The wage subsidy Improved the wage subsidy agreement form was agreement form so that key verbose and ordered messages are more salient, illogically, making it difficult the terms and conditions to comprehend, and easier to understand, and Employers often do not finalise highlighted the hiring biases minimised. their wage subsidy agreements ‘disadvantage’ of the in time Allowed employers to sign job seeker. the wage subsidy Employers had to sign and agreement electronically physically send back or scan (with paper version and email the completed available if preferred). wage subsidy agreement. Quarterly payments were Created a new standardised the default, with providers payment structure as the reticent to offer alternatives default option, with earlier due to administrative and back-loaded payments. complexity. Created a user-friendly Amount of subsidy was Payment schedule unclear calculator for staff to use perceived as sufficiently and difficult to calculate if for flexible payments, and attractive by employers, but the the employer sought to aid calculating dates payment instalments were flexible payments of the across all agreements. structured in an unattractive subsidy. Removed up front friction way Employers had to provide costs by allowing the payslips at each payment employer to verbally instalment, scanned or confirm ongoing posted, or the job advisor employment for the first had to retrieve them. instalment. Employers could still receive Employers were anchored by Removed the pro-rata table the subsidy whilst offering the pro-rata table in the wage from the agreement, both lower working hours to subsidy agreement online and in hard copy. job seekers. 4.1 The new wage subsidy agreement Our Explore phase revealed that the old wage subsidy agreement was a hurdle for employers. This is because it: was not written in easily understandable English; was structured so that the employer had to read through all seven pages of documentation before giving consent; labelled the type of subsidy which could potentially lead to hiring bias; and had to be filled out offline.
Employers often do not finalise their wage subsidy agreements in time The wage subsidy agreement form was verbose and ordered illogically, making it difficult to comprehend, and highlighted the ‘disadvantage’ of the job seeker. Employers had to sign and physically send back or scan and email the completed wage subsidy agreement. Improved the wage subsidy agreement form so that key messages are more salient, the terms and conditions easier to understand, and hiring biases minimised. Allowed employers to sign the wage subsidy agreement electronically (with paper version available if preferred). Amount of subsidy was perceived as sufficiently attractive by employers, but the payment instalments were structured in an unattractive way Quarterly payments were the default, with providers reticent to offer alternatives due to administrative complexity. Payment schedule unclear and difficult to calculate if the employer sought flexible payments of the subsidy. Employers had to provide payslips at each payment instalment, scanned or posted, or the job advisor had to retrieve them. Created a new standardised payment structure as the default option, with earlier and back-loaded payments. Created a user-friendly calculator for staff to use for flexible payments, and to aid calculating dates across all agreements. Removed up front friction costs by allowing the employer to verbally confirm ongoing employment for the first instalment. Employers were anchored by the pro-rata table in the wage subsidy agreement Employers could still receive the subsidy whilst offering lower working hours to job seekers. Removed the pro-rata table from the agreement, both online and in hard copy. 4.1 The new wage subsidy agreement Our Explore phase revealed that the old wage subsidy agreement was a hurdle for employers. This is because it: was not written in easily understandable English; was structured so that the employer had to read through all seven pages of documentation before giving consent; labelled the type of subsidy which could potentially lead to hiring bias; and had to be filled out offline.