Unpaid Work Experience for the Unemployed

[Rob McCow]

Should the unemployed take unpaid work experience?

A couple of quotes from The Guardian:

Tens of thousands of unemployed people have been made to work without pay under threat of having their benefits removed for at least 13 weeks, according to the latest government figures.

The first set of statistics on the government's mandatory work activity (MWA) programme reveals that from when the scheme started in May 2011 until November, 24,010 jobseekers were referred to work for four weeks unpaid for 30 hours a week.

Under the scheme – the first of its kind in the UK – jobcentre managers have the power to make unemployed people do a month's work experience at charities, government offices or high-street chains if they feel claimants "fail to demonstrate the focus and discipline necessary to seek out, secure and retain employment opportunities". If they do not take part, claimants have their benefits removed for 13 weeks. A second failure to take part means benefits are removed for six months.

In a separate scheme, managers can also ask jobseekers to take up unpaid work experience (WE) for eight weeks. However, under this programme, people can refuse to do the work or pull out within the first week without having benefits docked. Figures for the programme reveal that 34,200 jobseekers undertook such placements from January until November 2011.

There has been exponential growth in the number of people being sent on mandatory "workfare" placements since they were introduced in May. In the three months from September referrals doubled, and by November, the last month for which figures were released, there were more people being sent to mandatory placements (8,100) than starting a WE placement (6,600) throughout the whole of the UK.

Critics of the government's work experience scheme are "job snobs", the employment minister has said.

Chris Grayling defended the project after a Tesco store was forced to close on Saturday when it was invaded by protesters angered by a job advert seeking permanent workers in exchange for expenses and jobseeker's allowance.

The Telegraph says:

Unpaid 'work experience' is a depressing solution to youth unemployment

And Grayling also claimed:

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Grayling said that 20,000 young people have already moved off benefits after finding full-time jobs after taking up work experience organised by jobcentres.

He said the Government hopes find a further 100,000 more of these placement over the coming year.

"Short term work experience placements lasting a few weeks are of immense value to young people looking to get a foothold on the job ladder," Mr Grayling writes.

"The critics are job snobs. The Guardian newspaper publishes stories attacking big retailers for offering short-term unpaid work experience placements for young people.

"But that same Guardian newspaper advertises on its website - yes, you guessed it - short-term unpaid work experience placements for young people.

"The BBC's Newsnight joined in the attack on big retailers offering unpaid work experience. And on the BBC website? Yes, you guessed it again – an offer of unpaid work experience placements. It's time we put an end to this hypocrisy."

(Rule 102932: Never miss an opportunity to slag off the BBC and Guardian!)

So what's the reality behind this? Are the supermarkets using the unemployed as a free labour force? If you are unemployed and you're sent on a work experience scheme, does it make it easier for you to get a job? Is it fair to get someone to work without a monetary wage?

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

Some short term internships are worthwhile (If I found myself out of work in the near future I'd certainly think about a stint at the BBC) but working for £50 a week or whatever JSA is these days in a supermarket or McDonalds? Surely that would undermine the improvement in low paid workers conditions which have come in with the creation of the national minimum wage (which interestingly is now higher than the hourly rate I was on during the six month period I worked for a local supermarket nearly 10 years ago).

[Lissa]

People are arguing the rights and wrongs of the principle of unpaid work for the unemployed rather than accepting that it sounds good on paper and could be made good in reality. With proper regulation it can give unemployed people experience, skills and routine in their lives. Without proper regulation it creates free labour for chains desperate to cut costs and at the end of their placement the workers are chucked out and replaced with another crop of freebie newbs.

The idea is nothing new - it's been done for decades under one name or another - but either it needs to be a form of internship which gives the unemployed something of value or an unpaid placement which has a reasonable chance of permanent employment at the end of it.

And - crucially - it shouldn't be full time or they won't have time to actually look for a proper job and the placement keeps them on benefits longer.

[Si Hunt]

I've no idea what the solution is. Like so many things in life, it has good intentions but people abuse it and find a way to stop it working.

If you have someone who is complacently aclimatised to a life on benefits and not going for interviews then making him work for free might incline him to get a paid job. But then are the supermarkets etc. going to hire when they can get workers for free? Also I can imagine how annoyed I'd be if I was looking for work and I couldn't fit in interviews around my unpaid job.

All I would say is, perhaps they should be doing a better job of establishing that people really arn't bothering to look for jobs before they make them do unpaid work. When I was unemployed a few years ago they did nothing to help me find a job or motivate me to look for one. "Checking in the paper? On-Line?" they asked, and that was that. Perhaps if the job centre staff asked you to prove you had applied for a certain number of jobs, and if you hadn't suggested some jobs for you to apply for, and only if you hadn't applied for these available jobs did they pack you off to Tesco's unpaid, it would be better. Sort of "Well, if you don't want THIS, then I'll find you something myself" sort of thing.

Also you should have to turn up to the job centre in the outfit you have ready for an interview - and if it's jeans and T-Shirt and you haven't bothered to get an attire/affect a standard of appearance that will stand you ANY chance of getting the job, when you should fail the test immediately. I wouldn't have given half the people I saw at the job centre a position just by looking at them.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

The trouble is these people don't need work experience, they need work. If you're going to make them do a crappy job anyway, why not pay them at least minimum wage for it?

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Also you should have to turn up to the job centre in the outfit you have ready for an interview - and if it's jeans and T-Shirt and you haven't bothered to get an attire/affect a standard of appearance that will stand you ANY chance of getting the job, when you should fail the test immediately. I wouldn't have given half the people I saw at the job centre a position just by looking at them.

You're seriously saying that people should be forced to wear a suit and tie to go to the job centre?

[Paul Clement]

Under the scheme – the first of its kind in the UK – jobcentre managers have the power to make unemployed people do a month's work experience at charities, government offices or high-street chains if they feel claimants "fail to demonstrate the focus and discipline necessary to seek out, secure and retain employment opportunities". If they do not take part, claimants have their benefits removed for 13 weeks. A second failure to take part means benefits are removed for six months.

The first of it's kind? Really? Must just be deja vu then. New Deal Environmental Taskforce and the New Deal Voluntary Sector were running for over 10 years and the placements lasted 6 months at the start and 3 months by the end of their time as Jobcentre programmes. It's nothing new at all, just a Tory re-imagining of the Labour set up, which was inherited from the Tories before them.

People are arguing the rights and wrongs of the principle of unpaid work for the unemployed rather than accepting that it sounds good on paper and could be made good in reality. With proper regulation it can give unemployed people experience, skills and routine in their lives. Without proper regulation it creates free labour for chains desperate to cut costs and at the end of their placement the workers are chucked out and replaced with another crop of freebie newbs.

I couldn't agree more, Lissa. It can be good with the right safeguards in place. It can lead to experience & skills as said, it could also give the unemployed youth a reference to be used for future job applications, and personal experience has shown me that a lot of these out of work youngsters have no references available to them.

All I would say is, perhaps they should be doing a better job of establishing that people really arn't bothering to look for jobs before they make them do unpaid work. When I was unemployed a few years ago they did nothing to help me find a job or motivate me to look for one. "Checking in the paper? On-Line?" they asked, and that was that. Perhaps if the job centre staff asked you to prove you had applied for a certain number of jobs, and if you hadn't suggested some jobs for you to apply for, and only if you hadn't applied for these available jobs did they pack you off to Tesco's unpaid, it would be better. Sort of "Well, if you don't want THIS, then I'll find you something myself" sort of thing.

Si, there has been a lot of work done in establishing what the barriers are for people finding work, which includes apathy. One major problem that relates to your past experience is that there are usually far more customers that the staff can effectively deal with in the time constraints they have. So, it's been generally accepted after research that the vast majority of unemployed would find work through their own efforts within 3 months of claiming benefit. As such, resource has mainly been kept for dealing with people who are unemployed for longer, who would need more help and support to return to work. It's certainly not ideal, but for that level of help to be available for everyone from day one would require a massive injection of funds from the Government, which sadly is never likely to happen.

The trouble is these people don't need work experience, they need work. If you're going to make them do a crappy job anyway, why not pay them at least minimum wage for it?

Sorry Jason, but I'd have to disagree with you there. They need to work yes, but they need to skills, resources, ability and determination to first find, and then maintain a job. What's the point of sending someone for job after job if they don't have the slightest chance of getting the job. All that does is demotivate them further. If you identify the skills need that the person has and work on that first, you then raise their prospects of successfully obtaining a job and being able to keep it once they find it.

[Jason Thompson]

They need to work yes, but they need to skills, resources, ability and determination to first find, and then maintain a job.

Of course they do. So if you're going to send them off on a job placement to get those skills, why exactly can't they be paid for it? Or, to put it another way, why is unpaid 'work experience' better than paid experience at work?

What's the point of sending someone for job after job if they don't have the slightest chance of getting the job.

Same question with regard to Workfare. What's the point of sending them to do unpaid work for months at a time if they have no chance of getting an actual job at the end of it? Despite the claims made about the scheme, a tiny percentage of people on it actually get offered any kind of work at the end, because the big companies using them know there's a good source of free workers, so why fill up spaces with people they have to pay?

All that does is demotivate them further.

And forcing them to go and do unpaid work with minimal chance of getting a job at the end, and which leaves them no time to actually go and look for paid work, or lose their benefits is motivating?

If you identify the skills need that the person has and work on that first, you then raise their prospects of successfully obtaining a job and being able to keep it once they find it.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is the idea that all that somehow makes it acceptable to force someone into unpaid labour. They'll get the experience at the skills doing the job and getting paid for it, and they'll be more motivated because they are getting paid.

[Stuart Wallis]

I did learn how to be a librarian on one of these scemes back in 19 hundred and Frozen-to-death, but i got something out of it. I knew someone who was thrown onto New Deal a few years ago, and they spent one day a week looking through the local newspapers and such, and the rest of the week vegitating in the same room. That was, until the providers moved a couple of doors down. They announced, "Who wants to do a bit of painting in the new office?" As something to do, several people put their hands up simply because they wanted something to do. Then they came back and said where's our placements? and the firm said that the painting was their placements! (And i had that confirmed by someone I met who worked there.)

So I agree that in an ideal world this sort of thing should at least put a relevant line on someone's CV. I have come across enough evidence though, to show that there are firms who find it easier to bung someone in a charity shop for six weeks than to find them something more suitable. And I've done a couple of favours for local charity shops andknow from first-hand experience that by the same token, the shops can get lumbered with people who they find undesirable - including a sex maniac and a woman who does one hour then decides that's that for the next three weeks and goes off to have her eyebrows plucked, and who tells the deputy manager what to do on the grounds that she's been there longer.

The problem with getting people to work for charities is that they are charities, and they need all the money they can get for the charity, so they need all the help they can get, voluntary or otherwise; and they need to only pay certain management posts. The companies that send them there have in the past been paid for results, so more unscrupulous ones don't seem to care where they end up as long as they get paid. Looking at it from HM Government's point of view, how much tax dollar can they afford to spend to get the matter sorted, even though they have a moral if not legal right to have a go?

[Paul Clement]

Of course they do. So if you're going to send them off on a job placement to get those skills, why exactly can't they be paid for it? Or, to put it another way, why is unpaid 'work experience' better than paid experience at work?

Because if they were being paid, their benefit would have to stop and they would then also have to cover their rent and council tax for that same short period of time. When the work placement ends, they would then have to make a new claim for jobseekers allowance and a claim for housing and council tax benefit. The dangers there are that the young people will fall behind on their rent and risk losing their homes while either waiting for the benefit to be processed or because they don't get the claim in as quickly as they need to after the work placement ends. Staying on benefit and completing it as unpaid work experience gives them that security.

Despite the claims made about the scheme, a tiny percentage of people on it actually get offered any kind of work at the end, because the big companies using them know there's a good source of free workers, so why fill up spaces with people they have to pay?

That's not true, the percentage of customers going into work within 3 months of being on the work placement is quite high. It does not necessarily have to be with the company they were on placement with, there experience has often led them to other jobs.

And forcing them to go and do unpaid work with minimal chance of getting a job at the end, and which leaves them no time to actually go and look for paid work, or lose their benefits is motivating?

They don't lose their benefits for not going on the scheme. They even have the option of leaving the scheme within the first week with no effect on benefits, however, they are expected to see out the scheme if they stay beyond that first week, and if they were to leave early without good cause then they may lose benefit. As to having no time to look for work, I'm sorry but I don't agree at all. Newspapers, and the internet are all available at any time of day. If they apply for a job and are successful in getting an interview, they would be excused from the placement to attend. Let's face it, there are a lot of people applying for jobs who are already employed full time. They have the time to look for alternative employment, so I'm sure people on the scheme for a few weeks would still be able to manage.

What I disagree with is the idea that all that somehow makes it acceptable to force someone into unpaid labour. They'll get the experience at the skills doing the job and getting paid for it, and they'll be more motivated because they are getting paid.

Except they are not forced into it. Entering on to the scheme is completely voluntary. As I said, the only time it becomes mandatory is once you have completed the first week of placement and decide to carry on. The young people are made aware of this, so if they try it and aren't happy they still have a window of opportunity to end it.

[Paul Clement]

The companies that send them there have in the past been paid for results, so more unscrupulous ones don't seem to care where they end up as long as they get paid. Looking at it from HM Government's point of view, how much tax dollar can they afford to spend to get the matter sorted, even though they have a moral if not legal right to have a go?

Work Programme was an attempt to stop this. With Work Programme there is a small amount paid to the provider for having the customer, they then get a top up payment for getting the customer into work and the main payments come through showing the customer has entered sustainable employment with payments at 3 and 6 months into the job. There are still a lot of faults with the scheme but they did try to stop that sort of behaviour.

[Paul Clement]

From a personal perspective, one of the biggest problems I've come across with the government's aim of tackling youth unemployment is that they vastly underestimate the problems that are encountered.
There are a lot of youngsters coming into the Jobcentre who are second of sometimes third generation benefit claimants. The work ethic isn't always there for them in the first place, with some having had no encouragement to look for work from their families. Some of the families are actually encouraging them not to find work.
The other issue that comes up is a poor standard of education. A lot of young customers are coming into the Jobcentre with little or no qualifications, poor literacy and numeracy skills and no idea how to create a CV. It's quite a regular occurrence to come across an 18 or 19 year old who stopped attending school when they were 13 or 14 (in some cases younger).
When you add to that the large number of youngsters who are claiming benefit who live in foyers or other sheltered housing projects because of difficulties they've had at home, you have customers coming in with a lot of personal baggage that needs addressing as well as the need to help them find work.

[MinaHarker]

Of course it's not voluntary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ople-need-jobs

Look, I'd love to have an employee, but I can't afford to pay one. Perhaps I should ring someone in the Government and have them send me someone for free? I'm sure that will be fine with all the taxpayers, and I'm sure my person could use the valuable experience to get a job elsewhere! Then, if anyone complains, a rich Tory could call them "snobs"!

[Jason Thompson]

Because if they were being paid, their benefit would have to stop and they would then also have to cover their rent and council tax for that same short period of time. When the work placement ends, they would then have to make a new claim for jobseekers allowance and a claim for housing and council tax benefit. The dangers there are that the young people will fall behind on their rent and risk losing their homes while either waiting for the benefit to be processed or because they don't get the claim in as quickly as they need to after the work placement ends. Staying on benefit and completing it as unpaid work experience gives them that security.

As would altering the benefits system to allow those who find temporary short-term contracts to have their benefits suspended or reduced rather than stopped outright such that they have to make a new claim once they're out of work again 2 or 3 months later. Are we really saying a system where we make people work unpaid for a while is necessary because the sheer level of bureaucratic red tape involved in giving them those benefits makes it much harder to give them paid work on a short term basis and guarantee them benefits at the end of that contract period?

That's not true, the percentage of customers going into work within 3 months of being on the work placement is quite high. It does not necessarily have to be with the company they were on placement with, there experience has often led them to other jobs.

But what of someone like me? I was out of work for nine months back in 2003-2004. I'm a biochemist. A period of unpaid work in a retail chain is not going to help me in any way, shape or form.

They don't lose their benefits for not going on the scheme.

A number of recent newspaper articles suggest otherwise.

Let's face it, there are a lot of people applying for jobs who are already employed full time. They have the time to look for alternative employment, so I'm sure people on the scheme for a few weeks would still be able to manage.

That's a fair point and I will concede on that one, however:

If they apply for a job and are successful in getting an interview, they would be excused from the placement to attend.

I have heard a number of cases where people have not been so excused, and where individuals have been compelled to attend job centre workshops rather than attend interviews. Maybe the system says that should not happen, but it certainly does.

Except they are not forced into it. Entering on to the scheme is completely voluntary.

This archived document from 2010 suggests otherwise:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...spectus-v2.pdf

Please note the use of the word 'mandatory' in the table describing the referrals of jobcentre customers. The only use of the word 'voluntary' occurs with 'or mandatory depending on circumstances' in one case.

[Paul Clement]

Of course it's not voluntary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ople-need-jobs

Look, I'd love to have an employee, but I can't afford to pay one. Perhaps I should ring someone in the Government and have them send me someone for free? I'm sure that will be fine with all the taxpayers, and I'm sure my person could use the valuable experience to get a job elsewhere! Then, if anyone complains, a rich Tory could call them "snobs"!

I would hazard a guess that the adviser who forced that individual into attending the work experience is now in a great deal of trouble. The work experience scheme is set up as being voluntary and that should never have happened. Not everyone working in the Jobcentre does things the way they should be done, I certainly see things day in day out that make me frustrated with the way some of my colleagues treat the unemployed. The fact is, the customer in that article shouldn't have been made to go, and very probably didn't need to go on a work experience. It should be all about working with the customer as an individual. Some customers would benefit from certain forms of help and others would benefit from others. There are also customers who wouldn't benefit from much the Jobcentre has to offer because they have the skills and expertise to undertake their chosen profession but haven't found the position yet. That does raise the question of how long you leave things as they are though.

[Paul Clement]

As would altering the benefits system to allow those who find temporary short-term contracts to have their benefits suspended or reduced rather than stopped outright such that they have to make a new claim once they're out of work again 2 or 3 months later. Are we really saying a system where we make people work unpaid for a while is necessary because the sheer level of bureaucratic red tape involved in giving them those benefits makes it much harder to give them paid work on a short term basis and guarantee them benefits at the end of that contract period?

That is changing as part of Universal Credit, which is expected to begin in 2013. However, the simple fact is, the benefit system until then is split between the benefits paid through central government such as JSA and ESA and those paid by local government like Housing Benefit. The Jobcentre and central government may make a change but it doesn't necessarily follow that local government will change its policy accordingly. We had a long period of time when certain rules for JSA didn't link with the rules for Housing Benefit which caused a large number of problems for staff and more importantly customers. Most have been resolved over the years, but it is still an unwieldy system that needs replacing. When Universal Credit comes in, it will pull Housing Benefit, Jobcentre benefits and Tax Credits together. I also envisage a lot more complaints about certain changes that are going to be in place under Universal Credit, especially certain issues around people who are in work but on low incomes.

But what of someone like me? I was out of work for nine months back in 2003-2004. I'm a biochemist. A period of unpaid work in a retail chain is not going to help me in any way, shape or form.

No, I'd agree. As I said in my post above this, the provision available and the help on offer should be tailored to the individual. That is what underpins the Jobcentre's Flexible Support which is part of the Get Britain Working measures. For someone like yourself, that wouldn't be an appropriate use of Jobcentre resource. However, I'm sure you would agree that there has to be a point in time when the Jobcentre adviser has to ask you to look at alternative jobs while you wait for the right job to become available. Obviously things like mortgages need to be taken into account when looking at a job, but there has to be a cut off point where any job is preferable to remaining of state benefits.

A number of recent newspaper articles suggest otherwise.

Most of the articles really do seem to struggle to differentiate between one Jobcentre scheme and another. They all seem to be merged in media reports with a complete lack of understanding of the real processes and rules.

I have heard a number of cases where people have not been so excused, and where individuals have been compelled to attend job centre workshops rather than attend interviews. Maybe the system says that should not happen, but it certainly does.

I'd really hope that's not happening. The whole purpose of the Jobcentre is to help people into work. The interview has to take priority over the workshops. I wonder how much of that has come from the people running the workshops rather than from the Jobcentre itself. Considering the major target the Jobcentre has is the number of people coming off of benefit, I'm sure the managers would be fuming to know that was happening.

This archived document from 2010 suggests otherwise:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...spectus-v2.pdf

Please note the use of the word 'mandatory' in the table describing the referrals of jobcentre customers. The only use of the word 'voluntary' occurs with 'or mandatory depending on circumstances' in one case.

That's not the work experience scheme, that's Work Programme. Work Programme is a mandatory part of claiming JSA or ESA for a number of customers, although that comes after being on benefit for a certain period of time. However, the Work Programme isn't really provision in the usual Jobcentre sense, despite what it says in the Work Programme prospectus. Work Programme is virtually a replacement for Jobcentre services. Once a customer reaches the stage where they have to attend Work Programme, they only attend the Jobcentre to sign, everything else is undertaken by the Work Programme provider, such as support with jobsearch. In essence, Work Programme is the governments way of seeing whether they could privatise the Jobcentre, although they would and have denied that when the PCS union brought them to task over it. The one good aspect of Work Programme is that they work with the customer for two years, which includes supporting the customer to remain in work once they do find a job, including offering a mediating service between the customer and the employer when the customer has become and employee if they were in danger of losing their jobs.