Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unpaid Work For The Unemployed
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 273 of 300 (673880)
09-24-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by crashfrog
09-24-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Starting over
Straggler writes:
Illegal? Which law was being broken?
Crash writes:
In the UK it would be the National Minimum Wage (NMW) law, which guarantees a minimum wage for all workers.
"Workers", yes. But Straggler was most likely not a "worker", he was a "volunteer".
quote:
Definitions
'Volunteer'
Volunteers do not have any contract of employment or contract to perform work or provide services. They are not workers and therefore are not covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. This means they do not qualify for the national minimum wage (NMW).
Source - UK Gov
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2012 10:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2012 6:47 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 281 of 300 (674110)
09-26-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by crashfrog
09-24-2012 6:47 PM


Re: Starting over
The term 'voluntary worker' has a specific meaning for NMW purposes.
Why are you even bringing the "voluntary worker" into this? A volunteer is not, by definition, a voluntary worker. The latter is irrelevant for this discussion
Let us go back to my link and read a bit further:
quote:
The worker test
Determining if someone qualifies for the NMW depends on whether they satisfy the definition of a worker, and if so, whether one of the exemptions applies.
A person's status will ultimately depend on the circumstances under which they work and whether they are performing as a worker. Key elements in establishing whether someone is a worker include:
- whether there is an obligation on the individual to perform the work and in return an obligation on you to provide the work
- whether the individual is rewarded, such as through money or benefits in kind
When this guidance refers to a 'worker' it is referring to worker in this sense. If somebody is a worker, they will qualify for the NMW unless a specific exemption, such as the voluntary worker exemption, applies.
So, as Straggler was not working for himself, had an implied contract
Did he have an implied contract? Did he have an obligation to work? I see no evidence for that, but I will leave it for him to state the case.
Not having practical experience isn't an excuse not to pay someone.
Not having practical experience is a perfectly good reason not to employ someone. That is precisely why both my current volunteer and the numerous others who have approached me to volunteer had not managed to gain employment in their chosen area.
After all, you don't seem to think that their lack of practical experience prevents them from being able to do the job.
What "job"? He doesn't perform a "job". His lack of practical experience is exactly what prevents him from performing a "job" in my company. Under supervision, he is learning to perform certain tasks - tasks normally performed by the supervisor.
And thus he is gaining practical experience. If I decide that we have a vacancy for another junior engineer, he will be very well placed for that position.
Rather, you're taking advantage of their lack of experience to get their labor for free.
On the contrary, he is taking advantage of my good nature to gain use of our engineering bay to practise his skills, and our engineers to coach and supervise his work.
The result - now being investigated in the UK, and hopefully eventually in the US - is an enormous donation of free labor to employers like yourself who delude themselves into thinking they're doing the exploited a favor.
Nope, you're right. You've convinced me. I'll tell him to piss off when he turns up tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2012 6:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 5:16 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 282 of 300 (674111)
09-26-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
09-26-2012 9:09 AM


Re: When are unpaid internships legal?
It's the part where his work activities were of benefit to the company where they run afoul of the law.
That does not appear in any part of the definition of a "volunteer" - can you point out where it states that a company cannot receive benefit from a volunteer?
Sure, but as we've seen in UK law, "volunteer" has a legal status that Straggler could not be said to have qualified for.
No, we haven't yet seen that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 9:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 284 of 300 (674124)
09-26-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by crashfrog
09-26-2012 5:16 PM


Re: Starting over
Because under UK law there's no such thing as a "volunteer" for a private, for-profit company that benefits from your work.
Please show where it states a volunteer cannot be volunteering for a private, for-profit company that benefits from the volunteer's work. Please allow me to repeat:
quote:
A person's status will ultimately depend on the circumstances under which they work and whether they are performing as a worker. Key elements in establishing whether someone is a worker include:
whether there is an obligation on the individual to perform the work and in return an obligation on you to provide the work
whether the individual is rewarded, such as through money or benefits in kind
Nothing there about not being able to benefit from the volunteering. I think you are very confused, but I am willing to be shown otherwise.
Right. And none of the "voluntary worker" exemptions apply.
Please learn to read. No-one is interested in "voluntary worker exemptions" as they are irrelevant. We are talking about volunteers vs workers, not voluntary workers vs workers.
But he's not "practicing." He's working. He's producing labor that you benefit from, making it illegal for you not to pay.
How the hell do you know what he is doing? How am I benefiting when he is reducing the efficiency of my company by taking resources and time that my employees would otherwise be using on production? When he is not there, we are more efficient. For what would I be paying him? Losing us money? Is it just incomprehensible to you that I should allow this situation because I see it as something benefiting someone other than myself?
Better yet, asshole, why don't you cough up what you owe him for his work? Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you?
Crash, you've missed your meds again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 5:45 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 287 of 300 (674135)
09-26-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by crashfrog
09-26-2012 5:45 PM


Re: Starting over
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 5:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 7:31 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 292 of 300 (674174)
09-26-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by crashfrog
09-26-2012 7:31 PM


Re: Starting over
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2012 7:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024