Why would you want a young man just starting off... to go through all the legal nightmare.. for what is a few quid ...You might find that you have worked yourself up for no reason.
Tej, I really hope I have got myself worked up for no reason as no, I don't think it would be good for him at all to go through this. It's not the money as even though it is a lot to him he will forego his benefits in place of these earnings so in effect he won't actually be much better off.. about £20 or so.
But, it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. If people do not kick up a fuss when this sort of thing happens then the employer will do this again to someone else, and they won't complain, and it becomes the norm even though it is illegal, and so it goes on. As I said, it's not my choice. I will help him but he will make his own decision
Being ripped off means you are promised one thing and then tricked out of it. No one has to accept a trial. If they know the environment, then don't do the trial. Simple.
You have got this completely wrong Steve. My nephew was originally told that he would get paid and only later told he wouldn't be getting paid. Therefore, he was ripped off.
If it is a general point you are making instead, the work for free trials should not be offered in the first place as currently they are illegal.
Forget it. Government-run usually means inefficient and with strings attached.
Same thing.
Whatever is wrong with offering the opportunity to prove your worth for free? It's voluntary. The alternative is doing nothing. If I was a young person looking for a job when one third of people between 18 and 30 are unemployed, I'd jump at the chance. By regulating everything bar sneezing, the government is banning initiative and adding overhead. However will we compete with overseas companies with so many hands tied by bureaucrats who've never run a business in their lives? We're just killing our economy and the government is simply meddling.
Consider the following scenario: What if an employer offers a young person the chance to work for them for 6 months at, say, 20% of the minimum wage. The conditions of the 6-month trial are documented clearly. The young person will get to experience several different job roles, participate in company meetings, contribute to planning activities, work with customers, and basically get to know the company and the industry inside and out. A graduate student, who wants to get into the field, is chomping at the bit to do this. She knows full well that experience is crucial to succeed in this industry, and there are no jobs going right now. She's simply clicking her heels at home, not knowing what to do. The employer would be happy to move forward. The young person would be happy to move forward. Everything is agreed in writing. What right does the government have to step in and stop this agreement from happening? Can you name one good reason?
We're adults. We don't need "nanny" telling us what is and what is not good for our health.
My one good reason? Money!
I think you are living in a fantasy land where people don't have rent to pay
But you are right... there should be choices.
However for those that don't have access to a bank of mum and dad, they stand no chance in terms of being able to compete for the experience do they? It then becomes a two tiered system of buying a work placement if you can afford it rather than earning it fairly.
The sort of thing you are describing is more akin to work experience programmes that everyone has access to when they are at school. Perhaps it should be expanded through university.
But we are talking about when people have left school, college, uni and need to find a job in order to survive.
If they want to continue with their learning ie; through work placements for experience then they can do this through regulated apprentice schemes. You are right, they are inefficient and I can vouch for that with a plumbing apprentice that we have running at the moment but there is certainly a framework for both the employee and the employer to operate within for fairness. If anything should change it is the efficiency of these and possibly financial assistance towards wages to encourage employers to do more of this. But a free-reign scheme would not provide a framework and would just completely open the flood gates for free labour and exploitation.
Not everyone wants a work trial for the "learning experience". Some actually just want to get on and earn money. I think it is a very fanciful notion you have of participation at meetings, contribute to the running of the business. In reality there would be a lot of endless free manual labour (ie; washing up) with no learning or benefit to the employee.
There used to be the YTS/YOPS schemes in the 80's that paid the employees £28 per week approx, where they went to college, worked the rest of the week with an employer, learned various job roles, and worked in a framework that safeguarded them (a bit) from outright exploitation. Maybe these should be brought back.
The other point you make about it being a comparison to doing nothing is also not quite right. If someone needs to find a job because they need money then they need to find a job because they need money! They would be doing something else ie; applying for different jobs, or even perhaps start their own business, but money is the driving factor, not learning and development.
