Yes mate, thank god. Qualified PE teacher now . Doing some supply though, saving up to hopefully go to Australia early next year and do some supply over there/argue with Sheldon further about this brilliant internship .

If they need a job doing, then I'd say 'yes' - relying on free labour isn't a good look. If it is an opportunity to do a bit of shadowing and learn a bit about the job then fair enough. If they start chatting about fixed hours and meeting deadlines or targets, then I'd advise people to be sceptical. Also in terms of your CV these things offer most over a fortnight, or a month at the outside - that represents 'experience'. There's not much extra value in hanging around for 6 months. A month unpaid looks like you're proactive and genuinely interested, six looks like you're a bit of a soft touch and will raise concerns that you can't have been that good, for them not to have offered something more formal.



True, but there are concerns, which may well not apply here, that some internships ask too much and offer too little and that in a scary and competitive jobs market the naive and young might be taken advantage of. Also there's an issue in some careers (probably not including 'sales and promotions', tbf) that those not from backgrounds wealthy enough to subsidise a pretty lengthy unpaid apprenticeship, are getting excluded entirely. One for the VT, maybe.

Well I hope that singer who was "entertaining" us prior to the game on Sunday was on a internship.

Excellent, well considered post, if you don't mind me saying. Now fook off back to the Rovers board.

Is anyone else of the opinion that the unemployed who claim benefits should have to do something for them?

Loads of people who post on the Daily Mail's comments section are, for a start.

I don't have a clue to be honest as I'm generally too busy working and contributing towards the cost although I'd guess you're inferring it's benefits to support those working on low incomes. Not really sure what you're trying to prove as the welfare bill would be even higher if they weren't working

Depends on how long they've been unemployed and their personal circumstances as to why.

It's pensions and pensioners.

Actually, I'm not. I don't think they should get a bean for sitting on their asses

Means test them I say

And guess what! I worked from 16 to 69 so I'm quite happy to claim back some of the thousands I contributed.

We'd end up paying more.

Quite right.

So any company that has volunteers aren't looking good?


Isn't that part of the skills necessary in the job to gain? You'll find that many people would rather do something than nothing. You'd be short changing them by not getting them involved as much as possible and helping them possess them skills. Watching only achieves so much.


Says who?! I've never met an employer with that attitude at all.
Employers look at how you've spent your time. If you've spent 6 months in unpaid work then you've spent 6 months getting experience. If you've spent 2 weeks volunteering and 5 months doing nothing then what impression will that have? An internship is very much like an apprenticeship. Gives you the experience you need to do the job and puts you in a great position to get the job. It helps people get jobs, and to say it makes companies look like they're getting "free labour" and that they won't look good of it shows a complete lack of understanding of employment IMO.


If you can't afford it, you don't do it. It's as simple as that. There are all sorts of professions, careers, training, etc. that people simply cannot afford without being from a wealthy background. That's just life unfortunately. Unless you can tell me who is going to foot the bill for the intern to be paid or trained (if the company cannot afford it) then you're basically saying it's better to not have the opportunity at all because some people might not be able to afford it than it is to offer something that can gain a select few people a set of skills.