GRADUATE FOG FEARS UNPAID INTERN ‘CANCER’ HAS SPREAD TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR
It’s not often that Graduate Fog is lost for words.
But that’s what happened when I saw this story in Friday’s Evening Standard (and again when I spotted today’s Telegraph).
As part of an overhaul of police recruitment – to save millions a year in training costs – Scotland Yard is considering making new recruits in London work as volunteer special constables for at least a year before they can apply to become full-time paid Met officers.
My mind immediately began to burst with reasons why this was NOT an okay idea (as I suspect yours is now?).
But Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse explained:
“If you want to become a police officer, this shows your commitment.”
That didn’t help.
Nor did the comments from Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation. In what Graduate Fog considers a spectacular understatement, Smyth conceded:
“If a talented is leaving university with a £20,000 debt then he may not wish to choose to do voluntary work for a year or so before he starts paying off his debt.”
He then went on to admit:
“I can see the benefits though. It makes financial sense and money is tight.”
Oh, it ‘makes financial sense,’ does it?
Not to your young recruits, it doesn’t.
No. No. NO.
Kit.
Pete.
When people do a job, you PAY them.
You are not doing them a favour just because they are young.
And exploitation is not okay just because your organisation isn’t a profit-making one.
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between:
– Volunteering because you want to do something extra for your community, outside of your regular job (as ‘special constables’ do)
and
– ‘Volunteering’ because you have to if you’re ever going to get a proper, paid job doing the same line of work.
The fact that this suggestion has even made it this far (it’s going to the Metropolitan Police Authority this week, 17th May) is causing Graduate Fog serious concern.
My big fear?
That the public sector has seen the way that the private sector (journalism, politics, advertising) takes advantage of the young (and desperate) labour market and…
Instead of being disgusted by this exploitative practice, they are starting to think that getting a slice of this ‘unpaid interns’ action could be the perfect way to cut their own costs in the looming ‘age of austerity’ as the public sector is forced to reduce its spending in order to reduce our nation’s financial deficit.
What they have all conveniently forgotten is that unpaid internships aren’t just unethical – they’re also ILLEGAL.
You’d have thought the police would know that.
My friends at Intern Aware say that the law is absolutely clear on this matter. The TUC says the same.
What I suspect has happened is that they have assumed that the fact that they already have an unpaid cohort of officers (‘special constables’) means that it would be okay to force all new recruits to do unpaid work before considering them for paid work.
Except that forcing people to work unpaid isn’t really the same as them ‘volunteering’, is it?
Graduate Fog says:
People – this is just not an option.
You’ll have to find another way to cut costs.
Because – whether someone is 16, 18, 21, 35, 49, 53 or 66 – when people do a job, they should be paid.
Frankly, I am still scratching my head wondering how – and when – this became unclear or ambiguous in any way.
Everybody else gets PAID to WORK.
How has it become acceptable to deny the young this basic right – simply by making out that employers are doing them a huge favour to ‘get their career started’?
*Have your say
Don’t leave me ranting like a lone loon – you guys agree with me, yes?
Completely agree with you! I am reading this from out of the country at the moment, getting away from all the “horror” at home. I was considering the police maybe as a safe and stable career. The thing is though, normal graduate cannot AFFORD to take a year of free work before then getting a paid job. The only ones who can are the ones with parents who can pay for it and they generally have the advantages anyway!
Thanks Jamie – good to know it’s not just me who thinks this is an outrageous suggestion!!
In fairness to the Met though – and i fear my post wasn’t 100% clear on this – i don’t think they are suggesting that wannabe-coppers work full-time unpaid for a year first – I think they are suggesting that they ‘volunteer’ for a year outside their regular jobs, as the special constables do now (they do over 300 hours a year I think).
But still, this isn’t really ‘volunteering’ if you’re doing it because you HAVE to in order to be considered for paid work, is it?
I remember it was quite controversial when special constables were first introduced – for all sorts of reasons… but no-one imagined that their introduction could actually end up threatening to ‘undercut’ the paid police officers! Stop the madness!!
Tanya,
I have visited your blog many times and often enjoy reading your articles. I myself write blog articles about many similar careers advice issues (and consequently might be tempted to challenge your statement: “the ONLY careers advice website that is actually helpful!”) and will often consult your blog for ideas etc.
However, in this article ‘WTF?! Now unpaid POLICE interns,’ I believe you have significantly mis-interpreted the ideas and reasoning behind the scheme proposed by the Metropolitan Police.
Firstly, I think you have misunderstood the role of volunteer special constables, which are by definition voluntary roles. It isn’t like the metropolitan police are forcing graduates to work unpaid, in fact, they are suggesting that they take on this role (which already exists) to get more experience and on-the-job training. This is not a full-time role either and therefore graduates would still have the opportunity to work in a paid role, and volunteering on side (not something new to graduates seeking good jobs). Volunteer special police constables only have to work 300 hours a year, which actually only equates to around 6 hours a week, not a full-time commitment, I think you will agree.
Secondly, and also the key factor which you have not considered; this scheme is designed for wannabe police officer in London. The reason for this is because currently job recruitment into the police force is frozen in London. What this proposal would allow is for graduates to get some experience, as well as some training (which would reduce the amount of training needed if they manage to secure a full-time position in the force) at a time when recruitment is not possible. This is a temporary attempt at a solution to the lack of available roles in the London police force, not an attempt to exploit graduates.
I refer you to my blog article, which highlights these criticisms (perhaps a little more succinctly): http://blog.gradfutures.com/the-gradfutures-blog/2010/5/19/the-police-get-smart-on-unpaid-work.html
I would be interested to know your thoughts…
Hi Ben –
Thanks for taking the trouble to comment – and I’m glad to hear you are (generally!) a fan of Graduate Fog ; )
I’m sorry you were disappointed by this post. However, you’ll see in my above comment to Jamie Bale that I’ve actually already acknowledged that I don’t think the Met were suggesting new recruits would have to work full-time, for a year, for free. But yes, you’re right, this should have been clearer in my original post. Unfortunately, since this blog (and entire website, in fact) covers such a wide variety of subjects that are relevant to graduates, I’m afraid I simply can’t be an expert in everything – and I won’t get everything right all the time! (Which is why I need people like you to point these things out to me – seriously, please don’t stop!)
HOWEVER, even with this footnote about the suggested ‘voluntary’ work being only part-time, I do feel strongly that my point still stands.
My problem is with this word ‘volunteer’. I don’t know how much you know about the minimum wage laws? But as I understand it (and again, i’m not a legal expert!) ‘volunteers’ are exempt from the National Minimum Wage. ‘Workers’ are not. So the way we define a ‘volunteer’ is important.
Are the young people ‘volunteering’ at many magazines, newspapers, TV and film companies in the hope of eventually being given a job there TRUE ‘volunteers’? I don’t think they are – and neither does the law. Of course – to borrow your own words – nobody is ‘forcing’ them to do this – but in my opinion they are not truly ‘volunteering’, either.
Similarly, I question whether people who become special constables PURELY IN ORDER TO be considered for a full-time paid role are true volunteers either. I just don’t think they are.
Volunteering for you local charity shop, church, soup kitchen etc is one thing. ‘Volunteering’ because you know you HAVE to, to be considered for a paid role is quite something else, in my opinion.
Incidentally, i also understand that a worker does not have the right to waive the miI’m volunteering do to it’. If they do say this, THEY are undermining the minimum wage laws, which is also not allowed.
Another point I’m going to have to question is when you say: “What this proposal would allow is for graduates to get some experience, as well as some training…at a time when recruitment is not possible.”
Ben, if I’ve heard this argument once, I’ve heard it a THOUSAND times! People use it in media, in politics, in publishing… and to be honest it make my blood boil! What’s particularly worrying is that until now it’s only come from the mouths of private sector folks – not public sector people.
I’m also worried about your statement: “This is a temporary attempt at a solution to the lack of available roles in the London police force, not an attempt to exploit graduates.”
Whilst I’m not suggesting that the Met has deliberately gone out to exploit graduates here, I’m afraid that this is what this policy boils down to.
And you say it’s a ‘temporary solution’ – well, that remains to be seen. In my experience, temporary solutions have a nasty habit of turning into permanent ones once the bean-counters realise they’re saving some serious cash.
What they fail to acknowledge is that where they are saving, others are losing. And when those losing are young people who are working hard doing a proper job that should be paid, I’m afraid I find that unacceptable.
Afternoon Tanya,
I’ve followed this post/discussion with interest (as invariably I do – your blog always provides an entertaining and, oftentimes, informative read!) and replied on the GradFutures blog, but I’ll repeat my post here for ease:
Whilst I agree with Tanya’s earnestness in opposing genuinely exploitative ‘unpaid internship’ practices, I think there are still a few things which are being overlooked here which differentiate the Met from truly exploitative employers.
Firstly, policing, to my mind, is a vocational career – and if it’s not, it should be. In the same way that we would expect politicians to spend time doing volunteer canvassing and political activist/campaigning work on the ground, surely it’s not too much to expect serious candidates for the police to want to be engaged in helping their community without recompense? This weeds out the opportunists, and identifies those who are genuinely enthusiastic about the vocation.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, special constables (SC) already exist. This isn’t some cynical new job title dreamt up by an exploitative police force, but a community-focused role which has been around for ages. If you demand payment for SC who are graduates, where does that leave those who are already SC for the love of helping the community/policing? Do we create 2 classes of them, one paid, one not? Is that really a viable (and fair??) option? If not, then they’d have to pay all SC, regardless of if they’d be willing to volunteer, which I’m sure you can agree would be a dubious use of public funds.
Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that this is a world away from unpaid internships in terms of the level of commitment. SC must work for 16 hours a month. Unpaid interns will usually do at least 10 times that much, and many will do a lot more. It’s hardly comparable, and we run the risk of diminishing the righteous indignation that we have about truly exploitative practices if we squander it on criticising perfectly legitimate unpaid work like this.
Whether or not, from a recruitment/accessibility point of view, this is a sensible measure is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the proposals themselves are not grossly unfair nor particularly exploitative, and we should save our justifiable outrage for the more worthy targets of it, rather than launching broadsides against those who simply don’t merit it.
I’m concerned that the idea that a career is considered ‘vocational’ should mean that you should have to work for free before you can be considered for a paid role. Would you also apply this to nurses and teachers?
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.
Nurses and teachers are encouraged to do voluntary work before being accepted for training. Same for most modern vocational professions.
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).
Only those who can afford to work for free will get jobs. Out the window goes social mobility and merit.
That should be the end of the argument.
@Ian
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!
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…
Tanya – IT’S FOR 4 HOURS A WEEK! how can anyone not afford to give up 4 hours a week when they can afford 10-15 hours down the pub with their mates?! The fact is – THE POLICE HAVE NO MONEY RIGHT NOW – so what exactly do you suggest they pay these people working for 4 hours a week with? Money from the money tree that is going to save us all? Or – maybe we should just get rid of the police altogether? See how society fends for itself? Seriously – you seem a bit of a looney – constantly barking up the wrong tree….why don’t you attack a charity next?
@Jack
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:
Jenny Jones of the Green Party said:
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!
“Firstly, policing, to my mind, is a vocational career — and if it’s not, it should be…surely it’s not too much to expect serious candidates for the police to want to be engaged in helping their community without recompense? This weeds out the opportunists, and identifies those who are genuinely enthusiastic about the vocation.”
@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
@Clare
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?
Apologies if this is a foolish point, but I can’t see it made elsewhere – What about Community Support Officers? As long as they last, anyhow. Isn’t that a paid way of getting the same experience? I can’t believe the Met wouldn’t accept it as an alternate to being an SC. I thought it already was a two tier system, with SCs being focused on those who wanted to be more like volunteers, or wanted experience, but didn’t want it as a full time job before fully joining up. And then CSOs, which naturally requires a proper application, but also means getting paid. You don’t get quite the same powers, but it can serve as a career in itself. Or, if you want to move in that direction, you can use that experience to strengthen your application as a police officer.
Yes, it is chilling that the public sector looks to be heading the same way as the private.
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.