Two points raised by other commenters:

1. The police are offering the opportunity to work for free because recruitment has been frozen. If there really are no jobs, there’s not much point getting people to strive for them for nothing, is there? That would be dishonest.

2. The job title of Special Constable already exists, yes. No cynicism there. The exploitation of a role for volunteers, to address a wage-paying problem that is limiting recruitment, is very cynical, however.

I’m with you on this one – I just dont’ think it’s reasonable to use the ‘you should do it for the love of it’ logic here. Otherwise surely we’re saying that the value of your work should be linked to how unrewarding you find it. Plus as you say, just because you enjoy it, that doesn’t mean you’d do it if you weren’t getting paid… Who wouldn’t rather be at home than at work?

@Gareth
I’m sort of mystified at your expression “this weeds out the opportunists”. What’s opportunist about wanting a job and to be paid for it? And why shouldn’t so-called vocational jobs pay well? I don’t think my mother would have endured years of emptying bedpans, having to restrain violent, drunken “patients” or comforting the dying (all part of being an NHS nurse) if she wasn’t also going to get paid for it…

Clare

Thanks for your contribution. I’m not the only one to have concerns about this though. The headline in this morning’s Metro was: “Police recruiting plans ‘favour middle classes’” and Dee Doocey, a Lib Dem member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said:

“If our aim was to recruit from the middle classes, this move would be fine. But our aim is to make the Met more representative of the communities it serves.”

Jenny Jones of the Green Party said:

“We are asking people to work for nothing and that is unfair when poverty is going to be on the increase.”

And by they way, I think a lot of charities are behaving outrageously towards their interns – which they’re allowed to do legally because of loophole in the law – but that doesn’t make it right. Don’t worry, I’ll be going for them shortly as I believe this is not what true ‘volunteering’ is supposed to be about. It is simply taking advantage of young people’s desperation to get experience. Everybody else who works for charities gets paid, so why not the intern?

PS. I’m all for a good debate – but since everything I write seems to make you really, really angry, do you think perhaps Graduate Fog might not be the right website for you? You’re very welcome of course… You just seem to get yourself all worked up every time I post about anything… and I’m not about to change my mind on any of this any time soon – sorry!

I have no intention of trying to reorganise the recruitment process for the public sector!

However, some of the arguments you use to justify this compulsory ‘volunteering’ are frankly chilling – because i’ve heard them a THOUSAND times by people in the private sector to justify their own (usually exploitative) use of unpaid interns!

volunteering within public services demonstrates goodwill, allows people to obtain experiences that can enable them to develop perspective, and also to get meaningful references and recommendations

This is EXACTLY the kind of talk that newspaper editors have been using to justify unpaid work experience for YEARS. I just don’t want to see the public sector make the same mistakes the private sector has made.

And just because a career is deemed ‘vocational’, i think that’s no excuse to exploit people. It’s almost as if we’re saying that if you want a job you’ll enjoy at all, you have to work for free for a year before you start. What kind of a depressing message is that to send out to our young people?

I have no problem with a bit of unpaid work shadowing to see what an industry is like – but once somebody is effectively doing a ‘job’ then I think they should be paid. Just because some people genuinely volunteer to do this for no money as a part-time ‘give-back’ to their community (Special constables), i don’t think that makes it okay to insist that all applicants do this unpaid work before they can even APPLY for paid work.

I know the number of hours being asked for by the police isn’t outrageous – but my point is that it’s a very slippery slope…

That should be the end of the argument.

This isnt about exploiting aspirants, but more about seeing whether they have a realistic understanding of a role and the personal qualities required to actually perform it. This is especially important when there is an expensive public funded training involved (as in the case of the police, nursing, etc).

While the potential for exploitation is there (especially in fields like media where the situation is quite complicated), volunteering within public services demonstrates goodwill, allows people to obtain experiences that can enable them to develop perspective, and also to get meaningful references and recommendations (i.e from a person in the industry rather than a university tutor).

And as for the example you give for politicians, I’m not an expert in this but I likewise think they shouldn’t be expected to work for free either.

Secondly, I’m aware that special constables already exist – and I my suspicion is that this is what is confusing the decision-makers at the Met.

I am not suggesting graduate and non-graduate SCs. Rather, I think we should distinguish between those who are true volunteers and those who are training to become full-time, paid-police officers.

My outrage is not about the number of hours of unpaid labour expected from new recruits – as you say, this is not a huge amount. (Although I actually think 16 hours a month around your regular job is a pretty big commitment for most young people).

But whether they are expected to do 16 hours a month or 160 hours a month, the principle is the same, in my mind – and this is a dangerous precedent to set.

Why? Because if we say that this is okay, we are opening up a can of worms. How many hours a month of unpaid work are we saying is okay? At what point is it acceptable – and unacceptable?

My outrage (which incidentally, I consider entirely justified!) is not connected to the number of hours new recruits would be asked to work for free. My outrage is for the dangerous precedent that this would set (shock 1) – and the fact that this suggestion has come not only from the public sector (shock 2) – but from the POLICE (shock 3), who you would think would be aware of the legalities of this suggestion!

Just because the situation is way worse in the private sector (which I agree that it is), does not mean that it’s okay to start it on a lesser scale in the public sector.

It’s clear that we need junior, paid jobs – for graduates and non-graduates. Clearly, this is not going to be easy to achieve under the current circumstances. But requiring our young people to work for nothing – for whatever length of time – in order to even be CONSIDERED for paid work is just NOT an acceptable method of cost-cutting.