Opinions Please

Gringo180

Hi there I dont post in this forum often but one thing that has got under my skin is these internships that offer full time work with 50 euro on top of your social welfare payment. Im a 4th year apprentice plasterer and have been out of work for the past year and have been trying to look for a different career be it factory work or retail as I cant seem to get back into the construction industry to finish off my trade unfortunately.

Whats peoples opinions on these schemes, I feel that this is exploitation of people who find themselves out of work through no fault of there own, for instance I've been coming across more and more of these interships and am baffled to see them advertised for jobs such as factory work and even supermarket work, it doesnt take 9 months to learn the ropes in these kind of jobs (no disrespect intended)

Id work for minimum wage at the moment but im finding it very hard to find work as every second job I look at is an internship.

Gurgle

You can split these WPP jobs into 3 groups:
1) Experience: Gets people with nothing on their CVs into the workplace where they can prove themselves. There may not be a permanent position to be filled in the company, but it gets people over the first hurdle of entering the workforce.
2) 6 Month Trial: Company has an opening, but is slow to hire because they don't want to find themselves saddled with someone who looks suitable on paper but turns out not to be up to the job.
3) Cheap unskilled labour, company has no intention of hiring but wants to take advantage of the system. No benefit to the employee (learns nothing), or anyone else.

1 and 2 make the scheme worthwhile, 3 needs to be stamped out by whoever approves the placements.

RichardAnd

My own opinion of unpaid work is that it has its place. Many people work for the Vincent De Paul or the Simon Community for no remuneration which is admirable. I myself have done volunteer work in an archive simply to indulge an interest and to help out in caring for a fascinating collection that was horribly underfunded.

Now, internships, that's a slightly different kettle of fish. On the one hand, they offer the individual a chance to gain experience which is great and they might even give them a start in an industry. The employer gets some work done and the intern gets experience, sound great eh? This is a little simplistic.

The first and foremost reason why I believe internships to be wrong is that they violate the number one reason people work; to generate income. The work "job" is a misnomer as what one really means by it is a wage. That internships do not offer a proper wage means that many simply can not afford to do them at all. As experience is required for work, this effectively gives an advantage to graduates who have parents capable of supporting them whilst they work. In short, it puts poorer grads at a disadvantage.

Next, as internships are becoming ubiquitous, there is a real change of them ensconcing themselves into the work environment. Just as widespread degrees made them a must have, internships could become the next step after a degree before someone has a change in hell of landing a good job. A one year internship for free might give someone and edge but if thousands are doing the same, they might need to do two years of working for free. This is a nasty cycle to start off.

Lastly, working for someone when you know they aren't paying you is not good for one's mentality. I have no doubt than an internship would sap someone's moral and sense of self worth. I could not work for no salary because I know I don't have it within me. Am I alone in that? I doubt it.

Gringo180

Gurgle wrote: »

You can split these WPP jobs into 3 groups:
1) Experience: Gets people with nothing on their CVs into the workplace where they can prove themselves. There may not be a permanent position to be filled in the company, but it gets people over the first hurdle of entering the workforce.
2) 6 Month Trial: Company has an opening, but is slow to hire because they don't want to find themselves saddled with someone who looks suitable on paper but turns out not to be up to the job.
3) Cheap unskilled labour, company has no intention of hiring but wants to take advantage of the system. No benefit to the employee (learns nothing), or anyone else.

1 and 2 make the scheme worthwhile, 3 needs to be stamped out by whoever approves the placements.

Working a 40 hour week for 238 euro's just doesnt cut it, sure the extra 50 euro would go on transport cost to get to the job. It would cost me more to do a scheme than to sit at home, how on earth is this right?

Now instead of having a 40 hour week why dont they cut it to 15/20 hours at least then you can have a chance of getting part time work as well to raise your income?

Gurgle

Gringo180 wrote: »

Working a 40 hour week for 238 euro's just doesnt cut it, sure the extra 50 euro would go on transport cost to get to the job. It would cost me more to do a scheme than to sit at home, how on earth is this right?

You're looking at it as a low-paid job. Don't.
Look at it as a (sponsored) training course, with an allowance added to your dole towards the cost of attending.