Street Level Leniency or Unjust Inconsistency? An Examination of Brach Recommendation Decision Making in a for profit Job Network Agency
The Howard government’s Mutual Obligation reforms have placed greater requirements on job seekers, increased compliance monitoring and imposed harsher penalties for failure. Under the restructured employment service, the Job Network, non government for profit and not for profit organizations are now involved in making breach recommendations to Centrelink. For profit agencies are confronted with potentially conflicting demands; supporting job seekers, policing their activities and ensuring organizational profitability. This exploratory study examined breach recommendation decision making practices in a for profit Job Network provider in Victoria. Findings showed a lack of decision making procedures, inconsistent application of natural justice and evidence of strategic breaching practice. Job seekers who fail to attend a first interview are more consistently and readily breached than others. Staff exercise considerable discretion about job seekers with whom they are already engaged, often basing their decisions on quite different factors. Inconsistent relationships with Centrelink and potential damage to working relationships with job seekers were of concern to staff. The study concludes that stronger requirements for investigation of individual circumstances and attention to natural justice must be built into the contractual obligations of Job Network providers.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 6 (2003)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://business.curtin.edu.au/research/publications/journals/ajle/|
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ozl:journl:v:6:y:2003:i:2:p:277-291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alan Duncan)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.