Strange. There is a cynic in my head questioning the story. You would think that the young lad would have said something. The employer was taking advantage of the lad.
One day a newspaper will print all the facts in an unbiased way.
Poor kid I feel so sorry for the adolescents who are desperate for "work" and ignore the danger signs ( wasnt asked for his NI number or tax code, was he ? )
and yes it does happen - my brudda "worked" for Films and FIlming in the seventies without a contract and was told after eight weeks that he was on column inch rate and offered twenty quid ( for two months ) .
wind forward to the millenial solar eclipse - those hired as stewards for the events in Cornwall ( alcohol and drug soaked ) were told that there wasnt the money to pay them afterwards. Someone had the same thought as me and wrote to the Times saying the organisers must have known this at the time ( = were trading whilst insolvent, which is a crime and a fraud on existing creditors )
I feel so sorry for the willing kids and it teaches the the wrong lessons early on in life - to wit it is OK to take advantage or screw people younger or less able than you
or indeed it is absolutely OK to mislead someone to work for youand then say there is no pay in this
Yes, I did a day's work once through an agency and when i queried after a couple of weeks why on this occasion I hadn't received any pay for it I was told it had been a 'trial day' - so I wasn't best pleased as that was news to me.
In this case though the lad did know it was starting as unpaid work experience- people still at school do that quite often- and the shop owner is implying the lad didn't do any work just
Like Mikey I find the notion of working part time in a corner shop being described as an “internship” somewhat amusing.
The boy’s “employers” and his parents need to read up on the rules employing children:
The law does not say that those aged 15 cannot work. They may do so, subject to a number of conditions. One of those conditions falls foul of this:
“He always made the effort to be there on time and worked way past 9pm, which was the time we agreed.”
Someone aged 15 may not work before 7am or after 7pm.
It seems likely that this boy may have been “helping out” in the same way that many of those seeking asylum (and thus prohibited from working) “help out” at their local curry house. (At least that's what they say when spotted by immigration officials in full chef’s whites or up to their elbows in greasy water).
The shopkeeper probably believed that by sticking to that contention the rules on employing young people were not applicable.
Thanks for the link Mamyalynne. The story still doesn't quite stack up to me- he says he wasted 45 hours working there and yet in the other article his mum said he worked nearly every day in the half term holidays and he says he had been working after school until 9.30pm, so after 10 weeks I'd have thought it was at least 100 hours.
Maybe I'm too protective as a parent but I'd have sought clarity about pay before allowing a child to spend so much time there instead of doing homework.
The shop owner does seem to have form though. I'm not sure anyone comes out of this well, apart from possibly the lad who was simply naive- unless there is much more to this story than we know now.
Family friends? I wonder if they are now- or maybe everyone's a winner as teh money comes in.