> Ahh... that clears that one up... makes much more sense now.
>
> So even if the employee is tied for a minimum of 2 years to the
> employer, they'd be afraid that they'll lose the employee after this
> period and would have to rehire again.
>
> And I would reckon for these type of employers, competitive wage
> scales is not really in their minds.
>
> This is not strategically good though for a business/organization.
> Since I still believe they'll lose this employee in the end (maybe
> even shorter than 2 years) because sooner or later the employee will
> apply either for an independent visa or look for an employer willing
> to sponsor for PR.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth...
> Ron.
There are situations where a 457 visa is appropriate, eg:
- a fixed term contract; or
- a multinational secondment; or
- the employee does not qualify for ENS/RSMS
However in most instances, if a person is being recruited from overseas
to fill a position, why would any employer not sponsor for ENS/RSMS
immediately? If any employer insists on sponsoring for a 457 rather
than PR, the first question really ought to be 'why'?
And perhaps this thread should be entitled 'why should an employer
sponsor for a 457 rather than ENS/RSMS?'
Jeremy
--
This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any jurisdiction
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |