The Lemon Fool

Gersemi wrote:Perhaps it wasn't mentioned and the applicant didn't ask; that is rather underhand.

I would say that if the shift is a trial shift, which is part of the selection process and will therefore be unpaid, that should be made clear to the applicant before they perform it. If they choose to continue on that basis then they have no cause for compliant. On the other hand if they are under the impression that they will be paid before they do it then that is not OK. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned and the applicant didn't ask; that is rather underhand.

didds wrote:I did once get a reply to a job application for a position serving in a Sydney cafe to come in for an interview, which on arrival, dressed appropriately for an interview (very smart casual) , I was directed to the back kitchen and told to gut/ clean chickens for the cafe.

There was no hint at the invitation that Id be doing a trial shift, let alone one that might be better off being done in more appropriate clothing. Underhand doesn't even start to cover it.

So its really not as simple as "if they choose to continue". The job interview is already underway.

Lootman wrote:And an apron could always be given for messy work.

Lootman wrote:If you think of the trial shift as just another exam, then the idea of being paid for it goes away.

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:If you think of the trial shift as just another exam, then the idea of being paid for it goes away.

I remain unconvinced that four unpaid hours cleaning chickens proves worth any better than three chickens in 10 minutes.

Lootman wrote:

didds wrote:I remain unconvinced that four unpaid hours cleaning chickens proves worth any better than three chickens in 10 minutes.

It shows stamina. Anyone can work hard for 10 minutes.

It also shows that you can tolerate mind-numbing boredom for hours, and that you don't mind getting giblets all over you.

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:It shows stamina. Anyone can work hard for 10 minutes.

It also shows that you can tolerate mind-numbing boredom for hours, and that you don't mind getting giblets all over you.

Part of the 5 minute spoken interview was that I played rugby, which is why i was in Sydney in the first place.

Stamina?

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:It shows stamina. Anyone can work hard for 10 minutes.

It also shows that you can tolerate mind-numbing boredom for hours, and that you don't mind getting giblets all over you.

Part of the 5 minute spoken interview was that I played rugby, which is why i was in Sydney in the first place.

Stamina?

chas49 wrote:

Moderator Message:
We're getting a bit adrift from the Legal Issues aspect here. Please stick to the on-topic discussion which is around the legality of this practice. Thanks (chas49)

GoSeigen wrote:DD applied for a hospitality position and was asked to come in for a four-hour trial shift where she was basically doing the same work as other staff and the sort of work she'd do once employed. To her and my surprise she was not paid for this work, presumably none of the people used by this business in their "trial shifts" are paid. Is that even legal? I thought in UK law that if it looked, walked and smelled like employment then it was considered to be employment.

IrishIceHawk wrote:if it walks/quacks like a duck it's a duck - a four hour shift where the potential employer gets benefit from the work done would seem to be payable, as to me, that would exceed the amount of time needed to check if they can do the job, and it was real work, not test environment. .

IrishIceHawk wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:DD applied for a hospitality position and was asked to come in for a four-hour trial shift where she was basically doing the same work as other staff and the sort of work she'd do once employed. To her and my surprise she was not paid for this work, presumably none of the people used by this business in their "trial shifts" are paid. Is that even legal? I thought in UK law that if it looked, walked and smelled like employment then it was considered to be employment.

From the legal aspect, I would defer to the "unpaid work trial periods" section of minimum wage guidance at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/calculating-the-minimum-wage/eligibility-for-the-minimum-wage

I read it the same way as you mention it, if it walks/quacks like a duck it's a duck - a four hour shift where the potential employer gets benefit from the work done would seem to be payable, as to me, that would exceed the amount of time needed to check if they can do the job, and it was real work, not test environment. Also the mention of many people doing trial shifts would tend to suggest that it's not really a recruitment tool - you don't try on 100s of pairs of shoes before buying one, and using trials like that more sounds like ways of getting free labour.

Whether it would be worth applying for payment for the 4 hours, or if refused reporting the employer for not paying minimum way, is another type of decision though.

GoSeigen wrote:Thank you, that is is exactly pertinent to the OP. If you're an AI, well done good job. If you're a human welcome the Lemon Fool and thank again for the help.

GS

GoSeigen wrote:the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.

chas49 wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:Thank you, that is is exactly pertinent to the OP. If you're an AI, well done good job. If you're a human welcome the Lemon Fool and thank again for the help.

GS

A bit off-topic I know, but the poster joined in 2016, so they're unlikely to be an AI.