Thomas Lyttelton has recently put up a blog defending the use of unpaid internships by the ‘charity’ sector, including the Young Foundation.
Lyttelton basic argument is that:
1. With regards to whether unpaid internships can be perceived as exploitative, there is a distinction between their use by the private sector and the ‘charity’ sector.
2. The focus on the unpaid nature of many internships distracts us from the real issue: interns are largely made up of white, middle-class graduates from top universities, and there needs to be a wider representation to include people from ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds.
For Lyttelton, “Volunteers have long been a part of how charities function, and so things are less clear cut than for the private sector.” This is a deliberate attempt to portray what is supposed to be ‘professional’ work as a form of volunteering. In most cases, interns wouldn’t describe themselves as volunteers, especially if they work for a think tank. They would describe volunteering as helping a local charity or fundraising in their spare time, not as a contract of work (which is what internships are). For most interns, internships are an attempt to build experience in a professional career they may be interested in pursuing. In many cases they are compelled to accept unsalaried work for lack of other opportunities. The idea that an unpaid internship is a form of volunteering is rubbish – as the Low Pay Commission has repeatedly argued, internships should be subject to national minimum wage laws, and this should be enforced more effectively.
It’s shocking to hear Lyttelton argue that “third sector internships entrench privilege and do nothing to promote social mobility” while defending unpaid internships that… entrench privilege and do nothing to promote social mobility. When work is unpaid, it automatically rules out applications or interest from many of those that are from disadvantaged or ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds, or who can’t afford to work for free. Thus, the fairness of recruitment processes (which Lyttleton rightly argues favour those from advantaged backgrounds) is irrelevant. The Young Foundation’s solution of strengthening social mobility by recruiting from a wider range of backgrounds is useless: poorer people are not going to work for free. They can employ as much positive discrimination as they want, but very few people that aren’t privileged enough to be able to afford unpaid internships will be receptive to the idea. The “entrenched privilege” and lack of social mobility will continue.
If the Young Foundation and other organisations that use unpaid interns would like to tackle “entrenched privilege” and strengthen social mobility, they could start by paying their interns.
But they may argue that financially, they’re constrained. If that’s the case, the following could be a solution. For a few months at a time, paid senior professionals within these think tanks should designate 12-15% of their work time as “volunteering”, rather than paid work. The money they would have made from the hours worked can be invested into the communities they’re supposed to be helping, or can go towards paying interns a salary. If Lyttleton and the Young Foundation are serious about the idea that “volunteering” has long been a part of the charity sector, and that the issue is “less clear cut than the private sector”, they should have no problems with this. Or is it one rule for the ‘professionals’, and another for struggling young people?
Related articles
-
Blog: Person-to-person social justice - where new and old power combine
Anthony Painter
The balance of power between people working together and old hierarchies is changing. Anthony Painter shows how and contends that we should start looking at society and politics in new ways.
Join the discussion
Comments
Please login to post a comment or reply
Don't have an account? Click here to register.
Hi Tom, thanks for the response. The following reasons are why I believe your blog post presented a very subtle defence of unpaid internships:
1) The following excerpt: "Volunteers have long been a part of how charities function, and so things are less clear cut than for the private sector." Here you give the impression (however subtle) that it may be suggested that interns could be considered "volunteers" in a non-profit organisation - hence the issue of unpaid interns "is less clear cut than for the private sector". I believe the issue is very clear-cut: interns are employees under contract, not volunteers.
2) The Young Foundation employs unpaid interns. You mention that the debate you are proposing - about recruiting interns from non-traditional backgrounds and how this can be achieved - is actively being explored in the Young Foundation. But I have to question whether this goes beyond social mobility in an unpaid intern context, given that the Young Foundation's official policy is that interns are not paid.
3) One of the central points of your article is your suggestion that the debate about internships is too limited, focused around a single issue - whether interns are paid or not. This devalues the significance of the issue: the debate should most definitely be focused on whether interns are paid or not; far too many organisations still hire unpaid interns, and this in many people's eyes equates to exploitation. This is why I argued that we can't begin to consider issues of social mobility and recruiting from non-traditional backgrounds in internship programmes until the core issue of the exploitative nature of most internships is addressed.
I hope my post isn't perceived as a blanket attack on the Young Foundation. Your organisation does terrific work, as do others that employ unpaid interns. But I think it's about time the not-for-profit sector moves beyond the use of unpaid interns - especially if they want to use their internships for a broader social purpose.
Hi Atif,
This is a recently interesting post and I agree with a lot of what you're arguing. However, I think you've misrepresented what I was arguing in my original blogpost in couple of ways:
1. I wasn't attempting to conflate volunteering with internships. Like you, I think there's a clear distinction. However, the most obvious argument against unpaid internships in the private sector is that they shouldn't be using unpaid labour of *any* kind. This argument doesn't work in regards to the charitable sector because of volunteering. Hence it's less clear cut.
2. I wasn't defending unpaid internships! The blogpost wasn't really about paying interns at all, and I don't argue it either way in the original post. Actually, I agree with you that interns should be paid. Nor do I argue, as you say I do, that focusing on paying interns detracts from the 'real' issue of diversity and access. I'm just arguing that it's not the only issue. The debate has tended to be limited to the issue of pay, and though I think this is important I also think that charities should be thinking about how they can use their internships for a broader social purpose.
I have read the original and read this response and I believe this response misses the point of the original. Aside from its true merits, it is an inaccurate portrayal of the argument.
I wrote this article about the importance of recognising that there is a problem with internships, although the difference in the charity and private sector is very true and a distinction should be made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
Some really really good points Atif!
I was also disappointed by the conflating of internship and volunteering, and by the argument that to make internships 'charitable' the focus should be on skills training instead of being on paying people for work done ("Some interns from less privileged backgrounds might need more support and training")