hi went and signed on at an agency said only wanted 1 or 2 max days a week and if they had no work anytime it’s no problem. Then they said I have to do assesment for dhl. No problem went along thought it would an hour or so, no it was a whole day.will admit after a couple of hours I had enough but stuck it out. Is this the norm now everywhere ? Also you have to do it all again in a years time, unpaid of course. Cheers
That is taking the pee
You will not fall for that one again
Your right there, at the moment mowing grass for the old dears who live on their own is looking more appealing. Haha.
If you ask for pay on the assessment - they might well volunteer that “It’s only for an hour” to get out of paying. Fair enough if that’s the truth. You wouldn’t be paid attending a job interview of similar length and “test” content after all.
If they don’t make this declaration however, they are intending on employing you for free for the day, and laying the insurance aspect themselves as many of the larger firms can do.
Don’t let them take the ■■■■…
If you can’t get work without an assessment, then they are not recognising your licence, which is a form of discrimination.
Assessments should be purely about “changeover” for any new and different kit from usual you might be required to drive, and a H&S induction of procedures at any particular yard.
That takes 30-90 minutes - and you won’t be doing any actual “work” in that time either.
Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL. 
Winseer:
If you ask for pay on the assessment - they might well volunteer that “It’s only for an hour” to get out of paying. Fair enough if that’s the truth. You wouldn’t be paid attending a job interview of similar length and “test” content after all.If they don’t make this declaration however, they are intending on employing you for free for the day, and laying the insurance aspect themselves as many of the larger firms can do.
Don’t let them take the ■■■■…
If you can’t get work without an assessment, then they are not recognising your licence, which is a form of discrimination.
Assessments should be purely about “changeover” for any new and different kit from usual you might be required to drive, and a H&S induction of procedures at any particular yard.
That takes 30-90 minutes - and you won’t be doing any actual “work” in that time either.Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL.
+1
Are people THAT gullible? FFS! 
90% of the day was shut in a room not driving. My mrs said if they told you it was all Day I never would of gone, that’s why they never told me. She is right I should of asked how long not assume only an hour or so . I will have to put it down to experience, mind you by the time I do a day I will of forgotten all what was said.
Winseer:
Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL.
you talk some twaddle
nick2008:
Winseer:
Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL.you talk some twaddle
Do I?
I speak the difference between someone who’s worked in a unionised environment and someone who’s clearly happy to be crap on the firm’s shoe and treated thus on demand.
If one doesn’t cut and thrust when one strongly disagrees with something - that disagreement won’t be given voice in the first place.
If a workforce ever let the thin end of the wedge in - they’ll be bending over letting it in their whole lives. That’s only twaddle if you have a cap-in-hand attitude towards working, taking a lickcock attitude towards a potential employing firm as if the firm is taking a bullet for you when they offer you a job. All cons are about tricking someone to agree to being shafted. If foolhardy staff agree, then it’s still an illegal thing - but the law won’t give a ■■■■, because no complaint will ever be made by those who aid and abet a firm in treating staff thus.
I have done 2 induction/assessment days at different DHL sites
one lasted over 7 hours and that was without a driving assessment as well
and the other about 2 hours with about half hour driving assessment
and i was paid 8 hours for both 
DHL assessments all seem to be different. Sainsbury’s, Dartford was 4 hours assessment followed by 7 hour induction next day, then went to Lidl, Northfleet and had 1 hour drive after which assessor said no point in going all through induction as you’ll pick it up as you go along which was fine by me. Didn’t get paid by either, but then as I wasn’t employed by them don’t see why they would have to pay you. Not really fair I know, but that’s life.
Odd days:
hi went and signed on at an agency said only wanted 1 or 2 max days a week and if they had no work anytime it’s no problem. Then they said I have to do assesment for dhl. No problem went along thought it would an hour or so, no it was a whole day.will admit after a couple of hours I had enough but stuck it out. Is this the norm now everywhere ? Also you have to do it all again in a years time, unpaid of course. Cheers
Howdens was an 8hr assessment/induction. We got paid the 8hrs and at full rate once we’d done 5 days there which I think is a good compromise.
Winseer:
If you can’t get work without an assessment, then they are not recognising your licence, which is a form of discrimination.
Well according to some on this site the license is easy to get,is essentially just bought and anyone can get one easily so its hardly discrimination when drivers themselves seem determined to run it down.
In fact,if they read this site on a regular basis they will be even more determined to issue assessments!
Winseer:
nick2008:
Winseer:
Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL.you talk some twaddle
Do I?
I speak the difference between someone who’s worked in a unionised environment and someone who’s clearly happy to be crap on the firm’s shoe and treated thus on demand.
If one doesn’t cut and thrust when one strongly disagrees with something - that disagreement won’t be given voice in the first place.If a workforce ever let the thin end of the wedge in - they’ll be bending over letting it in their whole lives. That’s only twaddle if you have a cap-in-hand attitude towards working, taking a lickcock attitude towards a potential employing firm as if the firm is taking a bullet for you when they offer you a job. All cons are about tricking someone to agree to being shafted. If foolhardy staff agree, then it’s still an illegal thing - but the law won’t give a ■■■■, because no complaint will ever be made by those who aid and abet a firm in treating staff thus.
correct 
never a true word spoken 
Winseer:
nick2008:
Winseer:
Getting you to work for an entire shift for no pay is “employing someone for less than minimum wage” and is therefore ILLEGAL.you talk some twaddle
Do I?
I speak the difference between someone who’s worked in a unionised environment and someone who’s clearly happy to be crap on the firm’s shoe and treated thus on demand.
If one doesn’t cut and thrust when one strongly disagrees with something - that disagreement won’t be given voice in the first place.If a workforce ever let the thin end of the wedge in - they’ll be bending over letting it in their whole lives. That’s only twaddle if you have a cap-in-hand attitude towards working, taking a lickcock attitude towards a potential employing firm as if the firm is taking a bullet for you when they offer you a job. All cons are about tricking someone to agree to being shafted. If foolhardy staff agree, then it’s still an illegal thing - but the law won’t give a ■■■■, because no complaint will ever be made by those who aid and abet a firm in treating staff thus.
it’s twaddle to say that it’s illegal under the circs described. The driver is not “employed” , merely attending an assesment for the possibility of future employment. Having got that out of the way, if a company needs 8 hours to assess the candidates suitablility for a job that a monkey can be trained to do (OK, almost! ) then one has to wonder at the companies operations.
However you are correct to say that unless and until drivers refuse such treatment then companies will continue to impose such rules and similar rules that apply all the way throughout the industry
If you are being given tests, asked questions, filling out paperwork, and attending interviews - then sure, you’re on “Interview” and are not employed.
It’s when a firm gets you to actually perform a task normally given to a member of staff - that “employment for free” has taken place, and as I said, employing anyone for less than the minimum wage is illegal. “Not calling it employment” doesn’t make that so. I can call the contents of your wallet ‘mine’ - but that wouldn’t mean I’ve not nicked it (an illegal act) should I then decide to pick up said wallet, and walk away… 
If you said “help yourself” and later changed your mind however, then I’ve copped the lot on the basis of ‘a misunderstanding’ - the same kind proliferated by firms aiming to take advantage of those so desperate for a job, they’d do whatever it takes just to get their foot in the door. Of course, it doesn’t work even then!
…Even the biggest crawler lickcock on the planet might still not be taken on - should there be someone even better next in line… It is hard to trump someone who’ll work for free on demand though - I’ll give you that.
Such people knuckling down to nasty systems like this also opens the door to them working free on some future occasions too… Perhaps as a disciplinary procedure for various “out of order” actions… A bit like being fined at work you might say:-
“You’ve got three tacho infringements here my son - one of them quite serious. Tell you what, we’ll not pay you for a couple of hours of your last weekend shift, and we’ll omit to upload this particular bit of data at the end of this week… Have a nice day…”
Could that ^^^ happen? 
so for my job I had 2 x interview and a presentation. but you wouldn’t do it as not paid.
I did and am now at one of the best places I have ever worked, I supply DHL and yes its different from site to site but most pay for it so whats the problem.
if so many people didn’t put claim after claim in they wouldn’t have this sign to say you can walk up the stairs etc.
Winseer:
If you can’t get work without an assessment, then they are not recognising your licence, which is a form of discrimination.
■■■■■■■■. Unlike the majority of jobs you are sent out with £100,000s of vehicle and load in a very high risk environment and any decent company would want to ensure that the applicant is capable of doing that. Airlines don’t just randomly throw someone in a Boeing 747 the day they get their commercial pilot license. Lots of firms do assessments before handing someone the controls.
Testing someone for competency isn’t discrimination and given your previous comments on some of the people holding LGV licenses I would have thought you were the last person who would come out with that crap.
It’s when a firm gets you to actually perform a task normally given to a member of staff - that “employment for free” has taken place, and as I said, employing anyone for less than the minimum wage is illegal.
I assume that the term “emplyment for free” is something that you have invented as I have never heard of it before.
The fact is…in the case specified the OP was not employed, he had agreed no employment terms with the company nor had the company at that time offered him employment. nor was he on “interview” he was on assesment. An assesment enquires as to the ability to do the task, not merely to examine that you know how to or are qualified to. The company may have accepted that his licence and cpc qualified him for the job but for their own reasons wanted to look at him in depth, perhaps checking out customer realtions when stressed etc.
The fact that he was doing something that normally would be done by a paid emplyee simply has no bearing whatsover IMO.
I do agree with your sentiments regarding this kind of thing, we disagree merely on the technicallity of it being illegal.
Conor:
Winseer:
If you can’t get work without an assessment, then they are not recognising your licence, which is a form of discrimination.■■■■■■■■. Unlike the majority of jobs you are sent out with £100,000s of vehicle and load in a very high risk environment and any decent company would want to ensure that the applicant is capable of doing that. Airlines don’t just randomly throw someone in a Boeing 747 the day they get their commercial pilot license. Lots of firms do assessments before handing someone the controls.
Testing someone for competency isn’t discrimination and given your previous comments on some of the people holding LGV licenses I would have thought you were the last person who would come out with that crap.
I’m not against “testing” people. I’m against USING people. Big difference.
Funny how it seems to be the lower payers who put the most fences to jump - rather than the higher value loads and kit.
Anyone can get a job driving a security van with the highest load values of all. Just a vetting procedure to make sure you’re not a known criminal, or associated with any - then it’s all about you being “Keener” on the job than the next person… Given that you and the other bods are equally “qualified”…
“Keener” will often end up being “prepared to do more for less” in the line of duty. Some firms even like candidates who are prepared to commute 50+ miles over an equal-on-paper applicant from nearby…
Meritocracy it ain’t.
I’ve got nothing against being tested - it’s when everything OTHER than the “test results” then decide the outcome of everything from “getting the job” in the first place right upto being promoted/getting pay rises.
As for “comments on some of the people holding LGV licences” - That implies (1) I don’t have one myself (2) Everyone else’s is spotless and (3) mine isn’t. Wrong, Wrong, and wrong.
The comments about what airlines do - would be in poor taste right now to even discuss. Let’s leave it at that.