Internship, working for hee haw.
Discussion
Wondering if someone may be able to advise on this this topic or maybe someone is in the same position and would share the twopence worth.
Graduated last summer and have got work with a reputable surveying firm locally. They have very kindly offered to put me through my APC, for those who don't know what this is, its a form of training which lasts min 2 years and hopefully leads to one becoming a fully qualified chartered surveyor. The only tie is that I will probably not be paid for this period. Catch 22 though as no one else is getting the training opportunity currently. There is a chance of payment if large pieces of work come in but on the whole it'll be working for nothing really.
Was wondering if I would be eligible to sign on. Would prefer to do anything but tbh but it may be the only option. Not sure if would be eligible for working tax credits either.
Bit of a long winded post but essentially just trying to work out if there is any way to ensure i could have some bit of minimal money coming in at least to cover my fuel to and from work every day.
Malcy
Graduated last summer and have got work with a reputable surveying firm locally. They have very kindly offered to put me through my APC, for those who don't know what this is, its a form of training which lasts min 2 years and hopefully leads to one becoming a fully qualified chartered surveyor. The only tie is that I will probably not be paid for this period. Catch 22 though as no one else is getting the training opportunity currently. There is a chance of payment if large pieces of work come in but on the whole it'll be working for nothing really.
Was wondering if I would be eligible to sign on. Would prefer to do anything but tbh but it may be the only option. Not sure if would be eligible for working tax credits either.
Bit of a long winded post but essentially just trying to work out if there is any way to ensure i could have some bit of minimal money coming in at least to cover my fuel to and from work every day.
Malcy
As far as I can understand, I can be put through my RICS training while under employment which is in the form of an internship. Possibly not. It will more thank likely take a few phone calls this week to sort things out but was wondering if anyone knew prior to calling around. Appreciate the reply.
Malcy
Malcy
If you are an intern you can work without pay, but the issue is how you qualify to be described as an intern. Simply saying that's what you are doesn't cut it.
Essentially the issue is whether you are doing any work. If you simply go in and shadow someone else then you don't need to be paid. But if you are going to be working, if you are actually going to be doing tasks for them then you need to be paid.
As for signing on, that's not my area of expertise but I believe a basic requirement is that you need to be available to work, if you aren't then you can't sign on.
Essentially the issue is whether you are doing any work. If you simply go in and shadow someone else then you don't need to be paid. But if you are going to be working, if you are actually going to be doing tasks for them then you need to be paid.
As for signing on, that's not my area of expertise but I believe a basic requirement is that you need to be available to work, if you aren't then you can't sign on.
The Job Centre (DWP - Government) are actively promoting "Work Trials". The basic idea is that you are unemployed, receive benefit but also get expenses and do work.
This may or may not have much to do with the OP, but it does rather signify (and admit) the failure of all the policy and initiative that has come over the last ten years, in relation to employment. Much has actually come from the EU, but I'll just blame Labour for not stopping it.
The deal seems excruciatingly acceptable if you've not had a job for ages, and I'm sure employers love it at the moment. It's the same idea as "free money".
My own attitude is that it might be O.K. if you've no formal experience in the area in which you are planning to work for free. If you do, it's quite possible that an employer will blame you for incompetence at the end of the trial. You might have worked hard and been competent, but the employer needs an excuse to get rid of you. If you're actually good at what you do, then you have to carry around the negative vibe of your previous employer. That makes it harder to get work which you are actually good and experienced at.
Believe me, if you're unemployed then the employer has more weight of opinion than you do. If you tell a new employer that your last one "used you" under the guise of "free work" then they're going to believe your last employer, and not you. Even if you're the son of a vicar, and they do believe you, they're still going to think you a fool for buying in.
If work trials do the only thing that they might be good for, then inexperienced people will get a chance new and unfamiliar industries. Employers will soon realise that they have to train the people they get for free. They may as well find quick learners themselves, and train them for a wage, which is what should happen anyhow. After all, if employers train you for free, then you'll just go to the best employer when you've got your free training.
As it is the emphasis of the DWP is that people should use "Work Trials" to get into jobs that they know they can do, but where the employer seems reluctant. In short they are encouraging employers to take the risk of potential acrimony.
If you ask me the suggestion from the government, that people should try working for free, is like trying to get an Orgasm, when there's simply nothing left. It just hurts.
I have no problem with working for free. I just feel that it should be confined to charitable and voluntary organisations. Not those which are profit motivated.
This may or may not have much to do with the OP, but it does rather signify (and admit) the failure of all the policy and initiative that has come over the last ten years, in relation to employment. Much has actually come from the EU, but I'll just blame Labour for not stopping it.
The deal seems excruciatingly acceptable if you've not had a job for ages, and I'm sure employers love it at the moment. It's the same idea as "free money".
My own attitude is that it might be O.K. if you've no formal experience in the area in which you are planning to work for free. If you do, it's quite possible that an employer will blame you for incompetence at the end of the trial. You might have worked hard and been competent, but the employer needs an excuse to get rid of you. If you're actually good at what you do, then you have to carry around the negative vibe of your previous employer. That makes it harder to get work which you are actually good and experienced at.
Believe me, if you're unemployed then the employer has more weight of opinion than you do. If you tell a new employer that your last one "used you" under the guise of "free work" then they're going to believe your last employer, and not you. Even if you're the son of a vicar, and they do believe you, they're still going to think you a fool for buying in.
If work trials do the only thing that they might be good for, then inexperienced people will get a chance new and unfamiliar industries. Employers will soon realise that they have to train the people they get for free. They may as well find quick learners themselves, and train them for a wage, which is what should happen anyhow. After all, if employers train you for free, then you'll just go to the best employer when you've got your free training.
As it is the emphasis of the DWP is that people should use "Work Trials" to get into jobs that they know they can do, but where the employer seems reluctant. In short they are encouraging employers to take the risk of potential acrimony.
If you ask me the suggestion from the government, that people should try working for free, is like trying to get an Orgasm, when there's simply nothing left. It just hurts.
I have no problem with working for free. I just feel that it should be confined to charitable and voluntary organisations. Not those which are profit motivated.
Edited by dilbert on Sunday 14th February 15:55
I think you're missing the point though, Dilbert.
Essentially, the OP needs a training contract to get qualified. A firm has offered to provide it, but on the cheap, i.e. not paying him. It may well be training, but it's very definitely work and he will be expected to deliver outpuits like anyone else. (Hence my belief that this surely, surely contravenes minimum wage legislation).
However, I guess the Catch 22 may be that the OP demands payment, the company says they can't afford a trainee this year, and he can't get a training contract to complete his professional qualifications.
OP: DO you know why they are not offering a basic salary?
Essentially, the OP needs a training contract to get qualified. A firm has offered to provide it, but on the cheap, i.e. not paying him. It may well be training, but it's very definitely work and he will be expected to deliver outpuits like anyone else. (Hence my belief that this surely, surely contravenes minimum wage legislation).
However, I guess the Catch 22 may be that the OP demands payment, the company says they can't afford a trainee this year, and he can't get a training contract to complete his professional qualifications.
OP: DO you know why they are not offering a basic salary?
V8mate said:
I think you're missing the point though, Dilbert.
Essentially, the OP needs a training contract to get qualified. A firm has offered to provide it, but on the cheap, i.e. not paying him. It may well be training, but it's very definitely work and he will be expected to deliver outpuits like anyone else. (Hence my belief that this surely, surely contravenes minimum wage legislation).
However, I guess the Catch 22 may be that the OP demands payment, the company says they can't afford a trainee this year, and he can't get a training contract to complete his professional qualifications.
OP: DO you know why they are not offering a basic salary?
I feel for the OP. I really do.Essentially, the OP needs a training contract to get qualified. A firm has offered to provide it, but on the cheap, i.e. not paying him. It may well be training, but it's very definitely work and he will be expected to deliver outpuits like anyone else. (Hence my belief that this surely, surely contravenes minimum wage legislation).
However, I guess the Catch 22 may be that the OP demands payment, the company says they can't afford a trainee this year, and he can't get a training contract to complete his professional qualifications.
OP: DO you know why they are not offering a basic salary?
We all need training. Even the competent ones. They've been doing the job for years, and suddenly if they don't have a piece of paper, they're no longer qualified. It's O.K. though because the piece of paper only costs a couple of grand, and that in turn keeps people employed.
It's bloody mandatory now. The law sees to it (more or less).
By removing the scope for flexibility, there's no room for ad hoc coping strategies.
Internship or Work Trials and the minimum wage come to loggerheads - all wrapped up in red tape.
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/01/17/labours-...
someone said:
ke of the government programme of Work Trials? I only learned about them on Friday while at the local Jobcentre. Councidentally Lenin with the Tomb posted about them as well, on Friday, and he seems very down on the whole thing.
Largely I agree with Lenin, but I think there a few other significant details which were not evinced to full effect. In all the triumphalism on the part of Labour about the minimum wage, that this Work Trials programme awards less than the minimum wage seems to have escaped everyone’s notice.
Through the scheme, people claiming JSA can go to work for private employers for up to thirty days. Instead of being paid by the employer, they continue to claim JSA, plus a lunch and travel allowance for the thirty days. The JSA (and the allowances) divided by the number of hours worked is less than the current minimum wage, to say nothing of the living wage that the Left is campaigning for.
In essence, the programme is a direct subsidy to business from the government, advertised to employers as “Try Before You Buy”, with no obligation whatsoever to buy. The only advantage it carries is that it gives people up to thirty days experience of a given job, though the companies involved generally employ unskilled labour from the jobcentre so the advantage is fairly negligible.
The other thing is that it doesn’t address the ratio of people to jobs, it simply allows for the private sector to absorb what it wishes to and ignore the rest. Theoretically an employer on unskilled labour could repeatedly allow individuals to fill a space the employer might otherwise have to pay for. The programme is thus not a solution or a way to decrease unemployment, short term or long term.
To do that, the government might have to get (got forbid) structurally involved in the economy through a series of public works programmes, where different skill sets could be employed doing what they have been trained to do, in a way that benefits our social and public services.
Employed so, the opportunities for unionisation would exist, and the insecurity that prevents people campaigning against the sub-minimum wage levels would not. Reading over some TUC guidance notes, it appears that the government actually changed the NMW laws in 2008 so that work trials could be exempt.
These programmes, and associated ideas, were the work of David Freud, the investment banker who was employed by the government (not a Work Trial!) to do a review of the welfare system. They were then stewarded by James Purnell and then Yvette Cooper, the former having supervised as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the changing of the 1999 NMW laws to the benefit of employers.
Chris Grayling, Purnell’s shadow at the time, enthusastically backed the plans (and several bloggers said the plans were outright nicked from the Tories), which should truthfully be a warning all of its own. But it seems Labour couldn’t even wait for the Tories to get in before undermining what they continually spout as one of their major achievements.
Largely I agree with Lenin, but I think there a few other significant details which were not evinced to full effect. In all the triumphalism on the part of Labour about the minimum wage, that this Work Trials programme awards less than the minimum wage seems to have escaped everyone’s notice.
Through the scheme, people claiming JSA can go to work for private employers for up to thirty days. Instead of being paid by the employer, they continue to claim JSA, plus a lunch and travel allowance for the thirty days. The JSA (and the allowances) divided by the number of hours worked is less than the current minimum wage, to say nothing of the living wage that the Left is campaigning for.
In essence, the programme is a direct subsidy to business from the government, advertised to employers as “Try Before You Buy”, with no obligation whatsoever to buy. The only advantage it carries is that it gives people up to thirty days experience of a given job, though the companies involved generally employ unskilled labour from the jobcentre so the advantage is fairly negligible.
The other thing is that it doesn’t address the ratio of people to jobs, it simply allows for the private sector to absorb what it wishes to and ignore the rest. Theoretically an employer on unskilled labour could repeatedly allow individuals to fill a space the employer might otherwise have to pay for. The programme is thus not a solution or a way to decrease unemployment, short term or long term.
To do that, the government might have to get (got forbid) structurally involved in the economy through a series of public works programmes, where different skill sets could be employed doing what they have been trained to do, in a way that benefits our social and public services.
Employed so, the opportunities for unionisation would exist, and the insecurity that prevents people campaigning against the sub-minimum wage levels would not. Reading over some TUC guidance notes, it appears that the government actually changed the NMW laws in 2008 so that work trials could be exempt.
These programmes, and associated ideas, were the work of David Freud, the investment banker who was employed by the government (not a Work Trial!) to do a review of the welfare system. They were then stewarded by James Purnell and then Yvette Cooper, the former having supervised as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the changing of the 1999 NMW laws to the benefit of employers.
Chris Grayling, Purnell’s shadow at the time, enthusastically backed the plans (and several bloggers said the plans were outright nicked from the Tories), which should truthfully be a warning all of its own. But it seems Labour couldn’t even wait for the Tories to get in before undermining what they continually spout as one of their major achievements.
Edited by dilbert on Sunday 14th February 16:37
Sorry for the belated reply to the above messages. Have not had time to get on and post anything recently.
As far as I can understand from the company I currently work for, they are of the view they can't afford to pay me. I would have used the terminology in that sentence of "my current employer" however seeing as I am not currently employed they cannot be termed my current employer.
I have done a bit of digging over the past few days and have found a potential source of finance. Apparently my Local Authority run a training for work scheme and may be able to get some payment from that as long the workplace will pay a set minimum a week.
I think it is more galling to know that your working 45-50 hours a week and the work your doing is directly billable to a client. I could understand it slightly more if for example all I was doing was observing working practices but it isn't like that.
It is, as someone pointed out above, a catch 22 situation. I must complete this training to eventually become chartered and after answering myself the question I know that currently this is definitely what I want to do. Should I for example get to a point where I raise the issue of money and it is established that they cant pay and I cant work for nothing then id obviously be out of work.
In an ideal world, minimum wage for the next 2 years or even £100 a week I suppose would currently be ok. Thankfully got understanding parents letting me stay at home rent free but for many others who are no doubt in the same position it will be a lot harder.
Just getting to a point where having the motivation to go into a place of work for the third month in a row without getting paid is proving more difficult. I am a strongly motivated individual to and have worked since leaving school all through uni and can honestly say this is the first time I have almost started to not want to go to work.
Realise this is turning into a bit more of a moan now rather than asking many more questions ha.
Malcy
As far as I can understand from the company I currently work for, they are of the view they can't afford to pay me. I would have used the terminology in that sentence of "my current employer" however seeing as I am not currently employed they cannot be termed my current employer.
I have done a bit of digging over the past few days and have found a potential source of finance. Apparently my Local Authority run a training for work scheme and may be able to get some payment from that as long the workplace will pay a set minimum a week.
I think it is more galling to know that your working 45-50 hours a week and the work your doing is directly billable to a client. I could understand it slightly more if for example all I was doing was observing working practices but it isn't like that.
It is, as someone pointed out above, a catch 22 situation. I must complete this training to eventually become chartered and after answering myself the question I know that currently this is definitely what I want to do. Should I for example get to a point where I raise the issue of money and it is established that they cant pay and I cant work for nothing then id obviously be out of work.
In an ideal world, minimum wage for the next 2 years or even £100 a week I suppose would currently be ok. Thankfully got understanding parents letting me stay at home rent free but for many others who are no doubt in the same position it will be a lot harder.
Just getting to a point where having the motivation to go into a place of work for the third month in a row without getting paid is proving more difficult. I am a strongly motivated individual to and have worked since leaving school all through uni and can honestly say this is the first time I have almost started to not want to go to work.
Realise this is turning into a bit more of a moan now rather than asking many more questions ha.
Malcy
Cheers V8. No contract in place currently. Completed work for them and after completion of that period of work the partner invited me to stay and follow him to gain experience. Since that happened I have been completing actual work for the company and would consider myself to be in a position where I am earning for the company. Training for them does not cost anything. I am registering this week with the RICS myself at the cost of about £650.00 and there would be no further costs for them. Only real costs are in the tea bags I go through in a week ha.
Average surveying graduate was earning about 18k over past few years.
Once qualified would be hopeful of roughly 25k.
Malcy
Average surveying graduate was earning about 18k over past few years.
Once qualified would be hopeful of roughly 25k.
Malcy
Fair play to you for shooting for the career you want, but I'm concerned that you may not be covered by your (non)employers' insurance. As they don't pay you, you're not an employee and may not be covered in the event that you are injured or cause injury to others. You need to clarify this before doing any more work, particularly onsite work.
This is one of those sad and difficult situations. Clearly they will be breaking the law by employing but not paying, similarly the situation probably doesn't satisfy the RICS's requirements either. But the minimum wage situation probably won't come to anything unless you complain, in which case the training won't happen. The main thing I suggest you need to be sure of is that the RICS is happy with the situation, working for nothing for 2 years is bad but doing it for no reward if the RICS don't recognise that you qualify for APC would be awful.
I think you should contact the RICS and see what their view would be of this arrangement. I am doing my professional qualifications to become an architect, not a dissimilar process, and I know that the RIBA have issued guidelines that no student should work for nothing. They take a very dim view and I believe that (although would have to check) that a chartered practice not paying a student could loose its chartered status.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff