Have you ever been asked to work an unpaid trial shift?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

The devil is in the detail really. When does an interview become exploitation?

To ask someone to work a couple of hours instead of an interview is fine - nobody would complain about a 2 hour interview process.

A week of shifts is clearly taking the !!!!.

Somewhere in the middle is a line that needs to be drawn.

dori2o

I can understand the thinking behind trial days, but its disgusting and should be illegal.

Whatever happened to the mantra, 'a days work for a days pay'?

As I say I can understand it to some extent, but it clearly leads to 'some' businesses taking the P and doing this continually with multiple people.

Employers already have the right to dismiss staff within 2 years of starting for no reason at all, so long as its not for a protected characteristic.

I assume that the employers will all be refusing the profits generated by this free labour, or at least giving the money to charity? NO...... You do suprise me.

The argument that the person might not be suitable doesnt cut it. Thats what an interview process is for and if they are getting staff that are unsuitable then the business needs to look at the failings of their interview process, and not demean people and force them to work for no pay.

We're in 2017 not 1817.

Takeaway_Addict

dori2o wrote: »

I can understand the thinking behind trial days, but its disgusting and should be illegal.

Whatever happened to the mantra, 'a days work for a days pay'?

As I say I can understand it to some extent, but it clearly leads to 'some' businesses taking the P and doing this continually with multiple people.

Employers already have the right to dismiss staff within 2 years of starting for no reason at all, so long as its not for a protected characteristic.

I assume that the employers will all be refusing the profits generated by this free labour, or at least giving the money to charity? NO...... You do suprise me.

The argument that the person might not be suitable doesnt cut it. Thats what an interview process is for and if they are getting staff that are unsuitable then the business needs to look at the failings of their interview process, and not demean people and force them to work for no pay.

We're in 2017 not 1817.

I would expect most employers that do a free trial do not use them to replace current staff so actually profits would stay the same, if not lower due to the lack of productivity from the trialist who probably needs some guidance...

getmore4less

mycleverbunnies wrote: »

Hi
Yes it was Glasgow Central Bridge.I think I remember the name of the company but just incase I am wrong I won't mention it.
Wish I'd known about HMRC at the time.I was so cross on my daughters behalf.

google maps and streetview is your friend.

dori2o

StewartMMcDonald wrote: »

Many thanks for your responses so far. It's interesting to see the different experiences people have had with unpaid work trials. It's clear though most of us either have, or know somebody who has, done a work trial.



This is the one of the extreme, unscrupulous examples of the practice my Bill aims to stamp out. If people are going to be offered a trial period where they apply their skills in the hope of securing work then they should be paid fairly and properly.



This is another unacceptable example, and if you do suspect that employers are failing to pay minimum wage, you can contact HMRC.

My Bill will make it clear that if a trial period is to be offered then the employer must pay up for that period whether or not a full offer of employment is made. To be clear, I aim to ensure work shadowing and volunteering are protected from the Bill, and then ensure employers cannot exploit such loopholes.

I am keen to hear more views of those who want to tell me what they think about this practice and how they would like to see it change and offer people better protection in the workplace

Whilst I think your Bill should be brought to Parliament, I would hope that it also includes the banning of Workfare practices where people are often Forced, by government departments, to work for several weeks/months, often for very large, multinational companies who make significant profits.

If these companies have vacancies available for someone to work for free then they have vacancies to employ people, even if it is only part time or temporary, and for those people to be paid the correct rate.

PasturesNew

Not an unpaid trial shift, but I was employed by a huge regional College, as an employee, which was "funded" - they paid well, but oddly, in that pay was reliant upon the number of learners reaching the end of the courses they offered.

I first had to start with getting up to speed with their online course delivery system and all the current students (learning 5-6 different courses), I then had to get up to speed with where all the students were at along those courses - and then start to mark their work and give feedback. I also had to attend a couple of meetings 50 miles away. At the point where I'd put about 100 hours of work into the role it was suddenly stopped as another big provider had won the contract and all the students and work were immediately transferred to the new supplier. Ironically, one of the (unpaid travel/attendance time) meetings was the announcement to all the online tutoring staff that they'd lost the contract and so there were no more jobs, with immediate effect) and we'd all get a P45 - oh and could we all return all the company equipment (in our time/at our cost) soonest.... so that was more time travelling.

I was given a P45 showing my earnings of about £7, which was based on their method of calculating pay based on "students completing the courses".

I sacked it off after that and never applied for any online tutor work again - as it'd been with a major/national/county council owned and controlled College and all fully legit... it p155ed me off.

getmore4less

There is overlap here with interns and work experience.

dori2o

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I would expect most employers that do a free trial do not use them to replace current staff so actually profits would stay the same, if not lower due to the lack of productivity from the trialist who probably needs some guidance...

Is this all part of being in business though? New staff need time to learn the job and adjust. Its always been that way. It doesnt mean however that the individual hasnt worked hard or that they have not put in a decent days work.

We constantly hear on these boards how it's wrong for people, especially aimed at those on benefits, to expect something for nothing.

Surely this applies to businesses.

We also constantly hear how people in the UK have lost their 'work ethic', its one of the arguments often raised when discussing immigration, but there is also an argument that businesses in the UK have lost their basic business acumen. The basic understanding that the business cycle involves training staff.

Look at the significant fall in proper trade apprenticeships.

Not these pretend ones for stacking shelves or answering a telephone, but those in the building trades, engineering, manufacturing etc

There was always an understanding that new staff arrived, are trained, perform to the business expectations when trained, then retire/leave etc.

Now we see a situation where businesses are moaning about the lack of skilled staff but yet are completely unwilling to provide training and apprenticeships.

I appreciate that new staff are not as productive as experienced staff, but is that a good enough reason to exploit people?

Its just making it harder and harder for people to get off JSA etc if all they have available to them is unpaid work with no guarantee of a job.

These people cannot claim benefits whilst working, even where the role is unpaid, so its often a choice between potentially getting a job, or having no money for x days/weeks etc, and given the absolute farce with theprocess of ending/reclaiming, which can take weeks to resolve, its just not worth it inmost cases, especially where more and more landlords, social and public sector, need virtually no excuse to evict people.

The other thing is, many of these jobs weve been told about in this thread are not highly skilled, theyre mainly unskilled positions or positions based mainly on commission, so what exactly is the employer losing?

The practice of unpaid trials is open to abuse, its a disgraceful policy, and the sooner its outlawed the better.

Personally I would never apply for a job, no matter how good the eventual pay/terms etc are, where I was expected to provide free labour for the business. That itself tells me enough about how the business views the people who work there. Of how little respect it has for its workforce, without whom they have no business.

Employers have more than enough tools at their disposal to be able to find the ideal candidate, and they hold the upper hand in terms of employment rights, especially for the first 2 years.

To make people also work for free, for the benefit of the bussiness, is downright degrading.

autumn2012_2

I agree with absolutely everything said below! I have seen first hand good workers being messed around because they havent been able to do a shift last minute, ''apprenticeships'' for a sandwich maker or shelf stacker.. These are entry level unskilled jobs and shouldnt be included in the apprenticeship scheme. Employers hold all the cards, good people forced out of jobs for cheaper alternatives which do not get the training required to fulfill the job description and then leave or get sacked and the cycle keeps going. Workers need more rights not less and not just that but there needs to be a change in employers and business attitudes in general. Its not the business owner that creates the wealth as we are constantly told it the often underpaid, undervalued staff member bringing in the money, doing the job or giving the service required to keep the customers coming in!

dori2o wrote: »

Is this all part of being in business though? New staff need time to learn the job and adjust. Its always been that way. It doesnt mean however that the individual hasnt worked hard or that they have not put in a decent days work.

We constantly hear on these boards how it's wrong for people, especially aimed at those on benefits, to expect something for nothing.

Surely this applies to businesses.

We also constantly hear how people in the UK have lost their 'work ethic', its one of the arguments often raised when discussing immigration, but there is also an argument that businesses in the UK have lost their basic business acumen. The basic understanding that the business cycle involves training staff.

Look at the significant fall in proper trade apprenticeships.

Not these pretend ones for stacking shelves or answering a telephone, but those in the building trades, engineering, manufacturing etc

There was always an understanding that new staff arrived, are trained, perform to the business expectations when trained, then retire/leave etc.

Now we see a situation where businesses are moaning about the lack of skilled staff but yet are completely unwilling to provide training and apprenticeships.

I appreciate that new staff are not as productive as experienced staff, but is that a good enough reason to exploit people?

Its just making it harder and harder for people to get off JSA etc if all they have available to them is unpaid work with no guarantee of a job.

These people cannot claim benefits whilst working, even where the role is unpaid, so its often a choice between potentially getting a job, or having no money for x days/weeks etc, and given the absolute farce with theprocess of ending/reclaiming, which can take weeks to resolve, its just not worth it inmost cases, especially where more and more landlords, social and public sector, need virtually no excuse to evict people.

The other thing is, many of these jobs weve been told about in this thread are not highly skilled, theyre mainly unskilled positions or positions based mainly on commission, so what exactly is the employer losing?

The practice of unpaid trials is open to abuse, its a disgraceful policy, and the sooner its outlawed the better.

Personally I would never apply for a job, no matter how good the eventual pay/terms etc are, where I was expected to provide free labour for the business. That itself tells me enough about how the business views the people who work there. Of how little respect it has for its workforce, without whom they have no business.

Employers have more than enough tools at their disposal to be able to find the ideal candidate, and they hold the upper hand in terms of employment rights, especially for the first 2 years.

To make people also work for free, for the benefit of the bussiness, is downright degrading.

System

I did during my brief stint at Bloackbuster, the first shift i did was unpaid and a trial. I got the job but quit after a month (and they went bust the month after that so lucky escape really!)