Are ‘auditions’ a valuable job hunting tool, or exploitation?

For the first column of the new year, a reader raises an interesting question — and one I hadn’t considered before. It involves the practices of potential employers asking the applicant to do work for free.

“I am a freelance web designer specializing in animation using Flash. Recently I have been looking for a full-time position.

“Despite a strong online portfolio, several employers have been asking me to ‘audition’ using specs that they have provided. Is this usual? It sounds very sneaky to me. I have done two ‘auditions’ so far for prospective employers. In both cases I have not provided the working files, or ‘.fla.’

“One of the prospective employers is now saying that they want the .fla files which would allow them to utilize the files — presumably without paying me for the work. I told them this is not something that is standard (making it up as I go along since this ‘audition’ thing is new to me).

“Is this something that a lot of employers are now doing? It is awfully difficult to look for jobs if I am constantly working for free. If this is the new standard, how do I diplomatically come up with an agreement before it gets to the point it has with prospective employer #2? What are the legal and ethical ramifications for asking a designer to do original work as an ‘audition’? I don’t have the ability to take anyone to court if they use the work without permission.

“Have you heard of anyone else having these problems?”

First, because I’m not a lawyer I can’t comment on the legal aspects, although common sense would seem to indicate that for someone to use your work without permission or compensation would be actionable. However, as the writer notes, taking someone to court — even small claims court — isn’t always possible or successful. And that assumes that you detect the infringement at all.

The idea of “auditions” or “tryouts” has good arguments for and against it. Although you may have an outstanding portfolio, a prospective employer has no idea what relation your original contribution had to the finished product. Asking you to produce something new according to their specs would theoretically give them a better idea.

I say theoretically, because unless you produced the Flash animation under the company’s supervision, the company has no way of knowing how long it took you to do it — you may have worked day and night — and no way of knowing whether you had help from someone else. Unscrupulous people wouldn’t be above having someone more knowledgeable provide assistance.

There is also a certain amount of unfairness in this type of “audition,” something you do at home, because it leaves some job candidates at a disadvantage. A single parent, for example, taking care of small children and working a part-time job to bring in extra cash doesn’t have quite the luxury of time that a single person might, especially someone living off a generous severance package from their last job. This alone makes any comparison between the two candidates skewed in favor of the latter. As the reader notes, doing a series of auditions can hinder the job-hunting process.

It’s not uncommon in the journalism business for a company to require a candidate to do a “tryout.” This involves coming into the office for a week or so and actually doing the job, for which the company provides compensation. This is a little better, but still flawed. Those in the office see you as an interruption in their day and have no real stake in seeing you succeed, as they would with a new employee. But it’s better than the “work at home for free” scenario, and it eliminates the main question the reader raised, which was about the ethics of the company’s using the free work.

I don’t think it’s hard to come to the conclusion that it would be unethical for the company to require an “audition” and then use someone’s work without compensation. However, there are a lot of unethical companies out there, so the practice may abound. Readers, I’m sure, have more experience in this than I do.

It’s hard for the applicant to refuse, since a refusal would almost certainly destroy any chances for getting the job. On the other hand, if the company is unethical from the get-go, it might be a good place not to work, because I doubt if the shady practices end at stealing honest work from job applicants.

What would be a practical solution? I would send the files along with a notice that they are being supplied only for the purposes of evaluation and that any use would be a violation of copyright and would incur a fee of just under the limit for small claims. If the company used them without permission, I’d file a suit in small claims court, which requires no lawyer and a small fee. If the company refused to pay the judgment, I’d make sure the black mark went on its credit record, something that most companies don’t really like.

There may be more elegant or effective solutions. Perhaps some readers have encountered this and handled it differently — or have had bad experiences.

There is also the possibility that the company is completely above-board, but I think in the current climate a little paranoia is a good thing.