board. Alternatively, SYETP placements could be
made by nomination of the employer, or self-canvassing by jobseekers from general
vacancies. An informal estimate suggests that in 1984 60 per cent of SYETP placements
were from those displayed on the SYETP self-service display board (AIMA (1985): 90).
The display board self-service process was the same as for general vacancies, but in the
interview and referral process for an SYETP vacancy the CES office had to confirm the
applicant’s eligibility for the subsidy with an initial screening. A subsidy agreement had
to be signed between the CES and the employer, the CES administered the subsidy
monies, and CES officers could make ‘supervisory visits’ to employers. CES offices were
directed to refer any eligible jobseeker, but after June 1984 they were to select from
registrants suitable for referral ‘those who have the longest periods of unemployment’. 29
There is evidence that, at least in 1984, there were limitations as to how many staff could
be SYETP placements, or other ‘subsidy’ placements. 30 Edwards (1987) p86 notes that
there were limitations on the proportion of the employer’s workforce which could be
employed from wage subsidy programmes from the Federal government and cites the
guidelines to CES 31 as stating that at any one time, a single physical location of factory,
shop or office with 1-3 staff could have 1 placement; those with 4-7 staff could have 2
placements; for 8-100 staff not more than 25 per cent of staff could be placements; for
more than 100 staff not more than 10 per cent of staff could be placements.
There is also evidence that the CES were vigilant for abuse of wage subsidy programmes
by employers. Edwards (1987) p86 cites CES guidelines about programme subsidies with
regard to possible termination of a programme subsidy if it was alleged that employers
dismissed existing employees to hire the placement, or there was evidence an employer
was seeking use of the programme for an on-going supply of subsidised labour, or where
the employer sought to employ a former employee through the placement, or where
29 AIMA (1985) p90 citing DEIR directive minute 84/55, 27 June 1984.
30 Note that apprenticeship subsidy payments under CRAFT were considered by the government at the time
as a wage ‘subsidy’, although they are classified in this analysis as ‘training’. The AWSS Adult Wage
Subsidy Scheme operated from 1 March 1983 until 30 November 1985 as well.
31 Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (1984) Adult Wage Subsidy Scheme CES Operating
Manual, Volume 6 section 5; Volume 7.