I think it is unreasonable to train for one month, but there is no salary during this period, because people originally went to find a job because they had no money. If they don't pay a penny during the training, the rest is equivalent to posting, including the fare to and from the store and the food for the whole day. So I think this is very unreasonable. You can give less, but you can't give it away for nothing

Although I can understand the jewelry store's behavior, because he is afraid that this person will not come to work after training, training wastes manpower and time, and if he is paid, it is equivalent to both sides. Personally, it's a lose-lose, but I think jewelry stores should be more humane, at least to ensure that they can get round-trip fares and meals. It's not that I have no money, but I have to go to the jewelry store for training every day. In fact, this deprives employees of their labor rights and interests, because of course, they will not always train and talk about theoretical knowledge during the training period. I think this kind of position is more about going to the store to learn from seniors, so going to the store for training means that they are working, and it is very unreasonable not to pay money or pay wages.

This is also an act of skirting the ball, because it actually infringes on the rights and interests of the worker, but he voluntarily receives the training, so the risk of the jewelry store is relatively small. Even if he takes the time to train a person, because the jewelry store will not pay others, it is equal to no loss. Besides, I got a labor force who worked for a month for free. This kind of abacus is actually very loud. I think this is the case before work, and the welfare may not be much better after work.