Summations Only

You mean, like following a photographer around and watching how to set up shots n'stuff?

You seem utterly intent on turning work experience into some sort of zero-sum game where the more the employer gains the necessarily less the work-experiencee gains. But the best work experience is that where both the employer and the person doing the work experience both gain. Non-zero sum. Win-win.The problem with the sort of work experience that prompted this thread is that it doesn’t seem to be that sort of win-win work experience. But your stance that ALL unpaid work experience is unjust or futile or even illegal just doesn’t hold up to reality. Oh. Then you will find that you are wrong that my work experience was illegal. Apart from anything else we are talking nearly 20 years ago before there was a minimum wage. And I seriously doubt that an undergraduate doing work experience whilst doing part of a degree project would fall foul of the minimum wage laws even today. But if you can demonstrate otherwise I’d love to hear it.? I wasn’t qualified in the sense that I didn’t yet have a degree. A degree would have been the minimum level of formal qualification attainment required to employ me to do that sort of job on a properly paid basis. The fact that I was 2/3rds of the way through a degree course which was highly mathematical in nature obviously convinced them I could contribute meaningfully in my work experience role for a limited period of time. I doubt they would have let me loose if I was studying art-history for example. You are conflating qualified in the sense of holding qualifications (e.g. degree certificates and suchlike) with qualified in the sense of able. I wasn’t qualified (i.e. I didn’t have a degree) to be employed as an engineer but I was qualified (i.e. I was able) to contribute to a real limited-term project that was simultaneously very relevant to my degree project. I certainly worked with the designer in question to mathematically model the specific thing we were working on (it was to do with spraying crops, particle sizes and suchlike — I wish I could remember the details but I’ve forgotten all that clever stuff I used to know) and I know that the work we did was incorporated into the project as a whole. Could he have done it without me? I think so. It just would have taken longer. I don’t think I was. I had to complete a computational physics project. So it’s not like I just went there and did stuff out of boredom or charity or something. I did my degree project, gained experience of an actual working engineering environment, had a great laugh with the design guy I was working with and did something that was useful to the company in the process.It’s called a win-win situationEdited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

"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 GovI 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.

Definitely worth doing. Never said it wasn't. Just don't let him put you to work, especially step-and-fetch work, unless it's on his dime. Since while you're stepping and fetching you're not going to have much chance to see him work.

Yes, exactly. The employer gains the value of your labor and you gain the value of your paycheck. Yes, exactly. The "work experience" we're talking about here is of the win-lose variety - your "employer" gains the value of your labor, and you lose the result of your labor and the time you spent on it. Because you lose much and gain little, that's why I don't recommend that people work for free. Fair cop. There's nothing to conflate. Qualified means "able", and the holding of qualifications is meant to demonstrate ability. But ability is the best and only actual qualification - if you can do it, you're qualified to do it. If you can't do it, holding the certs and licenses won't matter. But it's not win-win. It's win-lose. You lost the value of your labor, the time you spent, and the value of the paycheck you could have been making and what you got in return was not more than what you lost. It was, in fact, a lot less. It was better than nothing but you've confused "better than nothing" with "worth the price." By your lights if I gave you $5 in exchange for your $10, you'd call that "win-win" because I made $5 and you got more than nothing. But that's wrong. That's win-lose - I won $5 and you lost it.

You are likely correct about this. UK law makes exceptions for work by undergraduates as part of a degree program. So does US law. The laws are subject to abuse, and some companies do cross the line. But I don't think you've given out enough details to make it clear the line has been crossed in your case. What you describe sounds to me like the classic legal unpaid internship.

Not under UK law, he wouldn't be (today):

quote:

---

If an individual described as a volunteer was in fact a worker (see below), they would qualify for the NMW unless a specific exemption applied.
...
Even if you do not have a contract of employment, you are a worker if you are doing work personally for someone else under a worker's contract, such as a contract to personally perform services, and are not genuinely self-employed.
...
The term 'voluntary worker' has a specific meaning for NMW purposes.

​

A voluntary worker is a type of worker (see above) who is exempt from qualifying for the NMW. Voluntary workers must work for a charity, voluntary organisation, associated fund raising body or statutory body. The benefits in kind and expenses they can receive are limited, and certain conditions must be met to ensure that the voluntary worker does not qualify for the NMW.

---

So, as Straggler was not working for himself, had an implied contract ("do this work for that non-monetary renumeration"), and could not be classified as a "volunteer worker", he was subject to the NMW. Not having practical experience isn't an excuse not to pay someone. After all, you don't seem to think that their lack of practical experience prevents them from being able to do the job. Rather, you're taking advantage of their lack of experience to get their labor for free. Well, yes. The people working for you are Homo sapiens, not Homo economicus, that rare species who acts purely out of rational self-interest. Many people have fallen for the hype of "work for free", and like the elephant-repelling spray ("don't see any elephants around, do you?") connect their subsequent career success to their "unpaid internship" by committing the fallacy of ad hoc, ergo propter hoc. 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.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Yes, and like under US law, that exception is that the work has to be without value to the employer. That's to prevent the rest of that company's employees from suffering downward wage pressure in competition with people who will work for free. That's just it, though. There's no such thing as an "unpaid internship" where you produce useful work for free. If a company is getting real work out of you, under both US and UK law they're obligated to pay a wage. If they're just letting you mess around for training/educational purposes, that's ok. You can do that for free. (But it's an open question if you should, that might just be a waste of your time.) But if you're actually doing something useful for the company, it's illegal for them not to pay you.

That is at best a paraphrase of US law, and the difference between your paraphrase and the actual law is on point here. Further, as I understand it, UK law is far less strict than US law in this area.Here is what FLSA requires for unpaid internships(emphasis added by me):Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act | U.S. Department of Labor

quote:

---

he following six criteria must be applied when making this determination:
1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

---

The actual regulation is something less clear, and I would argue that Stragglers project met the requirements.My understanding, probably imperfect, of UK law is that a student doing work as a part of an educational plan whose temporary work, and not exceeding 12 months is legitimately an unpaid internship.http://blogs.findlaw.co.uk/...nternships-are-they-legal.html

quote:

---

However, National Minimum Wage legislation says that all workers in the UK who are over 16 are entitled to be paid at least the National Minimum Wage, unless they are covered by a particular exemption within the legislation. The only exemptions relevant to internships are:

​

students undertaking work placements as part of higher education of up to one year; and

​

volunteers, who are under no obligation to perform work, have no contract, can come and go as they please, and have no expectation of and do not receive any reward for the work they do.

---

What is the difference? I say "without value." The FLSA says "no immediate advantage." Synonymous. Not as he describes it, which is (to paraphrase) "I got experience and the company got useful work; it was win-win." It's the part where his work activities were of benefit to the company where they run afoul of the law.Internships are a way for companies to invest in the training of potential future employees. They're not a way to have work done for free, and any company so using interns is breaking the law both in the US and the UK. That's why so many unpaid interns are filing civil suits for back pay - and winning. Sure, but as we've seen in UK law, "volunteer" has a legal status that Straggler could not be said to have qualified for.

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 discussionLet 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.

---

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 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. 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. 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. Nope, you're right. You've convinced me. I'll tell him to piss off when he turns up tomorrow.

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? No, we haven't yet seen that.

Because under UK law there's no such thing as a "volunteer" for a private, for-profit company that benefits from your work. There's no such status under the law. When we're talking about the people who work for companies that make profits, there's really only three possible statuses - paid employee, unpaid intern (whose work cannot benefit the company), and illegally unpaid employee. Right. And none of the "voluntary worker" exemptions apply. Ergo, Straggler was legally a worker who should have been paid. But they didn't not employ him. They employed him but didn't pay him. We're trying to determine if it was legal for them to do so, and under a plain reading of the guidelines, it was not. He did expert work for their benefit, ergo he was a worker. But he's not "practicing." He's working. He's producing labor that you benefit from, making it illegal for you not to pay.Look - where do you get this idea that you can be an employer, take people's useful labor, and not pay them any money for it? Where on Earth would you get the idea that it's ok to do something like that? What else do you think it's OK to steal? 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?

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. 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. 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? Crash, you've missed your meds again.

Sure, it's right here: Who need not get the National Minimum Wage. It should look familiar, it's your source.

quote:

---

If you have a contract of employment then you are a worker. Even if you do not have a contract of employment, you are a worker if you are doing work personally for someone else under a worker's contract, such as a contract to personally perform services, and are not genuinely self-employed. For homeworkers, work or services may be performed personally or passed to family or friends without affecting qualification for the NMW. See the page in this guide that covers who must get the national minimum wage - workers, agency workers, agricultural workers, homeworkers.

---

Since Straggler was not "genuinely self-employed" and was personally providing services under an implicit contract, he was a "worker" under the law. The only way he could not have earned the NMW is if he had been a "volunteer worker" and as you've agreed, he wasn't. Well, that's certainly a different situation than what you originally described. If you don't materially benefit from his work, that could be a legal unpaid internship. But that's not the situation Stragger has described.