Trial work days at a resturant, paid or not?

[ruetitian]

Hello

It is a little depressing, I also have a similar sounding daughter who is now 18, bright, warm, and very responsible, she has done several 3 hour shifts and not been paid or given any of her tips, one of which was ?40. I think the restaurant/cafe trade are clearly supplementing their workforce and it is simply exploitation. Every time my daughter says she has a trial shift my heart sinks, she has worked for several months in a busy restaurant previously and was promoted, would be good to have a name and shame they could check out before wasting their time and expectations..

[Sue]

That is awful, but crikey, a ?40 tip?

How much was the meal?!

[JohnL]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That is awful, but crikey, a ?40 tip?

>

> How much was the meal?!

The curry club ? :)

[Burbage]

muffins78 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In a nutshell - without doubt - all hours worked

> should be paid at least National Minimum Wage!

Sadly not.

Which is why Stewart McDonald (MP, SNP, Glasgow South) has today published a Private Members Bill aimed at altering the Minimum Wage Act so it also applies to work trials. It's called the Work Trial Periods (Prohibition) Bill*.

Private Members Bills aren't guaranteed to get very far, especially if they're opposed by government who can 'talk them out' without a vote unless at least a hundred MPs turn up to the "second reading". That's scheduled for March 16th and, if it passes then, it'll go to a scrutiny committee and then back to Parliament for a final vote.

I don't know if Helen Hayes, our MP, is planning on turning up on March 16, but I'm sure she would if enough of us ask her to. Her contact details are at http://www.helenhayes.org.uk/get_in_touch

* http://www.stewartmcdonald.scot/news/worktrialsontrial/bill-banning-unpaid-work-trial-shifts-published-by-glasgow-south-mp/

[JoeLeg]

With the caveat that I don?t have an inherent problem with what Stewart McDonald proposes, let me just mention something.

Work trials are essentially the ?actual interview? for a position in the hospitality industry. An applicant in any other job would not necessarily expect to be paid for the timer they spend in front of an interview panel, and in a role where you can only really demonstrate competence by doing the job, it could be argued that the work is the interview, because it basically is.

I appreciate this is an issue with sincerely held feelings on both sides, and as I said before, I don?t think asking someone to give up two hours of their time is unreasonable. Any more than that I believe should be paid - which is what I do. That said, if the govt legislate that we have to pay all of it then I?m not going to argue.

[JohnL]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> With the caveat that I don?t have an inherent

> problem with what Stewart McDonald proposes, let

> me just mention something.

>

> Work trials are essentially the ?actual interview?

> for a position in the hospitality industry. An

> applicant in any other job would not necessarily

> expect to be paid for the timer they spend in

> front of an interview panel, and in a role where

> you can only really demonstrate competence by

> doing the job, it could be argued that the work is

> the interview, because it basically is.

>

> I appreciate this is an issue with sincerely held

> feelings on both sides, and as I said before, I

> don?t think asking someone to give up two hours of

> their time is unreasonable. Any more than that I

> believe should be paid - which is what I do. That

> said, if the govt legislate that we have to pay

> all of it then I?m not going to argue.

Most of my IT jobs had a 6 month or 3 month probation period during which you could be sacked immediately (or a weeks notice).

[JoeLeg]

Yes, but what did you have to do to get the job in the first place? Were you interviewed at all?

The same probationary periods exist in hospitality, but you can?t hire someone in the first place unless they know what they?re doing, and the only reliable way to demonstrate that is by physically doing the job for a couple of hours.

[JohnL]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, but what did you have to do to get the job in

> the first place? Were you interviewed at all?

>

> The same probationary periods exist in

> hospitality, but you can?t hire someone in the

> first place unless they know what they?re doing,

> and the only reliable way to demonstrate that is

> by physically doing the job for a couple of hours.

Usually in IT it's

LinkedIn/Job board contact/CV

phone technical interview

phone more detailed interview

interview at offices (maybe more than one)

meet the boss

references

I don't know hospitality so I can't be sure of best practice - but there have been cases of new IT staff taking whole companies down (or old IT staff for that matter) so you can't say IT staff are intrinsically less likely to cause trouble. (Heathrow Datacenter outage was the most recent IIRC.)

I do know some people are good at BSing their way into a job - then when they start they're not too good - so maybe there's an argument for trial work in other areas - but the applicants are generally older and in demand (at present) and would take their work elsewhere.

[JoeLeg]

I?m not saying IT staff are less likely to be problematic, simply pointing out that most jobs do not require people to work a trial shift to demonstrate basic competence for the position on offer - hospitality is different because you get a ?feel? very quickly (or at least you should if you know what you?re doing) for whether an individual is right for your establishment by observing how they work.

You only need a couple of hours for this, which is why, if further analysis is needed, I always pay people if I require more of their time for any reason.

[Burbage]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Work trials are essentially the ?actual interview?

> for a position in the hospitality industry.

As so many of my childhood heroes are discovering, a long tradition of exploitative behaviour is no defence.

[civilservant]

really sorry to hear about the way that these young people are being exploited

interviews? probation? this is nothing of the sort. this is most like the unpaid 'internship' racket

there is a clear difference between probation, for which one is paid, even if the employment could be terminated at any time. it sounds like these 'employers' are using terms like 'trial working' to weasel out of their legal obligations

eta just spotted this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43070581

"SNP MP Stewart McDonald, who represents Glasgow South, is publishing a bill he hopes to get through the Westminster parliament.

In short, that would mean people need to be offered at least the minimum wage if they are going to do the work a member of staff would normally carry out.

Mr McDonald says: "This doesn't end the ability of an employer to try people out. It just sets new rules and boundaries on how they do that."

Employers would have to make clear what jobs are available, to make sure they are not just using trial shifts to fill staff shortages.

And anyone doing a paid trial would be guaranteed feedback if they don't get the job. "

[JoeLeg]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Work trials are essentially the ?actual

> interview?

> > for a position in the hospitality industry.

>

> As so many of my childhood heroes are discovering,

> a long tradition of exploitative behaviour is no

> defence.

Er, sorry, but no. No no no no no....

In the hospitality industry, you can sit and talk to people all you like, but until you watch them prep food or interact with customers or make a coffee or carry plates you simply have no idea if the person is a good potential employee.

You?re welcome to disagree with me, but you?ll be very wrong. Sorry, but it is not exploitative to ask people to demonstrate skills. I?m not Spacey or Weinstein and I don?t appreciate being compared to them. Asking someone to give two hours of their time for what is basically an interview is not unreasonable, and as I say I pay for anything more. How many interviews have you had in your life that you were paid for by a company that had not yet hired you?

[KrackersMaracas]

Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have people done that essentially involved you doing the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me - none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the suggestion.

I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a good fit until you see them working - but the same applies for office work, and that is why we have probation periods - for which we receive full pay. You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee, prep food, or interact with customers - but you also cannot tell if an IT person has experience of the systems he claims to be proficient in, an accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler can book trades until you actually see them doing it. They are paid for this. Why not a hospitality worker?

[fishbiscuits]

Surely it's not complicated.

Two hour trial unpaid - ok

Whole day unpaid - not ok

Comparing this to recruiting an accountant or software developer is bloody daft for obvious reasons that I shouldn't need to point out.

[rendelharris]

KrackersMaracas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have

> people done that essentially involved you doing

> the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me -

> none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the

> suggestion.

>

> I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a good

> fit until you see them working - but the same

> applies for office work, and that is why we have

> probation periods - for which we receive full pay.

> You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee, prep

> food, or interact with customers - but you also

> cannot tell if an IT person has experience of the

> systems he claims to be proficient in, an

> accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler

> can book trades until you actually see them doing

> it. They are paid for this. Why not a hospitality

> worker?

Teachers often have to spend a whole day in a school and teach two lessons for an interview unpaid...

[JohnL]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KrackersMaracas Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have

> > people done that essentially involved you doing

> > the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me -

> > none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the

> > suggestion.

> >

> > I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a

> good

> > fit until you see them working - but the same

> > applies for office work, and that is why we

> have

> > probation periods - for which we receive full

> pay.

> > You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee,

> prep

> > food, or interact with customers - but you also

> > cannot tell if an IT person has experience of

> the

> > systems he claims to be proficient in, an

> > accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler

> > can book trades until you actually see them

> doing

> > it. They are paid for this. Why not a

> hospitality

> > worker?

>

> Teachers often have to spend a whole day in a

> school and teach two lessons for an interview

> unpaid...

My sister (and her husband) teaches

She tells me she spends all evening marking work many days (I didn't ask why there's not time to do that in the day) but teaching isn't the relatively easy job a few of us of my age remember (maybe incorrectly) from our schooldays.

[rendelharris]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My sister (and her husband) teaches

>

> She tells me she spends all evening marking work

> many days (I didn't ask why there's not time to do

> that in the day) but teaching isn't the relatively

> easy job a few of us of my age remember (maybe

> incorrectly) from our schooldays.

I know that John, I'm a former teacher and my wife still is one! She leaves for work at 6.30, gets home 19.00, have just time to get some dinner into her before she works until bedtime, plus a good six hours plus over the weekend. I was just making the point that there are jobs, and teaching is one of them, when it's an accepted part of the interview process to undertake the work you're seeking, unpaid, to demonstrate your capabilities - and for a lot longer than two hours.

[JoeLeg]

KrackersMaracas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have

> people done that essentially involved you doing

> the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me -

> none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the

> suggestion.

I?m starting to sound like a stuck record, but please understand that the nature of the industry is such that the trial shift *is* the interview, in real terms. If you can?t get on board with that concept - and I don?t think any less of anyone who still disagrees - then fair enough. It?s a unique industry in many ways, and things are expected of us throughout our careers that people in different jobs would not tolerate.

> I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a good

> fit until you see them working - but the same

> applies for office work, and that is why we have

> probation periods - for which we receive full pay.

> You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee, prep

> food, or interact with customers - but you also

> cannot tell if an IT person has experience of the

> systems he claims to be proficient in, an

> accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler

> can book trades until you actually see them doing

> it. They are paid for this. Why not a hospitality

> worker?

Well, firstly let me refer the honourable poster to the points I made some moments ago, but let me also say that at the higher levels - executive chef, general managers, all manner of top level appointments, no, there is no trial shift, as the skills involved are very different.

But at the lower levels what matters is your ability to perform under pressure, so we put people out there and tell them to show us what they have; and whether others like it or not there is simply no better substitute than watching someone for a couple of hours and making a judgement. Should we pay for all of it? Well, as I said before, I pay for anything over two hours and won?t kick up a fuss if the government says I have to do all of it. I don?t feel anger towards anybody who thinks I?m incorrect about any of it, but I would invite them to try running a restaurant first.

[KrackersMaracas]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely it's not complicated.

>

> Two hour trial unpaid - ok

> Whole day unpaid - not ok

>

> Comparing this to recruiting an accountant or

> software developer is bloody daft for obvious

> reasons that I shouldn't need to point out.

Ha! Ok - but how about an admin assistant or someone doing data entry?

I wouldn't profess to have any experience in operating a restaurant. I did the odd shift waiting tables at uni: all zero hours stuff but what I worked, I was paid, and I think that is right (both as a worker and as a layperson/general customer). Those who have owned/operated/managed restaurant businesses will have an entirely different perspective & different concerns.

[fishbiscuits]

KrackersMaracas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ha! Ok - but how about an admin assistant or

> someone doing data entry?

For either of these, I would have thought a two hour trial - say combined with an interview - is not unreasonable.

The gains from any "free labour" would be more than offset by the time spent interviewing the candidate, explaining the nature of the task, providing assistance and reviewing the work.

[JohnL]

2 hour trial is OK by me too (not that I'm anything in hospitality LOL)

Back in the 80s we did employment training (Dole + 10 quid) and at one point the NHS was surviving on employment trainees (there were loads - and it did lead to jobs but after 6 months or so)

[rcmacf]

We often have potential employees in for trial shifts, and we can always tell within 2 hours if they are for us or not. There is no need to have anyone work a full shift.

The 2 - 3 hours are unpaid. An employer worth their salt won't need you there for any longer period for a trial.

[IlonaM]

There is a 38 degrees petition on unpaid work trials in support of the private members bill:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-snow-capitals-canals-freeze-over-as-boaters-share-stunning-images-of-icy-waterways-a3779106.html

'Stop exploitative unpaid trial shifts

To All Members of Parliament

Petition text

Please make sure all workers are paid fairly for trial shifts by voting for the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. It'll make sure if people are offered a trial period they get paid for the work they do, whatever the outcome.

Why is this important?

This is exploitation. Ruthless businesses are telling people they have to work for free for up to 40 hours as a 'trial shift' before they can get a job. And people who are desperate for work are doing these shifts for no pay, with the hope of a job at the end. It?s shocking, but right now the law lets businesses get away with it.

We all want to know that the hard-working people who serve us in cafes and restaurants are paid and treated well. Right now that isn't always the case, but together we can make sure that people are always paid for the work they do.'

[stringvest]

Unpaid trial, just an excuse to make youngsters work for nothing, and keep getting free labour. When we employed random saturday people and "casual labour" even if they only lasted a day, they got paid for it.

[tomskip]

Seriously? You can tell if someone is going to be a good employee after a 2 hour trial? Thanks goodness I didn't have to go through any of this back in the dark ages of employment rights.