Summations Only

Weighing into the middle of this one a little bit, but I did want to pick up on one thing Crashfrog. You say: I agree that I certainly wouldn't, as someone who wants to have photographs of, say, my wedding taking, hire someone on the basis that they had assisted a photographer.But if I was a professional photographer, looking to expand my business, or otherwise hire in a young, keen trainee, whom I could develop into the sort of photographer I wanted to have in my business, and I was choosing between someone who had been a photographer's assistant, and someone who hadn't, the experience would weigh in favour of the former. I would read it as (a) enthusiasm for the role; (b) a likely indicator that I wouldn't have to spend as much time explaining F-stops and ISO speeds to them; and (c) enthusiasm to work instead of playing X-Box whilst the job applications were in the mail.Now, I do grant you, I have no data backing up this view - it's my personal view as to a potential employer of someone. And the photographer example isn't ideal, because photographers tend to work as sole traders and not take on juniors to train up. It's more applicable to my sort of role in an office.I also entirely agree that there are wider issues to tackle - job creation being at the top of the list. However, as part of a wider package of measures, and with appropriate safeguards to seek to prevent or reduce abuse, then I can see that unpaid work for the unemployed can be of some benefit. (And not just to the employer).Of course it's not a panacea, but nor is it useless for the unpaid worker.

As an employer, though, I wouldn't often look at the situation as narrowly as that. In my experience, when looking at people's CVs, I will be seeking to assess the applicant not solely upon the basis of the narrow band of experience that the role itself entails. I will be looking to find someone who appears to be keen, enthusiastic, willing to learn, and able to fit in with my workforce. And, personally, if I see someone who has put in a stint of unpaid work, even if it is in a role which is not equivalent to the one I am seeking to fill, then that stint of unpaid work is one which will be positive for the applicant in my eyes. It won't be a clincher, but it will help them. I'm not objecting to you disagreeing - please feel free to. However, when you say that it is well and good for employed people to see chattel slavery for the unemployed as a good idea, please be aware that that is not what I am saying. I am saying that a stint of unpaid work whilst unemployed (and no paid work is currently available to someone) can weigh in that person's favour if they apply to me for a job. Even if the unpaid labour was in a different role.I totally and absolutely agree that the practice should not be a way for businesses to get free labour instead of advertising paid jobs - this is what I was referring to with my earlier reference to safeguards.

I'm going to address that quotation in reverse if I may. First off, I do agree with you that it does make a lot more sense to do the kind of work you want to be hired to do. The experience you earn will be more relevant, and you will clearly be improving your CV even more. I do agree with you on that one Crashfrog.Where I depart from you somewhat is in relation to your first sentence in that quotation - ie "the choice is between carrying water for a photographer and working as a photographer." In practice, the choice is very rarely that lucky. If I were a keen amateur photographer as a young man (a few more years ago than I'm comfortable with now), and wanted to break into professional photography, then if a photographer's assistant was the only work experience available, I would gladly take it, because I believe that I would be right in thinking that it would be of some value to me. Not as much value as work experience as a photographer, but even so, of some value.In fact, I would go further than that, as mentioned in my previous posts. If (in my current capacity as a reasonably senior chap in an office) I received a CV from someone who had worked (unpaid or otherwise, but unpaid in the context of the current discussion) as a photographer's assistant, I would still count that to their credit. I would still add that to their score.It would be wonderful, of course, if everyone who is unemployed could in an ideal world be (a) paired up with proper paid employment; or (b) (if that is not currently available) paired up with unpaid work which would give them relevant experience to a vocation which they want to pursue. However, I believe that that is an idealised aspiration. In an imperfect world, I am of the view that even making less relevant, unpaid work experience available to unemployed people is of some value to those people.The debate lies in the compulsion to do that unpaid work experience, and the safeguards which would be needed to protect against unscrupulous employers. In theory, yes, but in practical terms, it won't often work out that way, I don't think. If I receive CVs from two people, one of whom has been working off their own bat to submit articles to publications, and the other of whom has been working as an assistant to a features writer (or even to a freelance journalist), then chances are, I'm afraid, that I'm going to favour the assistant. That decision will be influenced by whether the independent worker has had any articles published, of course, but on an otherwise level playing field, the experience of working in a collegiate environment; of possibly making connections that might be useful to me; of operating in a hierarchical structure; and (probably most importantly to me) of being demonstrably willing to turn up 9.00 till 5.00 to an office; is going to sway me more.I know that this might be arbitrary - I know that it can seriously disadvantage a talented and independent minded person - but faced with 500 CVs for a single position, I'm going to go about this in a sensible way for me, and that will mean making assumptions such as this. It's the way life is.I'm not defending it - it's probably wrong on a number of levels. And if that's what you're saying Crashfrog, then I agree with you - it is definitely imperfect.However, in my view, in sheer practical terms, taking some form of unpaid work experience will, on average, count in a person's favour, when looking for a job, even if that experience is of limited relevance to the position applied for. My company brings in summer interns every year. We don't need them - the work they do is not valuable to us - but we bring them in regardless. We do it largely to entice them to apply for us for qualified jobs, in a competitive market.However (and here's the rub), that free work experience is valuable to them. Even if we don't employ them, another employer will look favourably upon their experience. (I know that this is true, because I have looked favourably upon that experience myself as a potential employer of someone who did not work for me as a summer intern, but who did work for someone else as a summer intern). So that experience itself is valuable to them (in job seeking), but is not valuable to the company.Now, this doesn't entirely address the point in your quotation, I agree. If the company won't pay for this work to be done, should it be seen as relevant work ?My answer is that it will be seen more positively than negatively by a potential employer. As I mentioned above, it shows a willingness and ability to work co-operatively in a collegiate environment, and at its most basic, shows a willingness to turn up to a place of work every day, 9.00 till 5.00.Maybe these things shouldn't count - but faced with 500 CVs for a single position, I'm afraid they do.

Very true. But I think the smarter choice is to work unpaid for the photographer (if that's all that's available from the photographer) AND take photos yourself as well. Even if you are doing menial tasks, you are also observing, picking up techniques, asking questions, seeing some of the tricks of the trade in practice. I've watched wedding photographers at work, and picked up one or two tips on composition and lighting just from observing them. I will always take paid employment, if it's available of course - but in the absence of paid employment, I would be able to supplement my skillset by being able to observe and question an expert. And take photos myself too, when I'm not doing that. The experience with the photographer is something I would leverage. Alternatively, we have the following data from the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK:"Young people taking part in a Government-backed work experience placement are more likely to get off benefits and into work, according to research published today.The first 3,490 young people who took part in the Government placements were 16% more likely to be off benefits 21 weeks after starting than those in a similar group who did not take part."(I'll give the link if someone can tell me how to do a hyper-link on here please ?) I have been in several meetings discussing applicants' CVs. Very many included unpaid internships. I can guarantee to you that in no case did we look negatively at that experience, and assume that it meant the applicants were gullible and willing to be taken advantage of. It has always been seen as a sign of enthusiasm and desire for the role. And it sounds like this will surprise you, but as an employer, I am not looking for people who are willing to be taken advantage of - my business will be stronger and more profitable with enthusiastic, motivated workers who want to work.Edited by vimesey, : typo

I've been doing a fair bit of lurking on this (and many other) threads, but I do have to weigh in on this one: My field is law, but my understanding is that many professions are the same as mine, in that the greatest expertise is not concentrated in the hands of those teaching undergraduate (or even graduate) classes in their fields at university.In my experience, nonce of my university professors would have been able to perform anywhere near as well as the guys I have worked with in private practice over the years, when it comes to multi-million pound deals. The experience of the private sector guys is hugely superior, every time. Not because they're cleverer, or more academically able, but because their commercial and practical experience is greater.My exposure to the professions I know suggests that this is nearly universally correct. The guys in question do not refer to their gurus as being professors - they refer to them as being the directors or partners they learnt with as they grew into the profession.You don't stop learning your craft when you qualify at university - in my experience, that's when you really start to learn it.

I can't speak for engineering, but when it comes to law, accountancy, surveying, architecture - those are fields where (according to what I've seen) the experience gained at university is a pre-requisite to qualification, but is generally not given by professors who are at the top of their field professionally. They are highly intelligent, extremely clever people, but not able to give as good work experience as the people you work with when you leave university.I don't think we're hugely far apart on this though.