Opening position, so there is something to push against: yes, end the unpaid trial, and replace it with a paid 90-minute working interview at the shop's base rate. Owners lose nothing they need and gain the candidates who currently walk away.
The owner's argument, taken seriously: a CV cannot show workflow, milk texture, or how someone treats a customer at 8:15 when the queue is out the door. That is true. It does not follow that seeing it should be free. A plumber does not fix your sink unpaid to prove they can plumb.
What a paid trial changes in practice:
- The candidate treats it as work, so you see their real pace and manners, not a nervous audition.
- You are forced to plan it: 90 minutes, a checklist, one person watching. Unpaid trials sprawl because they cost nothing.
- The best candidates, who usually have another job, can actually come.
- The cost is trivial: 1.5 hours at base rate is less than the coffee wasted on a bad hire's first week.
The counter-arguments people raise, and the honest replies:
- "Small shops can't afford it." A shop that cannot afford €25 to hire someone has a bigger problem than hiring.
- "Baristas will collect paid trials without wanting the job." Rare, and a 90-minute cap ends it.
- "The law already handles it." In Australia, arguably; in most of Europe the rules are grey enough that full unpaid days still happen every week.
Owners and head baristas: what is the shortest trial you have run that still told you what you needed? Baristas: what did the best trial you ever did look like?