Work to empower unpaid staff
MID-WAY through January it’s hard to cast the mind back to all the joys, and some of the challenges, of Christmas. Unless, that is, you happen to be one of those so desperate to find gainful employment you worked for precisely nothing, when it’s just the challenges that linger in the mind.
Gainful work for nothing is a contradiction in terms but a growing trend among some employers is the so called “trial shift” – without pay.
An old expression, particularly attributed to penny-pinching Yorkshire folk, comes to mind: If there’s owt for nowt, I’ll be there with a barrow.
The festivities provided an ideal chance for the unscrupulous business owner of that mindset. The sort of people looking for extra hands at peak periods.
In essence, these bosses tell the job seeker they can have a go at whatever task is associated with the position in tones that suggest success will result in full-time employment. Tones – but not a binding guarantee.
What’s more, good bad or indifferent performance will be met with the same lack of remuneration and an excuse at the end of hard toil that leads to being shown the door.
It is a prevalent technique in the hospitality industry and in the small goods delivery sector, mainly but not exclusively among smaller outfits. Bars, restaurants and shops are included. It helps cover staff shortages without the associated cost, so the employer is making more money while pro r at a paying less in wage overheads.
Let’s be clear. This bears absolutely no resemblance to the old and now pretty much extinct practice of giving a ‘lad or lass a chance’ on the career ladder. That resulted in payment of an agreed amount if they did a decent day’s work. More often than not a permanent job was offered – as promised on the shake of hands.
Gone is the honour of the employer’s word, replaced with a particularly insidious brand of exploitation delivered with a palpable in-your-face smirk. Just because they can get away with it, without legal hassle.
You may have read on Christmas Eve that an MP from Scotland has emboldened his campaign to ban unpaid shifts of this type.
The SNP’s Stewart McDonald represents Glasgow South at the UK Parliament.
He has written to every Westminster MP urging they back his Private Members’ Bill proposing a law against the practice. The STUC supports the move.
There is no question at all that this 19th century practice has no place in a modern world of work. Yet I can’t help being worried that as we plod down the road to leaving the EU this type of job seeker exploitation may be brushed under the carpet. Unseen, without voice, bereft of rights.
Yes, there have been some assurances (let’s call them robust assumptions) that when the UK does leave the other 27 member states to get on with running one of the globe’s biggest economic clubs, Britain will retain key elements of EU-inspired employment law. And yes, the UK helped develop and instigate a fair bit of that law.
But if the chips are down for smaller employers, at least for a period of Brexit adjustment, then without action now accompanied by proper legislative powers to bring transgressors to book, then the will to examine ways to outlaw trial shifts will later be diluted.
It might simply be labelled unnecessary red tape for small businesses.
Well managed and reputable SMEs would surely have nothing to fear in making annual reports about worker engagement policy/ practice alignment.
In principle it would resemble gender balance audits required of larger corporates. It need not be any more onerous on SME managers than the need to provide a workplace pension. Simplicity is possible alongside rigorous process.
All the aforementioned business sectors rely on their staff, tempo- rary or permanent, for their reputation. In turn that translates to custom, and profit.
The bigger question might be who should police the move and what systems should be in place to deter those who would flout the law.
Should local authorities have a delegated responsibility in their areas, like a Trading Standards Office? That one might be difficult given the current financial pressures councils are under.
These are unlikely to go away overnight and Brexit, in the first instance, might even make service delivery more challenging than it is today. Should an Employment Practices Tsar be established, with a national office and regional inspectors with a right to enter premises without prior notice.
Whistleblowing seems the least expensive way of gathering intelligence – but it has its own drawbacks. Investigators need to establish the facts and separate
Gone is the honour of the employer’s word, replaced with a particularly insidious brand of exploitation
any fiction from a disaffected “employee” posing as hard evidence.
There are many hurdles to overcome but overcome they must be. And to do that, my suggestion of some sort of reporting mechanism obliging employers to show evidence of headcounts against wages bills is a necessary small additional administrative burden.
The Department of Work & Pensions needs to sort out the details. Maybe it should be an addition to tax returns.
If the UK is serious about being a forward-thinking, advanced, productive and fair economy and society, this relatively small moral issue could underline a bigger set of world-leading values.