457-visa reforms: "a bit of a beat-up".... Contracts need to cover client conduct: Bill Boorman.... Consider whether hiring process is discouraging candidates with disability.... Who manages the contingent workforce? HR versus procurement.

457-visa reforms: "a bit of a beat-up"

Immigration advisory firm Berry Appleman & Leiden has criticised the Federal Government's 457-visa reforms as being vague and "a bit of a beat-up", and says users of the 457 system need more clarification on how the changes will affect them.

In a webinar on the reforms, BAL managing director Tim Denney said one of the areas where DIAC needed to provide more detail was the ban against 457 workers being placed in "unintended employment relationships" – by being on-hired to an unrelated company, in cases where the sponsor didn't have a labour agreement.

Denney told Shortlist the current legislation already prohibited employers from directly sponsoring a 457 worker and then on-hiring them to work for another business, unless that business was a related entity under the Corporations Act.

"It is pretty clear cut at the moment, so we're trying to work out what's changing.

"The Government has said the reforms are designed to clarify the relationships – well, we don't really know what that means; it's just vague and sounds like a bit of a beat-up."

Denney said another point that needed clarity was the "genuineness" test – from July 1, employers will be required to show that the position being filled by a 457 worker is a genuine one, and DIAC will have discretion to consider a range of information in deciding if it is genuine.

He said this reform was "vague" and more information was needed, but BAL assumed that sponsors would be asked to "attest to the genuineness" of the role, and "attest that no Australian is available for the appointment".

Contracts need to cover client conduct: Bill Boorman

Client service agreements should include terms that govern employers' conduct towards candidates, because substandard candidate service damages both parties' brands, says UK recruitment trainer Bill Boorman.

Boorman said in a recent blog post for Colleague Software that feedback he received from employers suggested the candidate experience improved significantly when companies built their own internal recruitment function, and this was often because their treatment of candidates was previously unregulated.

"While the agencies were governed, and rewarded by quite a strict set of terms and KPIs over what they could and couldn't do, there was nothing in place the other way around.

"The [service-level agreement] was really about fee avoidance and compliance, and not about [candidate] service," he said.

Feedback on applications was an area of particular concern, and Boorman said recruiters often felt that they were submitting candidates into a "black hole".

"It is time recruiters got demanding on this, and established terms for feedback, with timescales," he said.

"Most recruiters do their best for their clients, but are often put at risk of damaging their clients' (and their own) reputation by allowing... a substandard service to their other customers, the candidates."

Consider whether hiring process is discouraging candidates with disability

Thoughtless application processes can discourage candidates with disabilities, says Suzanne Colbert, CEO of the Australian Network on Disability.

Colbert said one area often overlooked when employers were designing their recruitment systems was making sure content was inclusive.

"At the end of a recruitment form often you're asked a series of unrelated questions and it's not unusual to ask a question 'Do you have a criminal record?' and then alongside that, 'Do you have a disability?'," she told Shortlist.

"From a recruiter's perspective, it's probably just convenient to put a bunch of miscellaneous questions together, but the juxtaposition would make it very unwelcoming for someone [with a disability] filling in that form."

Colbert said employers should make sure their recruitment platform was able to accommodate disabilities – such as being compatible with a screen reader or text enlarging software – and should let candidates know these options were available.

Who manages the contingent workforce? HR versus procurement

New research from global recruiting firm Allegis has found HR and procurement professionals are split along departmental lines over which function should be responsible for sourcing contingent staff.

Allegis surveyed some 400 procurement and HR managers in the US, and found that 48% of procurement officers believed procurement should be charged with sourcing contingent talent, while 34% felt HR should have that role. (The remainder didn't respond.)

On the HR side, 51% said HR should take the lead in contingent sourcing, and only 9% believed procurement should do so.

Looking for news on a particular company or topic? Don't forget Shortlist has a search tool at top right to help you track down the article you're looking for.