I am not an expert in Visa's so my narrative is just to express my recent/current experience with them.
There was much uproar from Australians when foreign workers were coming into our country on the 457 Visa.
457 Visa
"In Australia, the 457 visa was the most common visa for Australian or overseas employers to sponsor skilled overseas workers to work temporarily in Australia. It has been abolished since 18 March 2018 by Turnbull government and replaced by another visa category." (Wikipedia)
What it meant was, that Australian businesses could bring in workers for areas where there was a "skill shortage".
Much can be debated as to the how a "skill shortage" comes about, but there certainly are some areas where the shortage occurs.
In many areas, the government was deceived, where the "sales managers", "massage therapists" and so on were in actual fact used a commission only sales people, sex workers and other roles that were not part of the Visa Skill Shortage.
The Government then abolished the 457 Visa and replaced it with a Temporary Skill Shortage Visa #482.
482 Visa
The 482 Visa seems to mirror the 457 Visa.
I assume the changes are the list of jobs that are included, the required pre-requisites & application scrutiny process?
But the visa is for a 2, 3 or 4 year period, that is, temporary!
Knock Knock, please let me in.
My dilemma of sorts is that there is a person wanting to come into Australia and wants to use the 482 Visa to get in.
The dilemma is..
- Their income does not meet the position requirements
- Their position does not meet the position requirements.
- The position is not a skill shortage in Australia.
1. Their income does not meet the position requirements
The proposed solution seems to be...
#"Can we forgo salary for this year and add it to next year's salary to boost the income?"#
This is an amazing manipulation of data to give the impression of fulfilling the requirement.
Seriously! This will seem to be in the hopes of a pay increase in the future years so that the candidate will meet the requirement.
I need to tiptoe with corporate speak to move around this one.
2. Their position does not meet the position requirements.
But that is ok as we have "internal" titles and "external" titles.
You can call yourself something to the outside world, it just won't apply within the organisation.
Again, it really reeks of lying to the Government to try to circumvent the rules that are there to not circumvent them...
3. The position is not a skill shortage in Australia.
The position doesn't exist in our Australian office.
So, before the candidate is provided a visa, the position must be advertised and applicants must be interviewed for the position.
A consultant commented that we can "use a general statement as to why none of the applicants were good enough locally".
Concocting the outcome irks and totally belittles the point of the overall visa - Temporary Skill Shortage!
How to play the hand that is being forced to be played?
I am sure this cloak and dagger behaviour is normal to some people.
For me, it is rare. I have enjoyed a very ethical stance with most of my work and have been surrounded by senior managers that also agree with these principles.
Now, there is a new breed of manager who is only concerned with their own short term number success.
I tend to sweat the small stuff sometimes. I am sure there is some common sense that will prevail.
The consultant has first swing to explain the impossibility or possibility of the whole gig.
I'm hoping that they will put aside their "fee focus" and look at the legality of this behaviour.
Brainstorming is good and spit-balling ideas may present more practical ones.
I just do not trust some of the players in this game.