To think volunteers prepared to work for free can be very damaging

[feellikeahugefailure]

Just that really. If there are large numbers of people prepared to work for free for certain jobs it really suppresses the wages in that industry and people get used to having (armature) labour for free so wont pay for it.

Anyone else finding this?

PausingFlatly It is good that you are campaigning - I wish more would. Workfare is having a huge impact on low paid jobs and needs to be tackled.

I think that what swiggityswoogity was saying was not that volunteering didn't affect working classes but that it also affected middle classes.

I also got the impression that the stereotypical left wing local government /academic /arty type who told the working classes to stop whinging when their labour was undercut are getting a taste of what it is like to struggle for work or to have to work for money that you can't live on - just because some other poor bugger will do it cheaper.

Don't forget that volunteering, even for experience in the type of sector where it might lead to a job, is not an option for the poor. Yes, if you're poor, you're expected to work for free, but only for a properly government-friendly corporation, otherwise you will get your benefits sanctioned.

I've always given a shit about workfare. I think it used to be a bigger problem than unpaid internships, affecting more people and in worse ways.

But I couldn't say which is the bigger problem right now, as the whole unpaid work and sub-NMW sector seems to have expanded massively and is affecting public services (thus the people using the services).

Unpaid internships also matter in a broader way where they affect what sort of background is common in eg news media, political jobs. So although all unpaid internships may be unfair on individuals, the wider problem is the fact they consolidate influence among particular groups while excluding others.

What, the stereotypical left wing government that brought in the National Minimum Wage, in the teeth of opposition?

Or the stereotypical unions which arose entirely because of the issue of some bugger doing it cheaper?

It's certainly a stereotype among certain papers, to pretend "the left" consists of a cabal of arts lecturers and hereditary millionaires living in London. But that doesn't exactly describe the population of Barnsley...

Unite have been major campaigners against workfare.

And helpfully, I've just found a "Good Practice in Volunteering" guide, produced in consultation between the TUC/STUC and volunteering agencies. Scroll down to find.

They also brought in New Deal

I am sitting on the fence on this one. I volunteer for 2 charities, one was just something that I was interested in and that fitted in around dc's when I was a sahm. It is a service that is run just by volunteers and benefits the community, plus I gained lots of useful skills and a reference for when I went back to work - win win!

The other is technically a placement, I have to complete a certain number of hours of hands on experience to get my qualification and once I qualify I should in theory be able to charge for my services, so at the moment the organisation gets my time for free, members of the community can access a service that would not exist without volunteers and I get experience towards my qualification which should be beneficial for everyone, however I am finding that because there are lots of people in my situation the organisations offering placements are getting more picky and demanding more from their volunteers and there is very little paid work available because there are so many volunteers doing the job.

And indeed the rubbish disability tests (replacing the existing disability tests that doctors had been doing for years), if we're talking about the last Labour government, Helena.

But that doesn't suddenly make "the left" not know what it's like to struggle to find work, or to be paid money you just can't live on, per BlueJug's post. Or to not care if they haven't suffered from it themselves.

(Though again according to some papers, it's hypocritical to write about people who are struggling if you're not; and hypocritical to NOT write about people who are struggling if you're not; and if you ARE struggling, you're just an attention-seeking loser who should get back down the salt mines and be grateful.)

But I suspect I'm muddle class (having an eddication and all that), and obviously shouldn't care about anyone except myself, so I'll turn in for the night.

Hey Pausing I agree with you

With respect your relation was a semi pro with a day job, hardly comparable to those who have to put bread on the table as it is their day job.

Would you walk into a dentists completely unqualified and volunteer your services or offer at half the fees. It's laughable isn't it, but with music and other art forms it has become the norm. People don't even think of paying their dues, they feel entitled because "It's something I've always wanted to do"

It's not at all like dentistry though, is it? You need certain qualifications and practical experience to be a dentist, something that most of us would view as a positive thing because we don't want to let an untrained hobbyist drill into our teeth. That isn't the case with music. For one thing, a 'good' musician is a matter of taste in a way a good dentist isn't, and 'good' might not equate to commercially successful. And for another, some brilliant musicians have had no formal training at all. 'Qualified' is in the eye of the beholder for music. It isn't with clinicians. Your post is basically saying that because your DH has earned his entire living from music in the past, you've appointed him as more deserving to continue doing so than someone who's got another income source. With that in mind, the use of the word 'entitled' was a poor choice.

I agree with the premise of the OP in many ways, some 'volunteering' can be harmful, and also dislike the way in which people in the arts seem to be increasingly expected to work for free. But the example you give here is not a good example of this phenomenon, and why exactly is your DH more entitled to work as a musician because he's done is for ages and doesn't have another job? You have no right to make that call.

Musicians do earn a living, there are so many problems in the industry, but the professionals used to make a fair whack before amateurs and semi pro's became involved.

I haven't said musician don't make a living - I'm saying there have always been semi pro and gifted amateurs willing to perform.

My Granddad worked a second job - luckily one he loved - to get his family out of abject poverty kind seen only in tv programs now and to help his sisters and mother cope with his violent alcoholic father who earned nothing but took all his wife earned.

It's very like the idea that working mothers are a new phenomenon all the mothers in my family had to work, going back to great grandmothers, and my parents were latch key kids because of it from young ages. Same with most of DH family as well.

Expectations of unpaid work are more prevalent certainly - especially with a government who seems to be promoting idea that public services like libraries can be staffed by volunteers and thinks New Deal placements in supermarkets and the like isn't taking away paid jobs.

I think it's also harder to save up to do years unpaid internships or work part time evening and weekends round them because of higher post education debts and soaring living costsl.

A few people I know 20 years ago did this - did jobs they didn't want to straight out of uni as they missed out on the few places in paid internships so saved up so they could afford to do the unpaid ones.

Other hand 20 years ago both myself and DSis in different industries took much lower paying first jobs because training was supposed to be attached which never materialized - Dsis found that people who stopped in her field all had family or family friends to help out with the required experience as you couldn't progress without it

I personally found volunteering at a museum very helpful - few weeks before paid work one summer Uni holiday, in very niche department at local museum loved it but they were very clear they saw paid employment in area drying up and it was already fiercely competitive so I didn't try for that sector.

Wow I wasn't expecting the extent of the problem to be so vast. I deliberately kept the OP vague and said "can be" as I know there are some useful v work.

I'm talking about the arts and horticulture. Its unintended consequence, some of the people I meet that retired early on gold plated pensions think they are doing good with the work, when in fact they have taken a job from someone that needs it.

the example you give here is not a good example of this phenomenon, and why exactly is your DH more entitled to work as a musician because he's done is for ages and doesn't have another job? You have no right to make that call.

Reminds me of DD1 who was poor at maths so worked at one of the on-line sites for years doing extra. She did really well and there was some publicity associated with it.

One of the girls in her maths groups had her in tears very possibly saying what surrounding adults had said in their presence- because apparently she was cheating - working harder than those round you to pull herself up was cheating.

I think it was singer Dido I read an article about - she was recording her first songs in the evenings because she was doing a full days work before hand - keeping a possible career going. So I don't think it can be unusual to do music part time at least till other options present themselves.

Friend of DH came to videoing later in life - post DC and with a mortgage. He and friend built up a video wedding business working mainly weekends and editing in evenings - still worked their full time weekday jobs. They could have made a choice to expand and go full time as others in the field had - they decided not to risk it in end. I'm sure other people in the field felt their work was being stolen but they had a great reputation and many satisfied customers and many wedding photographers and others in business recommended them.

I think that a better analogy than dentists - I have a vague idea they train longer at Uni than doctors and I suspect it may be a legal requirement.

I'm talking about the arts and horticulture. Its unintended consequence, some of the people I meet that retired early on gold plated pensions think they are doing good with the work, when in fact they have taken a job from someone that needs it.

I wonder with the generally fitter and more active and greater number of pensioners we'll have in next few years if this will get worse.

Mind you I know an awful lot of people that age who get carolled into providing free childcare for their own children - so perhaps not.

I manage a charity - started in this field as a volunteer myself when my children were small and I was trying to get back into employment
My charity relies on volunteers - we do not get enough funding to pay well or many posts - our services are free to our clients
Some of my volunteers are trying to get work experience - some have disabilities or mental health issues and can only do limited work - others are retired or unemployed, have childcare or other caring responsibilities that restrict them.
Most people get a lot of satisfaction from helping others - they also learn new skills that could be transferable in the future
Despite working full time I also volunteer for 2 other local charities myself
I think some posters are misguided to think that if these people did not volunteer what work they do would go to a paid worker
It is generally the client who loses out - I turn away approx 20% of the requests for help I receive as there are not enough volunteers or they are not available when needed

DD 24 and DS 23 also do voluntary work
DS is on a paid internship after finishing university which in itself was hard to get, his part time work experience along with volunteering certainly helped
DD is in process of being made redundant and will increase her volunteering hours whilst job seeking especially in areas which will give her experience of areas of work that she is less confident in
As a charity we also take students on unpaid mandatory work placements - some of whom are fab and bring so much to the organisation - others could have done with some exposure to the world of work or volunteering earlier on!

Newlife, I so disagree. A healthy amateur music scene feeds into a healthy professional scene. When on earth is before amateurs and semi-pros got involved anyway? 25 years ago when i was a student there were loads of semi-pro type gigs. One amateur outfit I play in is itself over 100 years old. My family have been an amicable mixture of professional and amateur musicians going back several generations. But it always has been a mixture in the arts hasn't it? Even now-famous musicians couldn't always make a living in their own time.
Amateur musicians are the biggest supporters of professional music I know. You know, loving music and all.

The big problem with Newlife's attitude is that it's basically the arts sector equivalent of nimbyism. In order that me and/or mine can carry on making a living doing what we love, those of you who didn't manage to get into the game when it was easier to do that (it's your own fault for not being born a few decades earlier) aren't allowed to do what you love. My husband getting to carry on being a musician should take precedence over you becoming one, and you're selfish if you don't agree. Fuck that.

I'd hope we can condemn the way in which arts careers are becoming devalued and the preserve of the rich without saying it has to be a closed shop. Which is what you're doing when you appoint some people as more worthy of being paid than others, for reasons other than the quality or commercial value of their work. Let's not ignore the generational inequality implications of that, either. It is an absolute fucker that people have to work for free now to have a hope of getting into certain sectors, or have another source of income at least. That doesn't mean they're doing something wrong when they do internships in museums or play gigs in bars in the evening after spending the day working in a call centre. It just means they're not as lucky as people who didn't have to do that.

It's tough with the arts though, in some ways they're a unique example. Because unlike in a lot of careers, you can be good and/or commercially appealing without being an 'expert', as it were. Someone who has a Masters in creative writing from UEA and has been paid for their work before isn't necessarily better or more sellable than someone who has no qualifications or experience but has been working on their novel after the kids go to bed for the past decade. Whereas the same isn't true of, say, cardiology.

Jizzy

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but don't presume you know what others feel.
I think there is something wrong with an attitude of it is luck that allows a person to practice their profession when others have decided to take a better paid job.
My point is the real musicians, artists, actors etc are willing to starve for their art in the early days and aren't prepared to work elsewhere. That is hardly good luck but determination and hard work.
There is nothing to stop anybody from doing what they want to, I was just highlighting the plight of many an artist, who when faced with shortage of work due to the wannabes are forced into teaching another profession altogether.
I see so many coming out of music colleges eager to become working musicians in an industry that doesn't really offer them much. It is sad and heart breaking to see the talent go to waste and watch them having to seek a day job.

I'm not presuming I know how you feel newlife, I'm presuming that what you wrote is an accurate reflection of it. And the implications of what you wrote are completely appalling. Which you've followed up in your most recent post.

Being willing to metaphorically starve for your art isn't a reflection of quality, it's a reflection of many things, including luck. You can't do that if you have family need providing for, university overdrafts you have to pay back, a roof you need to pay for in a housing market that is more batshit now than it has been in some time. Nor does the benefits system allow people to spend a couple of years on JSA while trying to make it, as many eventually successful and no doubt unsuccessful musicians in the 80s and 90s were able to do. The simple fact is that not everyone has equal access to the sort of situation that allows them to 'starve for their art'. That doesn't make people wannabes, it makes them less fortunate than your husband.

So, in summary, fuck your Nimbyism and your sense of entitlement. Your husband isn't better than people in the arts who have other sources of income not including BTLs apparently he has no more right to be a musician than you do, and people who want to play music even if it stops him getting paid as much as you've decided he deserves aren't in the wrong.

Should've been 'than they do' not 'than you do' above.

I'm afraid I'm with Jizzy here. If I learn the guitar/drums/flugelhorn next week, does that make me less deserving of an opportunity or even less talented than someone who has been plugging away for years? I might be a brilliant musician, who knows? Same with writing. And indeed acting. Look at all the angst at the moment about "posh" actors. Increasingly only those with means and a free London base can get into the profession. Why elbow out amateurs who may have great talent but not enough financial clout to make it a full-time pursuit?

Bil is a musician who also has a day job. Or he has a job and is a night-time musician. I don't think he could possibly make ends meet playing in the orchestra of the local theatre and at weddings etc.

Whilst I do completely take the points made on this thread about the barriers to arts sector jobs which are imposed by the need to have undertaken an unpaid internship, I don't think this would apply to the charity sector.

Often the sector can't seem to do right for doing wrong on this particular front; we also spend a lot of time complaining that our heartfelt donations are going to admin and salary costs rather than on clean water for people in developing countries etc. If they were to rely solely on paid employees to carry out all the work that they are currently doing then extra donations unfortunately seem unlikely to magically appear out of thin air; there is a finite amount in the pot and with the best will in the world, their charitable objectives are usually to help people in less developed nations/to contribute to research/to assist those with debilitating diseases etc. These objectives legally need to be implemented for public benefit. Any employment opportunities which are offered to individuals are incidental private benefits which are secondary to the larger public benefit that charities are meant to provide. Logically, the only possible outcome of them reducing the number of volunteers and paying more people for those services is that a still smaller proportion of their income would reach those they are meant to be helping, and I suspect we might all be up in arms about that too. They just can't win - I do feel a bit sorry for them.

Welcome to neoliberal economics. This will only get worse if the Tories stay in power.