|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,494 Year: 6,751/9,624 Month: 91/238 Week: 8/83 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Unpaid Work For The Unemployed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Put yourself in my position. You can..
A) Invent a project (most others in my class did some deeply unoriginal version of the three body problem) B) Ask your lecturer for a project because you are too devoid of inspiration to think of one yourself C) Take the opportunity to work, unpaid, at a prestigious engineering company on a real life mathematical modelling problem supervised by those who have done this sort of thing before, experiencing a professional engineering environment and having access to situations and people which frankly money alone cannot buy.... Which do you choose...? I chose C)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
cavediver writes: Please show where it states a volunteer cannot be volunteering for a private, for-profit company that benefits from the volunteer's work. Crash writes: Sure, it's right here: Who need not get the National Minimum Wage. It should look familiar, it's your source... ...Since Straggler was not "genuinely self-employed" and was personally providing services under an implicit contract, he was a "worker" under the law. Again, what is this implicit contract? Again, and more importantly, this says nothing about the company in question not being able to benefit from the volunteers work. I'm guessing that you have picked this up from some US regulation and have confused it with how things work in the UK.
Well, that's certainly a different situation than what you originally described. Really? All I described was:
cavediver writes:
I had such a volunteer volunteering in my company today. He is exam-qualified in his area of engineering but has no practical experience, and thus has been gaining that experience with us, a couple of days a week over the past few weeks. I must have received at least 30 requests from potential volunteers over the past 3 years or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Crash writes: Yes, and like under US law, that exception is that the work has to be without value to the employer. Really? Maybe in the UK it is radically different... But I recently organised work experience for my 17 year old nephew at my current place of work. There were numerous legal complications. I had to sign off that we weren't going to expose him to hazardous chemicals or high voltages. He had to sign some sort of insurance waiver. His mum (my sister) had to sign parental consent and responsibility forms. But the HR department here (whose entire existence is to know and implement UK employment law) never once stipulated that his work experience consist of useless "without value" work. He answered the helpdesk phones and logged helpdesk calls. He wandered round our site collecting wifi signal strength data for me. Non of which is "useless". Yet our team of in house employment specialists saw no legal problem with this.... I guess you just know better huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Which do you choose...? I would choose a reform of the practice of internship so that you could have option D): Work, and get paid for it. Look, Straggler, I don't begrudge you your choice. You made a bad one, but maybe the best bad one. If your work was truly without value then nothing untoward happened. But if you produced useful work for the company, then you were taken advantage of. I don't know how else to describe it, or why it's such an amazingly contentious idea that when employers collude to force you to work for free, you've been taken advantage of. But that's what happened, as you've described it. Your best option was to be paid for the value of your labor. Either your labor was valueless or it was not, and if it was not, you should have been paid - under both UK and US law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Again, what is this implicit contract? A contract exists any time that you have an offer, acceptance, and consideration - all of which Straggler has described. That's the implicit contract - he agreed to this in exchange for that.
Again, and more importantly, this says nothing about the company in question not being able to benefit from the volunteers work. Yes, it does. You keep failing to quote the part where it does. How many times do I have to present evidence for you to ignore? I'm done doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But I recently organised work experience for my 17 year old nephew at my current place of work. And if he'd asked "look, clearly my labor has value to you; why shouldn't I be paid", what would you have said to him?
But the HR department here (whose entire existence is to know and implement UK employment law) never once stipulated that his work experience consist of useless "without value" work. Then you have to pay him. That's how it works, to prevent people who really need the money from being out-competed by those who can afford to work for free as a temporary stepping-stone to something better. Why do you even think there is a minimum wage? Why do you think that we don't just let the "free market" decide what people should be paid? It's to prevent workers from lowballing each other in a race to the bottom. Well, what's a lower lowball than "will work for free"? Of course it should be illegal. Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why on Earth would you think it's ok to have someone work for nothing?
He answered the helpdesk phones and logged helpdesk calls. He wandered round our site collecting wifi signal strength data for me. Non of which is "useless". Then you stole the value of his labor, didn't you?
guess you just know better huh? Yeah, I do. Why wouldn't I? Don't you think there's a certain conflict of interest? If your company can get labor for free, why wouldn't they? And why wouldn't your in-house lawyers, who are paid to represent the interests of the company, advise them that the practice of stealing labor was so widespread as to be legal? And the practice is widespread. Here in the US and in the UK. That doesn't mean that it is legal, or right, or a good idea for people to allow themselves to be exploited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3898 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
cavediver writes: Again, and more importantly, this says nothing about the company in question not being able to benefit from the volunteers work. Yes, it does. You keep failing to quote the part where it does. How many times do I have to present evidence for you to ignore? I'm done doing it. No, it does not. You are lying, Crash, or severely deluded. Again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18650 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3
|
crashfrog writes: You could pay the company to take you on as an apprentice.
what's a lower lowball than "will work for free"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
crash writes: Look, Straggler, I don't begrudge you your choice. You made a bad one... My computational physics lecturer thought it was a good opportunity ("jump at it" I believe was his advice). My ‘A’ level teacher who arranged the work experience for no personal gain to himself, thought it was a good opportunity. My classmates, friends and family thought it was a good opportunity. The employers who interviewed me for jobs in my twenties thought it was a good opportunity and a valuable thing to have done. I thought it was a good opportunity. In fact the only person I have heard from who doesn’t consider the work experience I undertook back then as a good opportunity — Is you. Perhaps I have failed to convey the true nature of the situation to you.Perhaps everyone else I know and trust is wrong and you are right. Or perhaps, just perhaps, you are wrong on this one and there is a potentially great deal of value to be had from unpaid work experience. Now the real question that should be asked in this thread is what sort of unpaid work experience is of practical benefit to the work-experiencee and does the government scheme (supposedly) under discussion qualify.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So the company strategy is to employ a team of costly legal professionals in order to gain the ability to illegally get 17 year old junior call loggers for free.
As a method of exploitation for profit that seems spectacularly un-cost effective and bewilderingly inefficient.
Crash writes: And if he'd asked "look, clearly my labor has value to you; why shouldn't I be paid", what would you have said to him? I would have said:
"There isn't any budget set aside to pay you to be here. I arranged for you to be here for your experience and your benefit. If you don't want to be here then you are free to go. If you just want to sit and watch what other people do I can make that happen. But I think, and I understood the reason you wanted to do this was to actually experience the world of work (specifically in a central London corporate environment), that you will gain the best experience and most insight by actually doing some productive and useful tasks of the sort you would do if you were genuinely employed here. Because of your age and experience these tasks won't necessarily be the most glamorous or exciting. I can't have you reconfiguring the network or implementing a new email system for example. But they will be genuine tasks that need doing and we will endeavor to find things that give you the opportunity to see different aspects of the company and suchlike. If anyone takes the piss by asking you to do something utterly menial, such as do their years-worth-of-filing for them, let me know and I'll explain that this is of no value to you and not why you are here. But I'm pretty sure that if you are decent and flexible to the people here they will be decent and flexible back and that it will be of great worth to you in ways that are not financial. I did a couple of stints of unpaid work experience when I was not-a-lot-older than you and I had a great time, met some great people and learnt loads. I urge you to take this opportunity because as your uncle I genuinely think it will be a good thing for you. But you don't have to be here and if the money issue is the overriding factor as far as you are concerned then, whilst I think you are making a mistake, I am not going to do anything other than this little speech to try and convince you to stay." Or something along those lines anyway....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So the company strategy is to employ a team of costly legal professionals in order to gain the ability to illegally get 17 year old junior call loggers for free Your team of costly legal professionals (hey, how come they don't work for free - oops, I mean, for the "value of the experience"?) is primarily there to review legal documents. Think of stealing labor as a kind of side benefit.
As a method of exploitation for profit that seems spectacularly un-cost effective and bewilderingly inefficient. What? Getting labor for free is a million million million percent efficient, or more. It's infinity percent efficient because of the divide by zero.
There isn't any budget set aside to pay you to be here. I wonder why you don't seem to think this rationale would apply to any other form of theft.
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: I mean, these are all win-win, right? You gain the benefit of someone's labor for free, and they gain the benefit of providing you their labor for free! Gosh, when you put it like that, it's a wonder that anyone is so stupid as to demand compensation for their labor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps I have failed to convey the true nature of the situation to you. Only two factors are really relevant. 1) Did you provide useful labor to the company?2) Did you work for free? If both are true, then you were taken advantage of. That you weren't aware you were taken advantage of is irrelevant. That an enormous number of people who thought they were looking out for your best interests thought you weren't being taken advantage of is irrelevant. You're still comparing the benefits to doing nothing at all when I'm telling you that you should compare it to actual employment in your field, where you would get the exact same experience plus the compensation for the value of your labor you're entitled to under the law. And I've not heard even a single argument about why I'm wrong about that.
Now the real question that should be asked in this thread is what sort of unpaid work experience is of practical benefit to the work-experiencee and does the government scheme (supposedly) under discussion qualify..... Settled this in my first message. We have an effective work-experience scheme for the unemployed. It's called "employment". You know, where you perform labor for a company and they pay you a wage for it, as opposed to making you do it for free? Maybe you've heard of it. I understand things work a little differently at your company, where people are expected to toil without compensation for the "benefit" of toiling without compensation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
crash writes: (hey, how come they don't work for free - oops, I mean, for the "value of the experience"?) I expect there was a point in all their careers where their need for experience in their chosen field was greater than the need of an employer for their inexperienced labor in that field.
crash writes: I mean, these are all win-win, right? Not really... The thing you are failing to recognise here is that my company didn’t need the labor of my nephew. Likewise the engineering company I did work experience at didn’t need my labor. Neither was going to pay for that which it didn’t need. But in both cases it was still possible for the company to benefit from the opportunities afforded to the work-experiencee. A win-win outcome. As all the best work-experience should surely be. Lets give a very specific example here. For one task I sent my nephew off to the Olympic site in Stratford to collect wifi signal strength data. To fill in some holes in the signal coverage map of our site there. I could have gone myself. A chance to get out of the office whilst doing something necessary but untaxing in a pleasant and interesting environment would have been really quite welcome. Any of the network engineers would likely have welcomed the task too. But no. We spent 20 minutes or so showing my nephew what to do and sent him off instead. The thinking being that it was a task he could do, a task that was genuinely necessary and a task that gave him the opportunity to see some interesting and noteworthy aspects of the work the company is involved with in places most people didn’t have access to at the time. Did the company benefit? Yes. The fact my nephew did this task meant the paid-qualified-experienced employees (e.g. me) could get on with more skilled and productive work rather than go off on a (albeit necessary) jolly to the Olympic park for an afternoon. I vaguely recall that I got to spend the afternoon battling with a corrupted SQL database instead. Joy.... So —Was my nephew being exploited by a bunch of unscrupulous corporate fat cats profiting from his slavishly unrewarded toil? Or was he gaining opportunities and experience whilst undertaking genuinely useful and necessary work as a result of working unpaid? It is obvious to me that the latter is true. As his uncle I have no desire to exploit my nephew and every desire to do him a favour. I'm not sure why you can't see that.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: . We have an effective work-experience scheme for the unemployed. It's called "employment". Which is exactly why the sort of government schemes (supposedly) under discussion should be targeted at those who are unable to obtain gainful employment because they lack experience of work and should focus on giving them the experience necessary to obtain gainful employment. I’m not convinced the schemes that prompted this thread do that.But your stance that unpaid work is never a means to achieving this is just silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I expect there was a point in all their careers where their need for experience in their chosen field was greater than the need of an employer for their inexperienced labor in that field. There's no such thing as "experienced labor", you can either do the job or you can't. That's why "junior associate" is a different job than "senior partner" - it's a different job, with different challenges and responsibilities. Senior partners are required to do things that the associates can't - not that they can but not well, not that they can given enough time, that they literally cannot do.
The thing you are failing to recognise here is that my company didn’t need the labor of my nephew. Sure you needed it - you brought him on, didn't you? A business isn't a place where people go to waste time; if you had work you needed doing and nobody was doing it, that was an inefficiency you needed to address.
Neither was going to pay for that which it didn’t need. No. They just weren't going to pay for what they could get for free. And why would they? It makes no business sense. And that's the problem - that's why we don't let people work for free. It depresses the economy for paid labor, and disadvantages the people who have bills to pay and mouths to feed - who aren't living with parents who pay the rent and keep food on the table - and can't afford to just give away their labor. Working is a business, too - workers are in the business of selling their labor. Just as it's anti-competitive for a government to give money to one business to give away their product for free (and thereby undercut the rest of the market) it's anti-competitive for subsidized teenagers to do useful work for free.
So —Was my nephew being exploited by a bunch of unscrupulous corporate fat cats profiting from his slavishly unrewarded toil? Yes! How are you not getting this? Your company benefitted because highly-paid engineers could continue doing expert-level work because of what your nephew did. His work made you money, and you paid him nothing. How is that not stealing, to you?
As his uncle I have no desire to exploit my nephew and every desire to do him a favour. So do him the favor of paying him a wage. What's the problem with that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024