18 Comments

1. joddle on March 2, 2011 at 2:35 pm

   Thanks for this piece Tanya. I am one of those young people now sick and tired of the whole sector because of my experience as a long-term unpaid worker. I.e. I could get a job tomorrow ‘volunteering’ doing professional-level work, am I’m repeatedly invited to! but it is another thing entirely to get a job where I’ll actually be paid.

   I think the sanctimonious charity bore lives has in his mind’s eye the annual village fete with everyone pitching in their time to raise money for repairs to the church roof.

   Has he actually ever worked for a modern charity? Hasn’t he realised that they are run like businesses and that it is not uncommon for directors to earn 80-100k??? As you said Tanya, the important people get paid for what they do…

   By the way I still volunteer as I enjoy it – meeting new people and having new experiences. But I won’t do any more professional level work as I refuse to be a charity sucker anymore. I’d rather be unemployed and running my own projects any day as this endemic practice the sector has so willingly latched on to is shameful.

   A lot of charities also shamefully jumped on the Future Jobs fund bandwagon with no intention of offering permanent jobs ‘they can’t afford’ to young people after their placements.

   But then if you were a business/charity wouldn’t you lap up the chance of being PAID to take on a worker? I know highly qualified, exceptional people who haven’t been offered a job at the end of a charity FJF.

   It made me really angry when I read in the Telegraph (no link, sorry) an analysis of FJF which argued that because only 10% or an equally low figure of FJF trainees were in employment after the scheme – it meant that the trainees were poor quality. Hello! The charities never intended to keep the young people on, like they don’t with their interns.

   Has anyone else noticed the contagious spread of internships listed on charityjobs? A year ago there would only be one or two; now there are consistently advertised in their tens.

   I will now take a chill pill. Rant over!

2. charlene on March 2, 2011 at 4:51 pm

   Agreed Joddle!

   These larger charities are totally exploiting their charitable status and the FJF to acquire unpaid labour to squeeze down their costs while higher ranking staff enjoy great salaries and decent budgets.

   They aren’t dependent on administrative volunteers.. they can afford staff. And if not, have plenty of room to pull back spending in other areas so that they can (should a Director of a failing charity be earning 100k?).

   Why are young people being expected to struggle on zero incomes to ensure a large charity can continue to lavish out on top level salaries and inefficient budgets.

   The Charity Commission essentially supports charities to meet a set of guidelines so that they may continue to run. They are charity driven so I’m not 100% surprised by their response. In order to really drive the issue I think that Volunteering England and the law needs to be referred to. This link is quite good:

   http://www.volunteering.org.uk/resources/publications/freeguides.htm#law

   A section of what I have read includes:

   ‘The consequences for an organisation whose volunteers are in fact workers and therefore entitled to the minimum wage are potentially quite serious. Not only could the organisation be required to pay backdated minimum wage to its volunteers, but also there are criminal offences punishable by fines associated with wilfully neglecting to pay the minimum wage and falsification of records and similar obstructions’.

   There are examples of tribunals in a full guide (found on the above link).

   Perhaps interns need to feel empowered with a route into the law and procedures to take complaints to tribunal if the boundaries of volunteer and worker have been clearly crossed. I suspect the lines are becoming more blurred with young people as they aren’t as likely to take complaints that far and are therefore proving easy to exploit.

   Large charities and business need to be at the mercy of some clear cut law and associated penalties to discourage them from further exploitation of a vulnerable group.

   Some views from supporting lawyers would be really useful for this cause.

3. Robin Whitlock on March 2, 2011 at 6:08 pm

   Important principle? So was slavery, child labour and witch-burning at one point in time!

4. Tanya de Grunwald on March 2, 2011 at 6:11 pm

   ha, i agree!

   and there is something very specific about charity people’s attitude to internships that annoys me possibly EVEN more than big companies doing it… it’s the fact that they use the fact that it’s a ‘good cause’ to undermine interns’ confidence when asking for pay – which i think is extremely sly…

5. Clare on March 2, 2011 at 8:03 pm

   I’m utterly appalled by the gutless, hand-wringing “not in my remit, don’t care to make a statement” buck-passing that company after company, institution after institution believes is a valid response. Where are these people’s balls? Where is their indignation that such an unfair system is allowed to continue? Why aren’t they angry that unpaid labour is considered an essential step into paid work? What have we all come to when we think it’s acceptable – right even – to make people pay to work.

   Tanya, I know that you and others have crusaded tirelessly against unpaid internships (I can picture you quite vividly in an avenging Bodicea-type pose!) and I can only say that the system is so unsustainable that sooner or later it must go. There will come a time when people realise that it is so unfair that it cannot be allowed. When that moment comes, I don’t know, though I’d hazard a guess around the time that the economy recovers and the same companies are fighting over talent. At which point I hope a few hardy souls bill for back-pay, but that’s another rant.

6. Robin Whitlock on March 3, 2011 at 9:15 am

   Clare, its a continuing phenomenon, back in the 50’s, poet and author Robert Graves sat down and had a conversation with the occult mysteries author Colin Wilson. Much of what they said most people might regard as bunkum but the important point they hit upon is that at any one point in time two thirds of the population will essentially be followers rather than leaders. In other words, compliant. I thought of this when I was at uni in 2005 and studying conformity in my psychology modules. Most companies will be glad of free labour, and most of them appear to be quite willing to turn their back on the ethics of enslaving so many graduates (and non-graduates also) in unpaid volunteering and internships with no realistic hope of paid employment. And the bulk of the people in our society let them get away with it. We’ve been here before and if Dickens could see what is going on I’m sure he would give a wry smile….

7. Joolsy on March 3, 2011 at 10:59 am

   The issue here is that the CC assume that1. It knows what the legal definition of a volunteer is and 2. the all charities also know this and are using volunteers properly. This is complicated by the fact that it doesn’t have the powers (or knowledge?) to rule if the volunteers is being used legally.

   So its position is based on previous history and a limited knowledge of employment law – none of which helps charities or volunteers.

   Many ‘volunteers’ are rewarded with benefits in kind – this means that the NMW is due, this would also render the charities activities to be unlawful – a matter that is within the CC’s purview as is the question of whether or not the charity is operating in the public benefit. However until the CC decides that it does have a role to play in this, or unless it is inundated with examples I fear we are in stalemate.

   Here’s another example.

   http://www.tvwatercooler.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2616&p=17667#p17667

8. Tanya de Grunwald on March 3, 2011 at 11:49 am

   Over on the original post about Comic Relief we’ve just had this comment from ‘John’:

   Firstly, there is a specific exemption in the National Minimum Wage Act for unpaid workers in the charity and voluntary sector: they are called “voluntary workers” and they can be treated as ‘workers’ but without pay. In fact, it is a specific requirement that they are not paid at all except for out of pocket expenses.

   Secondly, this is not a “loophole”. Loopholes are by definition unintentional (or at least masquerading as such). This was a specific and intentional section of the Act which was debated and voted on by your elected representatives — not some sort of careless error or omission in the legislation with unforeseen consequences, as you imply.

   Stop charities and voluntary groups using unpaid volunteers (or Voluntary Workers)? Really? I don’t think this is going to win your campaign any support from the man on the street. Many smaller charities don’t have any salaried staff and rely entirely on people giving up their time and effort for free. It is human nature for people to help others — or pursue sporting or artistic pursuits with like-minded people — without any expectation of financial reward. Donating your time and effort is no different from donating your cash and is arguably more rewarding. This goes to the core of what charities and voluntary groups are all about. You might as well say ‘ban charity’.

   Thoughts, folks? Is John right? Are we being too harsh on charities?

9. Louise on March 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm

   If these charities did not use any paid workers then sure, it would be too harsh, but they do.

   And if that is the case how can it be reasonable, fair or honest for charities like this to take on someone who they expect to do work for them in set hours and with specific responsibilities (ie that they are workers to all intents and purposes) and not pay them? If they are sitting next to a paid worker who is similarly expected to undertake set duties in set times, what is the material difference between the two.

   Volunterering, as in turning up to do good for a good cause is quite different from responding to an advert for a full time position, being interviewed and then filling that position.

   Seems obvious to me.

10. Tanya de Grunwald on March 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    @Louise

    Thanks for your comment – and I have to say I agree with your points.

    @John

    I think you and I may have to agree to differ! I would also just like to pick up on something you said:

    I don’t think this is going to win your campaign any support from the man on the street

    …I think you may be unclear about what Graduate Fog is all about. I didn’t build this site as a campaign tool for interns’ rights – I built it as a discussion forum for all the issues that graduates are talking about. Unpaid internships are one of those issues – so we are going to continue to discuss them on this site.

    I am not about to stop discussing this issue just because it may not ingratiate myself with the general public. I’m fully aware that it’s controversial to pick fights with this ‘saintly’ sector – but nobody is off-limits at Graduate Fog, I’m afraid. If my users want to talk about it, we talk about it.

    I have not suggested anywhere that charities are doing anything illegal in using unpaid interns, because I don’t believe that they are. What i’m asking is, Is it right that they are allowed to do this? That is a legitimate question that I think deserves some proper discussion.

11. Tanya de Grunwald on March 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    @ John has replied again:

    But the whole point is that they’re not arbitrary! Voluntary Worker is a legally defined term:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/39/section/44

    What is charity if not helping others without seeking financial reward? With a smaller charity it may be possible to run it entirely with volunteers, but larger charities will need full time, reliable expertise to run a multi-million pound operation which cannot be provided by volunteers, but that does not mean they should not use volunteers on an ad hoc basis, for example in charity shops or on campaigns. At the end of the day, these aren’t essential roles, but ‘extras’ that can help the charity do more good work on the same amount of money.

    I don’t really see what difference a person’s age makes or how it is ‘discrimination’. In my experience of volunteers or voluntary workers — eg. in charity shops — they tend to be older people if anything. And why is it that you’ve drawn the boundaries of this “discrimination” at “under 25″? Why not say under 26 or under 17? That’s the only thing that’s arbitrary.

    I also disagree with the what Tanya says about it only ever being young people / junior roles that are unpaid. I think you’ll find that every single charity’s Board of Trustees is unpaid and not only that they often use their expensive expertise such accountancy or legal training to help the charity pro bono.

    I’m afraid I agree — as I’m sure most people in the real world do — with the charity commission and I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of charity and charities.

12. Joolsy on March 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    John,

    I think it is you who are fundamentally misunderstanding the breadth of charities and their influence.
    I’m sure the NMW legislation was set up for charity shop workers and the like to ensure they had a ready supply of volunteers etc. If you take to Arts for example most of the organisations in this sector are registered charities – most of them employ an ever increasing number of ‘volunteers’ FACT http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/31381/theatres-turn-to-unpaid-staff-as-volunteers – this on the back of increasing income. These jobs are not turning into paid jobs.
    Here is an example of a charity providing a benefit in kind to youngsters yet still claiming they are ‘volunteers’ http://www.tvwatercooler.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2616.

    The big picture here is in the Arts and many other glamourous professions (media, fashion, politics, TV, film) that youngsters are not ‘volunteering’ – they are being enticed by promises of payments in kind and freebies (not permissible under the NMW Act – and legally means they MUST be paid) but furthermore it creates a position where only the rich can afford to do this kind of unpaid work in order to get ahead. Its being sold as experience.

    Skillset who has some very credible guidelines concerning the use of unpaid interns in the Creative Sector http://www.skillset.org/companies/your_staff/placements/article_7670_1.asp maintain that if youngsters if they are learning ought to be affiliated to a registered course or educational institution and not just promised ‘the experience of working with professionals’ – who 9 times out of 10 are not giving their skills to the charity for nothing.

    There are even charities who sell the angle that they are educating youngsters – surely one must question the benefit to society of a whole generation of youngsters who are unable to support themselves because of a glut of unpaid work in their profession?

    I could give you hundreds of examples where the job description asks for ‘mandatory attendance’ and those who are able to ‘commit to maximum shifts’ will get preference.

    Its not all rosy, and its certainly not all legally defined as volunteering or voluntary workers.

13. Louise on March 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    John, you say that:

    “At the end of the day, these aren’t essential roles, but ‘extras’ that can help the charity do more good work on the same amount of money”

    In what way then is any of the following not “essential”:

    Copy existing videos and making compilation DVDs for staff, outside parties, members of the public
    -Reformat films as required as advised by the team
    -Act as runner as required — assisting with meetings, to get props for shoots, act as runner on shoots as needed and collecting items from various locations such as visas
    -Keeping on top of filing tapes, and support the Video Library Assistant in logging tapes in and out of the system to ensure tapes can be easily retrieved

    Because that is the reality. All that comes from the specific advert in question. And if you take a look at other similar adverts for people to do unpaid jobs of work for charities (see the w4mp website if you want more evidence) you will see that they all require people to do similar essential work as well.

14. John on March 3, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    The ‘big picture” and guidelines you linked to both concern “companies”, not charities. Don’t conflate two different issues.

    If the Charity Commission approve a charity’s charitable objects and they plough any surpluses back into furthering these charitable objects, why shouldn’t arts organisations use voluntary workers? The example you linked to is not even essential to the activity they are undertaking – they just want a filmed record of the theatrical performance which helps further their charitable object of bringing of performing theatre arts to the benefit of the general public.

    I wouldn’t have any problem helping out in this scenario, if I was available and had the skills they needed. It’s a temporary ad hoc job giving additional benefit to their core activities. It’s not the sort of role you would normally expect to be paid, where as a fundraiser or an office manager who clocks in every day 9-5 on a permanent basis you would expect they normally would.

15. joddle on March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Haha John. You think fundraisers should be paid?

    I clocked in 4 days per week for 5 months doing trusts fundraising. Researching donors. Writing fundraising appeal materials. Using the database to record progress. Calling up charitable trust administrators.

    Alas I was doing a proper job as an unpaid intern.

    I don’t know why John doesn’t think the filming project doesn’t count as a proper job. Isn’t this the kind of thing that production companies are otherwise paid to do??

    John do you think I should make a backdated claim for pay?

16. charlene on March 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    So John, do you agree that:

    – Volunteers should be an ad hoc extra when a project requires

    – Volunteers should not be expected to perform on-going core administrative tasks

    – Volunteering roles should be open to all age groups and working backgrounds

    – Volunteers take into account their own availability when thinking about taking up a role (gotta be paying the bills too, right?)

    You seem to agree to this. If you do, we are on the same side!

    Unpaid ‘Internships’ DO NOT meet the above criteria.

    1) Internships aren’t temporary add-ons to projects that need filling by a willing volunteer in order for a project or charity to survive.

    2) Internships are normally on-going positions with a regular intern turnover which perform core support and administrative roles.

    3) Internships by their very nature are advertised exclusively to young people of undergrad/recent graduate age ONLY.

    4) Internships do not give the intern flexibility over hours so that they might pay their bills too. They are forced (if they want the role) to work during 9-5 hours and perhaps longer for a set period. Trustees normally meet for short meetings once every few months outside working hours. Older people in charity shops are normally retired and can choose their shifts. Where is the flexibility for young people giving up their time to ‘volunteer’?

    Why do charities say ‘Internship’ and not ‘volunteering’ role in the adverts??

    Ooooh, I see… forget those retired folk who have free time! We hear that there’s a whole generation of bright, university educated, young things so desperate for a job they are working unpaid. Lets see what they can offer us before someone notices they are victims!!! Let’s grab ’em and their fresh, talented contributions!! Then, what we will do is replace them with another one after 1-3 months so that no one ever officially becomes a ‘worker’. If they complain, we’ll say they are volunteers and doing a great thing and to forget we ever mentioned internship…how lovely!

    When did charity become so … uncharitable?

17. Joolsy on March 3, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    John,

    if as a charity you offer someone voluntary work and then the offer of a DVD, thats called a benefit in kind and renders the NMW to be due. Workers cannot cede your rights to the NMW where it is due. There is no opt out. That means the non payment of the NMW is illegal if it would otherwise be due.

    Please take time to learn and understand the National Minimum Wage 1998 as it applies to charities, this is about employment law, not charitable objects.

18. charlene on March 3, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Please note I make a distinction between charities with paid staff and those that are completely volunteer run.