The Lemon Fool

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.

Should she demand payment for that work? She's been offered a pert time position but I advised her to reject it as the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.


GS

You might be right. But I don't think there's much harm in trying out the part time job first? Then quit if it doesn't work out.

I think the answer is 'it depends'.
I'm assuming this is a 'Service Sector' role, perhaps customer facing?

Work Experience people don't get paid, actors don't get paid for auditions. I've only ever got expenses for attending interviews, so if you are classing it as a practical test as part of an interview then it is not illegal, however Guidance is to pay minimum wage.

Look at it from the other side.....

For the potential employer there is a cost, time spent advertising, interviewing, sifting through mountains of remarkably similar internet derived CVs (probaby AI generated these days) to sort out the complete chancers from the optimists and the 'actually might want and be able to do it'-ers, even then you really never know how much their claims are borne out in reality, so a Practical Assessment is a requirement, and setting triallists up on the system for payroll etc is another admin cost for the Employer, along with time spent supervising with experienced staff.

That is not to say that some unscrupulous employers couldn't abuse the system to get a fee shift at a busy time, but to be honest it is a risky and expnsive way of getting an inexprienced worker under your feet for half a day.

A more practical and fair approach would be to make it so they pay them if they were accepted into a full time role, as that way neither party really loses.

Edit - A bit late now, but requesting this up front would tell you a lot about a prospective employer. As it stands they to take them on, if they want to take the job then say "OK if you pay me for the trial shift I worked after my first week".

Paul

GoSeigen wrote:...She's been offered a part time position ...

Good.
Well done.
Mission accomplished, hope it works out for her. If not, chalk it down to experience.

V8

DrFfybes wrote: actors don't get paid for auditions.

auditions are not performances in front of audiences.

In the OP

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

That sounds like productive work.

didds wrote:

DrFfybes wrote: actors don't get paid for auditions.

auditions are not performances in front of audiences.

I would disagree with that - they are a display of your ralents in front of a very critical audience. Whether the audience pay or not is irrelevant to the performer.

GoSeigen wrote:Should she demand payment for that work? She's been offered a pert time position but I advised her to reject it as the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.

If they were not clear upfront that the recruitment process included an unpaid shift on the floor working I too would see that as bad form. If I was keen to work there I'd ask why I wasn't being given the same reward as everyone else on that shift, giving the potential employer a chance to prove it was oversite rather than subterfuge and that they valued my effort. Perhaps making it a condition of acceptance.

If I was destitute and it had got me in the door I'd suck it up. So it's a bit underhand but if I needed to job I proved I was a good worker and got one.

I was invited for a potential employment chat at the warehouse of an events company. Very speculative, a contact put me on to them as I was between jobs and my chum knew they might be looking for some with my skills. After a 20 minute chat in the office with the owner he walked me round the warehouse space. We continued to chat looking at his kit and explaining the sorts of tasks I'd done and what his business needed. A truck turned up and he and I mucked in with crew there for the unloading. I didn't want the job he was offering but I did a week working on a show with them as a one off. I was delighted and surprised when I put my invoice in they overpaid because I was getting a load-out fee from that interview day.

A trial shift is quite common. One of my sons works in hospitality and has tried out like this a couple of times.

He still got tips and some free food, so it was not a total bust. (A good waiter makes more from tips than base pay). And it is something you can do without quitting your other job, so can be handy if you decide that you do not want this new job having tried it out for a shift.

I see no problem if mutually agreed.

Quite a variety of responses so I'm concluding that this is something of a grey area. I like the idea of giving the employer a second chance by agreeing to the job on condition that the trial period is paid. I'll suggest that to DD if she is still prevaricating.


GS

GoSeigen wrote:Quite a variety of responses so I'm concluding that this is something of a grey area. I like the idea of giving the employer a second chance by agreeing to the job on condition that the trial period is paid. I'll suggest that to DD if she is still prevaricating.


GS

Without wishing to appear to take the employer's side, if the shift was paid, the prospective employer would surely need to go through the whole 'proof of right to work', payroll and HR setup, and onboarding process, just for half a days work?

Watis

Watis wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:Quite a variety of responses so I'm concluding that this is something of a grey area. I like the idea of giving the employer a second chance by agreeing to the job on condition that the trial period is paid. I'll suggest that to DD if she is still prevaricating.


GS

Without wishing to appear to take the employer's side, if the shift was paid, the prospective employer would surely need to go through the whole 'proof of right to work', payroll and HR setup, and onboarding process, just for half a days work?

Watis

Yeah I ran this thought process too, what about relevant H&S training too. So assuming the right to work and relevant onboarding wasn't done has the employer broken the law, having a duty of care to people in the workplace? A long time ago before minimum wage I used to pay prospective employees half wages when they took a couple of trial shifts to see if they could hack it. When minimum wage came in I couldn't pay them half wages so paid them nothing. I had to change and improve our recruitment and training process as paying them anything less than minimum wage for trial shifts wasn't on.

Watis wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:Quite a variety of responses so I'm concluding that this is something of a grey area. I like the idea of giving the employer a second chance by agreeing to the job on condition that the trial period is paid. I'll suggest that to DD if she is still prevaricating.

Without wishing to appear to take the employer's side, if the shift was paid, the prospective employer would surely need to go through the whole 'proof of right to work', payroll and HR setup, and onboarding process, just for half a days work?

I think it would be structured more like the deal for an independent contractor, so it would not need the full payroll setup.

Even so there would have to be liability insurance, so there must be some framework in place. Although for small businesses they might just wing it.

Watis wrote:Without wishing to appear to take the employer's side, if the shift was paid, the prospective employer would surely need to go through the whole 'proof of right to work', payroll and HR setup, and onboarding process, just for half a days work?

Watis

#
does that mean then that unpaid people do not need to meet otherwise legal working requirements?

Id find that difficult to believe TBH - thats open to so much potential abuse ? (not necessarily by trial shifts either)

GoSeigen wrote:Should she demand payment for that work? She's been offered a pert time position but I advised her to reject it as the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.

It's complicated - and I'd trust (both your) guts to a large extent. Does she have previous experience? Because throwing someone into a busy bar with no experience is a) a liability for the rest of the staff b) liable to make the company look rubbish in the eyes of customers c) not fair on the newbie. Yes there is some use in seeing how someone copes with a busy bar - some thrive in that environment, some fall to pieces - but you can't supervise them properly.

And that is the key for me - it's not a trial if you're not being constantly supervised, and a Saturday night would make effective supervision impossible, really you want a "shoulder" night like a Thursday. Too quiet and it's a waste of everyone's time, you want it busy enough to see how she copes but not too busy, and time to train her on the tills, the coffee machine or whatever.

Another red flag is eg if the job is working on the bar, but she spent the shift just collecting glasses, that's not telling anyone about her suitability for the job, it's just exploitation.

didds wrote:

Watis wrote:Without wishing to appear to take the employer's side, if the shift was paid, the prospective employer would surely need to go through the whole 'proof of right to work', payroll and HR setup, and onboarding process, just for half a days work?

does that mean then that unpaid people do not need to meet otherwise legal working requirements?

Id find that difficult to believe TBH - thats open to so much potential abuse ? (not necessarily by trial shifts either)

There is the concept of a volunteer - someone who performs tasks at a business or institution without being paid.

Examples I have seen for this include hospitals, Oxfam shops, CAB and so on. So there must be a framework for an entity to have people perform tasks for it without them being formal employees or being on the payroll. And in fact paying them anything at all might change their status undesirably.

This is legal issues (practical) so there are both legal and practical sides,

I know several of my employers have blatantly violate bright line labour laws, not even a close call. On the other hand the authorities did not care and I did not care enough to make a stink.

So that the many or even all employers act in some way does not mean it is legal, but that something is illegal does not mean there's anything you can do about it.

GoSeigen wrote:Should she demand payment for that work? She's been offered a pert time position but I advised her to reject it as the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.

When applying for professional jobs, it's not unknown to spend all day at an assessment centre.
You're obviously not paid for this and I wouldn't dream of asking.

The "trial shift" is effectively screening to ensure the employee is suitable for the job. So it's similar.

jaizan wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:Should she demand payment for that work? She's been offered a pert time position but I advised her to reject it as the unpaid shift was a red flag in my estimation.

When applying for professional jobs, it's not unknown to spend all day at an assessment centre.
You're obviously not paid for this and I wouldn't dream of asking.

The "trial shift" is effectively screening to ensure the employee is suitable for the job. So it's similar.

It also benefits the applicant because it enables him or her to see what working there feels like without committing.

Like you I would never ask to be paid for a trial shift. That paints the applicant as someone who is petty and fixated on their "rights" - a red flag for employers.

Lootman wrote:
Like you I would never ask to be paid for a trial shift. That paints the applicant as someone who is petty and fixated on their "rights" - a red flag for employers.

wheras I would see somebody using an applicant to do free work as taking the p1ss and a red flag for employees

didds wrote:

Lootman wrote:Like you I would never ask to be paid for a trial shift. That paints the applicant as someone who is petty and fixated on their "rights" - a red flag for employers.

wheras I would see somebody using an applicant to do free work as taking the p1ss and a red flag for employees

And that is perfectly fine as well. In both cases the trial shift is serving its desired purpose: To identify employees who would be a good fit for that business, and also identify those employees who would not be.

If having a trial shift weeds out those applicants who are not temperamentally suited to that organisation then that is surely better for everyone.