What is it with these "work for free" trials?

[maxine]

There was a thread on here the other day about an employer basically paying someone what they felt like claiming it was because they were working a trial and it was less than national minimum wage.

Seems my nephew has been caught with a similar scam.

I feel sorry for him. He is a nice lad aged 19 who has come to stay with us due to unfortunate family circumstances. He did work for us before and is a hard worker but we simply don't have enough work to take him on again and we already have an apprentice at the moment.

He got his CV together and handed it into every bar, pub, restaurant, hotel, takeaway in the area.

A restaurant phoned him yesterday and invited him in for a trial shift starting at 10.30am today and he was told by the manager that he spoke to that he would be paid.

He worked from 10.30-3.30 and then from 5-11pm washing up and preparing food and was then told by the duty manager that they do not pay anyone who is on a work trial and that he need to do another shift on Monday 10.30-3.30 again before they would decide whether to offer him a job.

Now I am all for people showing a bit of gumption and enthusiasm for getting work and working voluntarily to prove themselves but this just seems like a scam to me to get someone to work for free for 15 hours and seems like exploitation and plain illegal tactics. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all employ someone for free and only make an offer if we felt like it, rather than recruit properly, pay properly, and make an offer subject to a probationary period?

On the one hand I don't want to damage his confidence as he was so pleased to get this "offer" but on the other hand feel he should be protected from being exploited by unscrupulous employers.

What would you advise?

At the moment I have said to him to phone the original manager back on Monday to clafify if he is being paid or not for the work already done and if he will be offered a job after working a shift on Monday provided they are happy with the work he has done so far.

I wonder if the governments "work trial" schemes (which require the employer to pay in the usual way but the employee keeps there benefits for the period of the trial) have opened up the opportunity for some employers to abuse people under "work trials"?

 

[Kymera]

Yep, this sounds completely different from the government sanstioned work trials and does sound like some people are taking advantage of the term.

I know it won't help anyone to get the money they deserve for the time worked, but the Job Centre should be informed about these businesses that are doing this and possibly even the DWP.

Also, people should be careful that these employers don't claim that the worker agreed to such a trial. Always try to get a written statement about the conditions of the trial on letterheaded paper.

I dunno, I know these are difficult times and we all want to save as much money as possible but a days work deserves a days pay, even if it's only a trial (unless mutually agreed upon, of course).

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

There's no excuses for that conduct Maxine, and it is exploitation, pure & simple.

If he's interested in trying to keep the job (and optimistic about this) I'd suggest he stay quiet, and simply makes sure he gets paid for the "trial" hours worked.

If he wants to acknowledge that's these are sham employers that he's better-off not working for, he can ask for his wages for the time worked, probably get the sack immediately, and follow it up with a claim for unfair dismissal - he wouldn't need to have worked 12 minutes, let alone 12 months, due to the reasons for dismissal. (Whether the company will still be around to settle a claim is another story, but then he won't have lost anything anyway.)

I'll happily chat to you about it; feel free to PM.


Karl Limpert

 

[maxine]

Well he did agree to the trial but that was on the basis that he would get paid albeit he didn't know how much as he didn't ask!

There was no way he was ever going to get anything in writing for a trial for the next day.

They wouldn't even allow him a break between 10.30-3.30 and 5-11.

He could ask for his money but they cannot sack him if he hasn't yet been employed, and since he did agree to the trial could they argue it was voluntary work?

Shysters.

 

[Matt1959]

I've got no problem in an employer asking for an applicant to do a free shift as a trial but to ask for a second one is taking the p*ss surely. But then its an employers market. I think if I was looking for a job and they were thin on the ground, I'd do what was required to get one and yes I would do a second shift for nought (but not a third one) To give the employer the benefit of the doubt, his is a surefire way to weed out all but the diehards:| not ethical but its tough times for everyone....

 

[Kymera]

And no breaks either?!?

Oh, boy! Those guys are just asking to be taken to court and lose their business. I'd definately take up our legal friend's advice on this one and I'd also definately get in touch with the DWP.

Even if they go out of business before he gets compensated, it needs to be shown to be not tolerated.

Call one of the tabloids. They'll have a field day with this and they would probably pay for the story.

 

[maxine]

This is 15 hours of washing up... I mean how many hours do you need to do to show you can wash up? And... I am not so sure I will be eating in that place again if they let every Tom Dick and Harry in to prepare food!

But seriously, employers market or not, it's not fair to dupe youngsters into working for free on the pretence they were going to get paid initially.

And it's certainly not fair for all the other employers who abide by the laws and do things properly. It's tough all round but we don't all go breaking the law because we feel we can get away with it.

If they had been straight up about asking him if would be prepared to volunteer some hours unpaid to prove himself it might be a bit different.

 

[Matt1959]

oops, ok if he was offered money then it was retracted, thats dead wrong. I do take your point Max. I guess also each case be taken on its own merits ie you know the set up and have the bigger picture. Principle remains though - if you want a job bad enough, do whats necessary (within reason) to get it..if I was in dire need of a job to provide for my family, I'd offer a weeks work free of charge as long as I thought the employer looked ok..

 

[maxine]

I get your point Matt otherwise we end up a nanny state with can't do this and can't do that, however (I haven't gone into his background) he is actually the type of vulnerable young person that I think needs to be protected by some laws.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Frankly, I'm all for trials and internships. With so many young people without a job, this provides them with a way to demonstrate initiative, commitment, and hard work - with the opportunity to impress the company enough to win a full-time job. It's about time there was a way around the stupid and unnecessary minimum wage.

And if, after a few weeks, it turns out to be a scam, what's the problem? The young person gained some work experience to add to their resume. They spent some time working instead of having little else to do. For sure, I'd take that very much into account if I was hiring a youngster. Attitude and initiative count for a lot.

Congrats to your nephew, Maxine, for doing what it takes to win a job.

 

[tony84]

fair play to your your nephew. He is going out there and doing the work even if he doesnt get paid. There are plenty of adults who wouldnt do this.

As an ex emplyer of people i could never do this without paying them for the work they had done. I dont know how anyone could. But i think if anything it shows a positive attitude, however im not sure how you would show 2 shifts on a CV in a positive light for future employees.

 

[Cornish Steve]

...however im not sure how you would show 2 shifts on a CV in a positive light for future employees.

Most HR managers, when browsing through a stack of resumes, spend fewer than 10 seconds on each one. This means that, in order to stand a chance, something must stand out as different on your resume. A willingness to work hard under difficult circumstances, when others are not prepared to do the same, is an important difference. Presented correctly, it could make the difference between a resume being given a second look versus being thrown in the rubbish bin.

 

[thebigIAM]

Always difficult to know what's best in these situations when you're a concerned relative standing on the sidelines. At the end of the day, it's an arrangement between your nephew and someone else. You don't want a situation where he feels the arrangement soured because you interfered in it. The situation is probably just dud anyway, but you don't want his perceptions skewed against you.

As an employer, as soon as a relative gets involved, I've always decided on the spot that is the end of the employment. It's just a matter of time and procedure, but the employee is out, because if they don't have the gumption to express their own concerns, then they don't have the gumption to work for me. I've had several situations where a heated parent has come back shouting the odds and saying (correctly): "They're blaming ME!"

(That said, I wouldn't not pay someone for a work trial, even if it's only the min wage.)

As a parent, I've always stepped back from getting involved in my kids' working arrangements, (or most other arrangements such as partners) because I've decided they have to sort out their own lives and dealing with unfair situations is part of growing up. Sometimes very hard to do, though, especially when they are vulnerable.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Frankly, I'm all for trials and internships. With so many young people without a job, this provides them with a way to demonstrate initiative, commitment, and hard work - with the opportunity to impress the company enough to win a full-time job. It's about time there was a way around the stupid and unnecessary minimum wage.

And if, after a few weeks, it turns out to be a scam, what's the problem? The young person gained some work experience to add to their resume. They spent some time working instead of having little else to do. For sure, I'd take that very much into account if I was hiring a youngster. Attitude and initiative count for a lot.

Congrats to your nephew, Maxine, for doing what it takes to win a job.

Im sorry Steve I just dont get it. I dont have a very high opinion of somebody that works for nothing.
Im pretty sure you wont bother if there is no money in it and nor would I .In fact I would consider such a request an insult.
I was listening radio 4 the other day and graduates are deprerate to work for nothing!!!!!...As if we needed any more evidence that we are producing a generation of Idiots !!!!!!

 

[deadgoodundies]

I'm another one with a "for" with the free trials. In fact we have just done it with our apprentice.

He is 18 and we said come in for three days on a unpaid trial and it will be to see if

A) It's the type of job that would suit you
B) We think it's the type of job that would suit him.

He agreed and I have to admit he did impress me on the first day but 8 hours is not enough to get a good idea of what someone is capable of hence why we did it for three days.

Even though we did tell him it was unpaid , he did continue to impress me and show initiative so at the end of his trial we had a meeting with him and said he had the job and also paid him which we wasn't expecting.

So whilst there are some scammers out there just getting some free work done im sure by no means it's everyone.

 

[Dawg]

There might be something to be said for free trials, but there is a lot to be said against them.
They are, and will be, used by the unscrupulous to exploit young and vulnerable workers, and because of this employers who use them in quite reasonable ways suffer. There will always be scumbags who behave in a way that means regulations are introduced and enforced which affect everybody detrimentally.
Most of us here probably agree that there are too many hurdles, and too many expenses involved in employing someone, but actually not paying someone for working isn't a solution.
The bargain struck on a trial should be that there is no guarantee of a job at the end of it, not that the work is done for free. Obviously there are exceptions, as when it is part of an education, but washing up through the night isn't this. Paying someone for a trial is part of the cost of employing someone, if you don't like it, don't employ.

As to this case, I'd suggest the young man goes and asks for the minimum wage for his shift, and gives the exploiter a written demand for it at the same time. If nothing is forthcoming within 24 hours follow whatever Karl's advice is, with options to alert the local rag. Getting the young 'un to do it himself would have him show initiative, and naming, shaming and generally stuffing the restaurant would show the market at work, which would please our market driven mod, Steve.

As an aside I find it amusing that the newspapers and publishers all use unpaid interns, for up to 6 months at a time. This mostly liberal bunch, all very pro the minimum wage, are happy for Mamas and Papas to pay Lucky Lucinda and Happy Harry to live and work in central London for 6 months not earning, as one wouldn't want one's child working in any old job would one?
Heh.

 

[Kymera]

I can understand the idea of a 2 or 3 day trial to see if the employer and prospective employee are going to be able to work with each other, with the proviso that a job is not guaranteed at the end of it. But I stand by the maxim of a day's pay for a day's work.

What I don't understand is the idea that an unsuccessful trial, however long, can be put on a cv/resume and it be considered a positive.

"You worked a trial for XYZ ltd. Why didn't they offer you the job?"
"They (or I) just decided that the position wasn't for me."
"Reeeaaaaallllyyyy ... I see ... Well, thank you for your time."

Why would anyone think, "oh this person had a trial and wasn't good enough, they'll be a good fit for this position"?

 

[maxine]

Frankly, I'm all for trials and internships. With so many young people without a job, this provides them with a way to demonstrate initiative, commitment, and hard work - with the opportunity to impress the company enough to win a full-time job. It's about time there was a way around the stupid and unnecessary minimum wage.

And if, after a few weeks, it turns out to be a scam, what's the problem? The young person gained some work experience to add to their resume. They spent some time working instead of having little else to do. For sure, I'd take that very much into account if I was hiring a youngster. Attitude and initiative count for a lot.

Congrats to your nephew, Maxine, for doing what it takes to win a job.

I don't agree Steve.

1) He was duped into this. He didn't approach them asking to work there for free to "win" a job. He was prepared to do a trial but was told it would be a paid trial and only later told it was unpaid.

2) There is value to the employer in the work he has done. This was washing up not a watching and learning and minimal contribution job.

3) He doesn't need the work experience... washing up. He has a CV that already demonstrates he has experience with references from other employers.

4) If he wasnt doing this then he would have been looking for a paid job.

5) What has he got to lose by working for free? Well, he has costs to get there and back, he has rent to pay (to me which will obviously fall by the wayside as I support an unethical employer).

There are ways around the minimum wage in that there are formal apprentice schemes that safeguard the employees from being exploited.

There are also "work trials" conducted by the job centre but they expect the employer to pay.

I think any employers who insist on work-for-free-work-trials should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

There are a few groups of people that are not entitled to the minimum wage, but quite rightly this does not cover employees on a trial basis (and he wouldn’t be classified as a volunteer either, even if there was a quasi-agreement to imply this). This guy has (or will have by Monday afternoon) worked for 16 hours. With a minimum wage of £4.83 an hour, that is £77.28, which cannot be considered a lot for a business, but would be for an unemployed 19 year old.

The employer can dismiss with only “reasonable” notice in the first month of employment, so there is, quite frankly, absolutely no need to explore (unlawful) voluntary trials (those on here that suggest they use them might want to reconsider their position - happy to discuss), regardless of what value some might feel they provide. If the employee doesn’t work out, a few quid lost (for washing up or some other contribution to the business), which can be a lot less than the actual cost of hiring someone or filling a vacancy with more senior staff in the interim.

There are rules for apprentices, genuine work experience/interns, and volunteers that exempt some from the minimum wage, but this is certainly very different from a trial shift: the objective of the trial is not to give the worker “work experience”, but to assess his suitability for a more permanent position, and as such qualifies for at least the minimum wage.

As for whether or not Maxine's nephew has been employed yet, he has: he offered to work (albeit on the understanding that it may not lead to a permanent position); the restaurant agreed to this; an employment contract was formed.

I don’t think the national papers would fall over themselves for this story (they come up all the time), but the local rag would certainly be grateful for some better copy than a cat rescued from a tree. It would be a pleasure to write a press release at the same time as submitting an ET1 claim for a case like this.

And to comment on rest breaks: a worker can be required to work 6 hours without a break. Any shift expected to require more than 6 hours attracts a 20 minute rest break (unpaid).


Karl Limpert

 

[maxine]

Always difficult to know what's best in these situations when you're a concerned relative standing on the sidelines. At the end of the day, it's an arrangement between your nephew and someone else. You don't want a situation where he feels the arrangement soured because you interfered in it. The situation is probably just dud anyway, but you don't want his perceptions skewed against you.

(That said, I wouldn't not pay someone for a work trial, even if it's only the min wage.)

... and dealing with unfair situations is part of growing up. Sometimes very hard to do, though, especially when they are vulnerable.

Yes, I have stepped back as don't want to dampen his spirits but have tried to get him to see this situation for what it is and decide what he is happy with. He has said that he is happy to do another shift on Monday but no more after that and he will phone on Monday to ask the original manager about payment as he originally said it was paid but the duty manager then said it wasn't.

Unfortunately without relatives like us, it is easy for vulnerable young employees to be persuaded, manipulated and exploited and if we don't help them to stand up for themselves, then who will?

 

[maxine]

Thanks Karl for clearing things up

It makes a lot more sense now the way you have explained it with him making an offer (phoning up and then dropping his CV in) and them accepting his offer by giving him a trial = employment contract formed. Also that this does not come under voluntary work.

I am hoping that he gets on OK on Monday but if not then they need to be ready for a backlash

Thanks again

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I was listening radio 4 the other day and graduates are deprerate to work for nothing!!!!!...As if we needed any more evidence that we are producing a generation of Idiots !!!!!!

When I lived in Paris (2000), it was quite common for graduates to work for free in order to get work experience.

Partly, this was a result of French labour laws that make it hard to sack someone once you've hired them - which means employers are reluctant to hire people without experience. And, partly, it was due to high levels of graduate uenmployment - meaning employers held the whip hand.

I didn't see anything "idiotic" about graduates doing this. For two reasons:

(1) The alternative would be to refuse and put yourself at the back of the queue.

(2) These graduates had already worked for years without pay (called "going to university"). What's the big deal about working for another couple of months?

Steve

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The issue that employers need to face up to is that a ‘worker’ (with a few limitations, including some genuine apprentices) has numerous rights in law, including a minimum wage & holiday pay.

Regardless of what labels these people are given – volunteers, trainees, interns, work experience, etc – if they are an actual worker, the employer will leave itself open to an employment tribunal claim if it doesn’t comply with the employment regulations.

The BBC had a report on this issue earlier this month, and while some of what it offers is pretty meaningless, there is one key element in there:

“The legal definition of what constitutes work includes having set hours [unless of course they work as required, with no set hours]; being engaged for an extended period of time [this is ambiguous, and in the case being discussed here, the employment would be established without any “extended period of time” having elapsed] and being given a defined role rather than just observing [this is the crux of the argument to define interns & workers].”​

Definitions of a worker appear in numerous places in law, but S.230, Employment Rights Act 1996, is sufficient for the purpose of this thread: “whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract”.

Whether we approve of the idea of voluntary work/interns, or not, the law as it stands means that a lot of these people performing tasks are actually workers, and have the legal rights & protection that come with that. But without the protection of these laws, it would not be difficult for unscrupulous employers to house migrant workers while welcome them "volunteering" their services for a token payment & their accommodation.


Karl Limpert

 

[Cornish Steve]

Unfortunately without relatives like us, it is easy for vulnerable young employees to be persuaded, manipulated and exploited and if we don't help them to stand up for themselves, then who will?

So what exactly is 13 years of government schools supposed to accomplish? Is it too much to expect young people to be ready for the marketplace? This is basic stuff.

I really don't understand the rules and regulations mentality. If someone decides to work for free, they can walk at any time if they feel they are being taken advantage of. The 'employee' has as much power as the 'employer' in this situation. Frankly, I see no need at all for any minimum wage or for 99% of the regulations imposed on us. We're letting the <1% of bad employers be the tail that wags the dog - creating an 'entitlement' mentality instead of personal initiative.

Maxine, your case is a little different in that your nephew was promised pay. The lesson learned here is to get everything in writing. Again, why is not such basic stuff taught in school? It's sad that young people have to learn this the hard way after 13 years of supposed learning.

 

[maxine]

oh come on he received a phone call asking him to come in for work the next day with pay. How many youngsters would have said no, not until i get it in writing. There is a very basic right to be treated legally here. Dont tell me you would feel different if it was your son or daughter who had been duped?

 

[Richie N]

Hi Maxine
Unfortunately the hospitality industry is like this, although a work "free" trial is usually part of the interview processs to access the applicant's skills, so normally the interview process will consist of an interview followed by a working trial.
Saying this, the trial should really be 4-5 hours, in some cases employers do ask to do a lunch and dinner trial due to the nature of the business.
Anything that is more than this, or goes into a 2nd day should definitely be paid for.

It is definitely something the industry needs to change but that's easier said than done.

 

[Richie N]

Thanks Karl for clearing things up

It makes a lot more sense now the way you have explained it with him making an offer (phoning up and then dropping his CV in) and them accepting his offer by giving him a trial = employment contract formed. Also that this does not come under voluntary work.

I am hoping that he gets on OK on Monday but if not then they need to be ready for a backlash

Thanks again

By giving him a trial is not an offer, it's part of the interview process.
This "trial" is the process in the hospitality industry and an employment contract is not formed on this basis.

 

[Cornish Steve]

oh come on he received a phone call asking him to come in for work the next day with pay. How many youngsters would have said no, not until i get it in writing. There is a very basic right to be treated legally here. Dont tell me you would feel different if it was your son or daughter who had been duped?

It's the law where I live that salespeople etc. can say anything, but none of it is binding. The only thing that is actually binding is what is put in writing. This is why buyers must ensure all the details are put in writing. If the salesperson lies but none of those lies make it into a document, you have no recourse. As long as you know this, there's no problem. And yes, all my children know this. I've made sure they always insist on getting things in writing, no matter how long it takes.

The same is true here, right? It takes just a few minutes for a potential employer to put things in writing. Does it really matter if the applicant must wait a day for this to happen? Youngsters must learn - and, frankly, should have been taught in school - to get details in writing. It's not so difficult. Custom and tradition may pressure us to do differently ("my word is my bond", "let's shake on it", etc.), but that's no excuse. Can you imagine your company doing business with all its suppliers without a contract? Of course not. There's no difference here.

The shocking thing is that our young people are leaving school without the first idea of what is expected in the workplace. What, for goodness sake, is school for?

 

[peebles]

I am a bit clueless when it comes to stuff like this, I admit, but isn't this illegal? I thought you had to pay people to work!

I don't know if there's any way of checking this out - or even threatening to? Maybe citizens advice could help? Or even Trading Standards?

Like I say, I'm a bit clueless, but this just seems totally unfair.

Peebles.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Yes, I have stepped back as don't want to dampen his spirits but have tried to get him to see this situation for what it is and decide what he is happy with.

Maxine - the lesson your nephew learned this week will be valuable for the rest of his life. You've taught him to stand up for himself, to challenge, to go about things the right way, and that there are unscrupulous people in this world. You've also encouraged him so that he won't just give up but will try again and again as he progresses in life. Way to go! Thank goodness for family members like you! How many other young people simply fall back on regulation and entitlement and live their lives expecting the world to give them a living?

I can't believe the mentality of some responses: "It's in regulation 14.5.32, rule 4.54.1a, subsection 4.3.1, clause 7.001.2, item 2. Yes - sue the ******. Make it front page news! Put him out of business." Right! Put a few more people out of work. Great idea! Instead, I suggest it's simply time to move on. Lesson learned. What's the next challenge? Every problem in life is an opportunity in disguise.

Your nephew is already a step ahead of his peers - and this valuable education cost him nothing!

 

[maxine]

it is illegal and whether it is fair or not is debateable.

But all the while it is illegal i think a youngster should be sympathised with and supported not told that they should have learned lessons from school. Frankly i think that is a ridiculous statement because it is an existing law whether you agree with them nor not. I dont know any school that covers this sort of situation in their careers advice. They wouldnt get told anything other than what the law is through organisations such as connexions. Why should there be a school of hard knocks that makes illegal practises acceptable? And my this particular lad he left school with zero qualifications for a whole host of reasons that are not all his fault. Does that makes it ok for people to exploit him when the law should be there to protect him? Sorry but this attitude of not looking out for those disadvantaged is a bit mean spirited

 

[Cornish Steve]

Sorry but this attitude of not looking out for those disadvantaged is a bit mean spirited

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't look out for people, and I agree that would be mean-spirited. For centuries, offering personal support has been the prerogative of families. I would argue that the educational aspect should be part of the mission statement of schools. Instead, current opinion has become that nanny state must regulate everything so that there are no hard knocks. That just leads to more and more regulation, more and more stifling of initiative, and giving bureaucrats more and more power over our lives. It also means that small businesses, in particular, will employ only as a matter of last resort. And we wonder why unemployment is so high!

 

[maxine]

richie. That was what i originally thought but surely 15 hours of washing up is not an interview? Have you heard of other instances like this?

 

[Mya Tanark]

I think there is a big difference between employment law in the UK and in the US, where regulations are not a stringent or comprehensive, and US laws are irrelevant to businesses operating in the UK.

Medium and large sized employers in the UK will most likely have their own HR Department who take take the lead and will advise on employment law issues, however, for the much smaller business employing perhaps just one full or part-time employee, it will be the owner who will be responsible. Therefore, an awareness of employment law is essential.

Quoting 'regulation 14.5.32, rule 4.54.1a, subsection 4.3.1, clause 7.001.2' may not help some people now, especially in the US, but a small business owner may be grateful of such a reference when searching these threads in the future.

Maxine - I hope your nephew manages to sort out his situation. That is why employment law is there - not to prevent business from taking lace, but to protect both employers and employees. Maybe it was a simple misunderstanding between the two managers... or not! Please let us know what happens.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

By giving him a trial is not an offer, it's part of the interview process.
This "trial" is the process in the hospitality industry and an employment contract is not formed on this basis.

I beg to differ Richie.

I've represented numerous clients in the hospitality industry, but the law does not differentiate among sectors (with some exceptions in agriculture & for apprenticeships).

The hospitality industry required new regulations last year, as they felt they could count tips towards the minimum wage, but this has now been addressed.

An interview is generally accepted as a meeting to discuss an application for a job, not a trial run for the job. Actually working -

“whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract” [in a "trial", as part of an agreement (contract) to be considered for a vacancy]

- is not an interview, it's work.

I don't see any reason why this should be different from anywhere else, and if it is common practice in the industry (not so from my experience, but I do appreciate they try to duck & dive the law), all I can suggest is that people in the industry really do need to get better legal advice! (If you want me to offer advice & some basic guidance for your clients, I would happily consider this.)


Karl Limpert

 

[Kymera]

The reason there are laws and legislation against exploitation of workers is that even if it stops just one person from being exploited then it has done it's job.

It isn't a right to be employed, but neither is it a privilege. When you employ somebody, you're not throwing them a scrap from the table and they should be grateful.

They are helping you as much as you are helping them. It should be a fair trade of skills and hard work for monetary compensation for the time they have put in to *your* business to make *you* money.

To think of your workers as someone you are allowing to work for you is the wrong way of looking at it. If you don't treat your workers in a fair and correct manner, you don't deserve their help and you don't deserve to earn the money *they* make you!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I was listening radio 4 the other day and graduates are deprerate to work for nothing!!!!!

So where do young people go to learn of possible internships, apprenticeships, and free trial periods? It sounds to me like there's a great business opportunity here!

 

[Richie N]

richie. That was what i originally thought but surely 15 hours of washing up is not an interview? Have you heard of other instances like this?

No, in my opinion they are exploiting this. 4/5 hours then maybe they can get away with it for a trial but when it's as long as this, it reminds me of a situation a few years ago when an employer advertised a role, got loads of applicants in to do a day's trial and saved hiring a temp to do the work.
If they do this 5 days a week they have saved paying someone a weeks wage.

Most employers who do the "free trials" do pay for them if they are offered the role, so if he starts on the Tuesday then they might back date his pay to the Monday etc.

The law should change regarding trials, and hopefully soon, as it would make my job a lot easier

 

[Mya Tanark]

The law should change regarding trials, and hopefully soon, as it would make my job a lot easier

I think the law is already clear on this - if a "trial" does not fall under one of the exemptions of the national Minimum Wage Act 1998 then minumum wage applies for all hours worked!

 

[Cornish Steve]

To think of your workers as someone you are allowing to work for you is the wrong way of looking at it. If you don't treat your workers in a fair and correct manner, you don't deserve their help and you don't deserve to earn the money *they* make you!

Spot on!

If an employer mistreats or takes advantage of employees, they have the freedom to quit the job and work elsewhere. If every employee took this initiative, the company would go out of business. The free market takes care of this. There's just no need for endless regulation.