One of the hot debates of the week has been the government’s planned introduction of compulsory, unpaid work experience for job seekers. Is this a genuine attempt to help people find work or are the big companies involved just taking advantage of the free labour? I have to say I’m sceptical about the system although I do think there has to be more done to support people looking for work than just paying benefits. For a work experience system to work and be sustainable it has to deliver some value to everyone involved.
I had to do a fortnight of work experience when I was 15. At the time I was planning on studying law so I found a firm of solicitors that would take me. I spent quite a lot of the time I was with them making tea, answering the phone, photocopying and filing but in between these riveting tasks I also got to accompany a solicitor on two trips to the Magistrates Court and go with one of the partners when they were appearing in the County Court. I also got to sit in on quite a few interviews with clients and the solicitors were all really happy to chat to me afterwards and answer any questions I had.
They obviously didn’t give me a job at the end of it but I got some experience of a field I wanted to work in, something I could put on my uni applications, some interesting things to talk about in my interviews and a reference I could use while looking for jobs while still in school. In exchange for the time they took to organise it the company got some help with their admin. I’d consider that a pretty fair trade. In fact if anything I got the better deal.
So if that’s a good example of work experience being of benefit to both parties how does this scheme compare?
On the plus side they are saying that roughly 50% of people are offered a job at the end of the period of work experience which is an undeniably impressive success rate. It might also go some way to addressing employer’s concerns about employing someone that is currently unemployed if they can demonstrate they reliably turned up for work everyday for eight weeks.
Most of the companies that I’ve heard are taking part are in retail or fast food so possibly not the areas of most people’s career dreams but both have a variety of corporate and customer service roles and significant opportunities for progression so if people are going to get experience of the different aspects of how these companies run it could be a genuinely interesting opportunity to learn about possible careers.
So young people have an interesting few weeks, prove they can be valuable reliable team members and hopefully get a job at the end. On that basis (and given that people will continue to receive their benefits while on the placement) doing some actual work like stacking some shelves or manning a checkout while they are there doesn’t seem unreasonable, does it? It’s certainly far from slavery as one girl has claimed.
But will that ideal scenario actually be what happens? Will participants get that well thought out programme of experience in different departments or will they just be shoved into a uniform and put to work for free with the minimal amount of training? Will this opportunity be given to those motivated young people who are just lacking work experience or will it be used to weed out those that job centre staff don’t think are really trying to find a job with the hope that they won’t manage to complete the placement so their benefits can then be stopped?
Until there is more clarity around who can be involved, how ‘compulsory’ it will be and what the penalties will be for failure I’m not sure that this programme can possibly be fair.
Related articles
- Joan Smith: You try working in a cake shop, Mr Cameron… (independent.co.uk)
Elaine Livingstone says
but are there really any permanent jobs out there for them to be taking up? Or will they take on X amount of people, treat them as slaves whilst they have them for free, and then at the end of the training period get rid of the original X and take on a 2nd batch.
I truly believe people should work for their money if they able – but if the jobs are out there why are they not filled already by job seekers? – and there are plenty of genuine ones who want to work but cant find paid employment.
I also feel it depends on the current staff as well, I use to work for a well known DIY chain, and worked in my local store and was encouraged and trained to cover paint mixing, key cut, plant watering, shelf edge label replacement, cover service desk, answer phone as was everybody who wanted a bit of variety. I was a checkout operator to trade but jumped off at quiet times to go else where. I moved 25 miles up the road and so got a move to my then nearest store – and how I regretted that – a checkout operator operated the checkouts – nothing else, no training offered in other departments, if no customers you stood at the front of the shop ate sweeties and chatted – so some may get more useful training than others.
Nothings ever fair in this world if you shout loud enough, but tax payers knocking their pan in 40-50 hrs a week paying full rent etc and being worse off than the people they keep on income support isnt fair either
*Elaine climbs down off her soap box*
I agree entirely. Whether it’s a good idea or not will completely depend on the quality of the experience the job seeker gets. If it is interesting and actually helps them get job, either in that company or somewhere else, then doing some work while they are there is no great hardship. On the other hand, if they are just going to be exploited and be no better off at the end then that’s obviously not fair. The question is how will the government ensure it it the former that happens?
I think there is a very clear place for work experience in this country, I did plenty when I was a student and one placement led to my first job.
I think though that it needs to have a clear frame work – including length of each placement alongside what each person should experience – i.e. not just making tea and photocopying.
To give a slightly different perspective, my husband has a business and the last two people he employed came to him, from a university his company has ties with, to do a short internship. They were both paid and the internships were for a pre-determined period of time. The benefit for them was that they got to prove themselves to an employer as well as learn on-the-job skills. The benefit to the company was that they got to ‘try-before-they-bought’ as it were. It can be expensive to recruit staff and it is even more costly to make a bad hire.
Absolutely, There are real benefits to be had for everyone involved as long as everyone understands what’s involved. Thanks for commenting.