I propose to the Government.
My experience goes back about 10 years and there is no indication that things are any different, any more transparent today. Back then, as a young and inexperienced graduate, I was looking for a job at almost every school within a 50km radius, and I gained a lot of experience, practice and knowledge in employment law.
My story/opinion is as follows.
Public tenders - need for a worker.
The legislation at that time allowed an employer, if he already had a suitable candidate, to announce the need for a job at the employment office with the indication "without the intervention of the employment office" and the employment office, to which the employer is legally obliged to announce any job vacancy, did not announce this on its notice boards or website. While the law has been complied with, this has considerably narrowed the pool of potential good candidates or the possibility of selecting the best one.
Of course, if the employer has a candidate who meets the conditions for the post and is satisfied with him/her from past experience, e.g. he/she has already been employed by the employer for a fixed period, has done some voluntary work /..../ then this method of recruitment is in a way even morally justifiable, it reduces bureaucracy, but if this mechanism is abused for the purpose of covering the job openings so that as few job seekers as possible see it or so that only the person concerned or the person who does not even meet the conditions of the vacancy (does not have the qualifications) applies, then such a method is objectionable and should be duly sanctioned. In practice, when I was still looking for a job myself, the latter proved to be an example of bad practice in more than 90% of the head teachers' calls for tenders that I myself tracked down. "The 'call for tenders without the intervention of the institution', we used to say, served as a mechanism that extremely narrowed the pool of potential applications from suitable candidates, and almost as a rule only those who knew about it or those who did not even fulfil the conditions for the post but knew the headmaster very well, either themselves or through the person concerned, applied. In fact, the headmaster is obliged to fill the post - so he could also employ a teacher without the appropriate qualifications, a student, for a fixed period, as there were simply no other applications. There were none because of the way the post was advertised ...
I suggest to the government that if it is more than obvious that a public institution or an economic entity majority owned by the state has hired a certain employee in the controversial way described above, that the employee's employment relationship is terminated by law, the director/manager is thus fined (it is an offence, not a crime, unless proven otherwise), and the call for tenders is repeated by a PUBLIC advertisement "through" the employment service.
This was the case about 10 years ago and there is no indication that it is any different today. Nowadays, if the public authorities themselves can ensure that the need for a job is made public, they can simply publish the call on their bulletin board, website, local newspaper /.../ and the law is satisfied, which means that this practice can again be considered misleading, as calls published in this way are often ignored by the majority of potential candidates/employees. Who reads, watches and listens to "everything" that can be read, watched and heard? Who can do that? Who can check all the websites every week, read all the local newspapers, call every school in the RS ... Who, much less how? Google, before it recognises a keyword in a search engine, has to have been online for a few days, by which time the call is usually already over. Ten years on, when it would have been reasonable to expect that things would be different, that the employment sector would be more transparent, fairer and more accessible to all, it is more than obvious that "someone" has a different idea.
We are living in a time of constant change, of economic, economic crisis, and it is right that the principle of equality for all should be guaranteed today more than ever. I therefore propose that public institutions, majority state-owned companies, are required by law to advertise the need for an employee at the employment service, and that the employment service publicises these vacancies on its website under two headings: 1. 'the employer wants the best candidate for the job advertised' and 2. 'the employer is fulfilling the legal obligation to make the vacancy public'. Or similar ...
I wonder, then, why do we have an employment service if we are taking away its basic mission of trying to find people jobs as quickly as possible? How is it going to help, if the job centres and public companies, under the current system, can already do 'its' job themselves, publishing the job needs themselves, and most often in a way that is ONLY accessible to a select circle of people at any one time. The Employment Service has been transformed by this system into a bureaucratic structure which merely processes such calls for applications statistically, and the data is of no real use.
I therefore propose the principle of transparency with a one-stop-shop system (e.g. a web portal).
The private/real sector can be excluded from the proposal.
Lp