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?

Exactly CubicZirconiaBossyBabe. Had you come from a wealthier background, you could afford the childcare, done your volunteering, then gone into your chosen field. Because you don't have those resources available to you, you have fewer opportunities hence the gap between rich and poor widens.

I'm still kind of boggling at the idea that "semi-pro" musicians are destroying music careers for everybody - a)surely only the tiniest number of musicians (presumably without dependents) have never, ever, had to rely on another job and b)the fact that nobody is willing to pay for recorded music (or in some cases gigs) any more has been a much, much bigger factor IME in how much you can earn from music and hence how possible it is to have it as your sole income?

The music I play is sufficiently, er, "niche" that I'm never going to earn a living from it, but I love playing it and, oddly enough, some people like listening to it - should I stop playing gigs or selling music because I'm taking bread from the mouths of other musicians, and/or give up my job (and thus presumably lose my house) as a grand commitment to being a "proper musician"?

My issue with this is internships in big business whereby the individual doesn't get paid and the more traditional voluntary sector.

The internship scheme I refer to leads to a workforce lacking in diversity as those in the position to work for free as from privileged backgrounds leaving exceptional individuals from poorer backgrounds struggling to even get into the workforce. Thankfully some enlightened companies are waking up to this fact but not all.

Working for free in the more traditional charity sector, ie in the shops, I don't have too much of a problem with.

I do realise that there are huge shades of grey in between which gets complicated.

Yes leedy, and you should do that because a self appointed group of other musicians are entitled to expect it from you.

I understood what SGB said but given the (probably inevitable in an internet age) constraints in the arts world now, demonising people who are semi pro is kicking down at people who don't fall into the comfortably off group. I mean, how else is someone who isn't as rich as Florence from the Machine or whoever actually supposed to live while they try and break into an arts career? Particularly if they don't have the 'starving' option. They're going to have a day job. As you have done yourself I think solid?

The point being made is an important one, but equally when coming from people who have made/still do make some income from the arts, it does seem a bit closed shoppy. Young people now don't have any choice about the world they're emerging into, a world that's very different to a decade or two back. If you're asking people not to work for free at all, be in no doubt that sometimes, what you're asking them to do is not have a chance in a particular field at all, in order that you can keep getting paid in it. And then don't be surprised when they're not too keen to do what you say.

My own experience working in charities and a sector with a lot of volunteers is as mixed as a lot of people's on this thread. I've worked in legal aid law, and the cuts over the past few years have been partially justified by claims that the work could be done pro bono instead. From people who knew full well it couldn't, because a City solicitor volunteering at a CAB for an evening doesn't suddenly become an expert in housing law. However I think this was going to happen anyway, as too many people were stupid enough to buy into the fat cat myth. I've also worked in advice and support settings that simply wouldn't exist without volunteer input. I did use such a setting as a vehicle to keep my hand in during a brief period of unemployment. The point about how these services should be government funded is a valid one, but isn't realistic when the reason for cutting this funding in the first place was political. Eg stopping legal aid for most welfare benefits advice soon after ESA was introduced. Not accidental!

Eleven, I didn't come from any sort of wealth at all, in fact we were struggling with money and only survived because of tax credits
Now I took the view that I had two choices, get a minimum wage job with no prospects as I wasnt qualified for anything else, or think long term and struggle for a bit more but have a better chance at a good job
I worked part time and volunteered the rest, I took every bit of training offered and worked hard, and for me it has paid off
I realise this is not always the case, but without volunteering my life would be so different
I can pay the bills now, not worry about Xmas, have a bit of savings and it's all thanks to volunteering
I struggled to make it work as we were broke but I kept thinking long term , I could volunteer on Thursday evenings and Sat mornings so for anyone working its not a barrier
Now don't claim any benefits at all and am proud of what I've achieved

I'm sorry to hear what you went through, ovaryhill. Because I've always been paid when I was training.

Either bursaries and grants, or a wage by an employer while I learnt on the job.

Low-paid, entry-level positions used to be normal. Employer gets cheap worker, worker gets experience, win-win. Somehow that has now become an expectation that employer gets free worker.

Eg:
Teen told 10-week shop job to buy family Christmas presents was UNPAID work experience
Jay El-Leboudy, 15, spent two nights a week working in his local Londis store for in a bid to save up enough money to be able to afford gifts for his family and friends. But when he went to collect his earnings, the boss of the corner shop, in Canterbury, Kent, told him he wouldn't be getting any wages because he was there as a volunteer.

Poor lad, that's shocking! I absolutely knew I was a volunteer though, and although I hoped I would get a job out of it it was by no means guaranteed, I took a chance and luckily for me it paid off
Even if it hadn't I would still have had qualifications, something to put on CV and references, which I didn't have before
If you are working in the likes of Tesco as a volunteer surely the same applies, you're more qualified to get a job if one becomes available, either with them or somewhere else
If you're on a low or no wage you often can get help with the cost of home study to further enhance your prospects
What's wrong with being a volunteer at Tesco and studying with OU say, business studies and furthering yourself that way?

What's wrong with being a volunteer at Tesco

Because Tesco should be paying you! For your work! That puts money in their shareholders' pockets!

If it's benefitting you as well that's great, but they are benefitting from your work and must pay you for it.

Slightly off-topic, but I applied for what I was led to believe was a graduate job and yesterday got offered unpaid work experience.

No, I will not give up my (poorly-paid and part-time but still PAID) jobs (plural) to come and work for you for free. I have things that needs to be paid for like petrol, food etc. You know, the little luxuries in life

The world has gone mad.

Terry Leahy, recently CEO of Tesco, used to brag about how he moved to London one school holiday to do a paid job stacking shelves at Tesco, because he couldn't find work locally in Liverpool.

If he hadn't been paid, how on earth would he have done that?

(It's particularly sickening and hypocritical that he presided over Tesco replacing young employees like him with workfare, completely undermining the connection between working hard and earning a wage that his ilk like to pontificate about.)

What's wrong with being a PAID WORKER at Tesco and studying with OU?

No private sector, profitable company should expect free labour from anyone. End of. Even the most junior of juniors should get a basic wage while training - the idea is, surely, that the junior, once trained, becomes an asset to the company, increases the company's profits and therefore gets a bigger share of them in the form of a higher wage.

Unfortunately, over the past few decades, this idea has taken root that the people who do the actual work are disposable and irrelevant and don't need paying - or training. Wages are always the area in which directors seek to save costs: free labour (in the form of workfare or 'volunteers' or by increasing the hours existing employees must work but not paying overtime), corner-cutting on safety, removal of perks....

Some "volunteers" have successfully won minumum wage cases.

Surely it depends on the nature of the work. Some organisations offer volunteer experience or you apply on spec to them and it provides you with that experince to set yourself apart from future applicants. Agreed that medium to long term voluntary experince appears exploitative but in the short term I think both sides benefit. At times some volunteers can be quite heavy on paid employee time

Also re the music thing, as a "semi-pro" musician I'm not necessarily always earning less per gig/CD sold than some "full time" musicians, they're just doing more gigs/selling more stuff. So I'm not even driving down prices, I am merely offering an alternative at the same price. Not to mention the key thing about music, which is that musicians and bands aren't some kind of interchangeable "sources of music" - audiences (and musicians) have different tastes, and some tastes aren't necessarily going to support full-time musicians in the current climate re paying for recordings. You can't really argue that someone who wants to listen to weird free improv should instead go and watch a hard rock band because "it's their actual job and they need the money - and it's all music, isn't it?".

My 2ps worth. Volunteering is fantastic and I wouldn't employ anyone who hadn't done some sort of outside volunteering.

As for libraries/ arts / etc. If it can't pay its way shut it down. If that means it survives due to volunteers than fantastic. Looking at a number of our local towns. They are running much more efficient services now they are not run by the council.

Ovary, that's great its worked out for you, I'm glad it has. You may not come from a wealthy background but there are others that are worse off and don't have your options open to them. Some cannot volunteer because as I said above they're working all hours to make ends meet. Its the poorest, and those who already have the least options that are disadvantaged further. Employers should be willing to invest in their workforce. Entry level paid jobs used to provide experience and be the first step on the career ladder. Now they're expecting free labour. What's next?? 'You pay us and we'll provide you with experience'. Sounds outrageous doesn't it? Just as free labour might've been regarded fifty years ago.

This is just one of a number of factors that are leading to the gap between the rich and poor widening in the UK. University fees is another example, the worsening state education and healthcare system is another. I'm just glad that I don't have to live there anymore.

*My 2ps worth. Volunteering is fantastic and I wouldn't employ anyone who hadn't done some sort of outside volunteering.

As for libraries/ arts / etc. If it can't pay its way shut it down. If that means it survives due to volunteers than fantastic. Looking at a number of our local towns. They are running much more efficient services now they are not run by the council.*

And what if someone is not able to volunteer because they need to work?

Do you not think that libraries provide a useful service. They may cost money to run and provide no monetary return but do you not think they provide other benefits that are valuable to society?

Why doesn't bold work for me???

No I don't think libraries add anything to society based on their costs to run.

We work full time with kids and we all manage to do some volunteering. And had some great experiences and would never have met my wife without volunteering.

"No I don't think libraries add anything to society based on their costs to run. "

So the fact that as a child I got to read a huge variety of books via my public library for free, no doubt contributing hugely to my education and overall well-being, is just completely valueless because it "cost too much money to run"? Marvellous. I'm sure my qualified librarian friends will also be delighted to hear of their uselessness.

I think some services should NOT be expected to pay their way. Having them functioning well is a benefit to the whole of society and cannot easily be measured financially. I would include hospitals, schools, libraries and transport networks in this category.

Wait. Huffington Post doesn't pay their writers?.... Why did I not know that?

Apart from that boggle, I have been living this quandary for years. Dd2 is 12 and has cp - so for the last 12 years we have inextricably been linked to a huge number of social, medical and educational organisations. These have been every possible mixture of govt provision, charity, not for profit, and private for profit enterprises. Where govt services have been cut, volunteers have stepped up, created boards, created not for profit organisations, and recruited other volunteers to help fill gaps. Indeed, I have done so on more than one occasion myself, because despite being bloody furious that funding and services have been slashed, the service is still 'needed', whether it be for quality of life or more definitive health and ed reasons. I have put in thousands of hours unpaid over the last 12 years, including many hours of grant writing to try and persuade anyone to fund these gaps in provision.

It's a quandary. Families need these services. And the only people willing to step up and provide them are volunteers. So the volunteers do all the leg-work, fundraising, and scrape together enough money to pay a professional to provide x, y or z. The service appears to be running like any other - but without the volunteers running themselves into the ground to provide it, it wouldn't be happening at all.

It leads to a very bad taste in your mouth. I'm proud of the services we provide to hundreds of kids and youth with different abilities. But I am pig sick that we (and thousands of others) have to do it. Often volunteers are the very very thin line between a service being available and nothing. And it always makes me a little sad to hear this type of volunteer being criticised (am aware that most of the ire on this thread is directed elsewhere, but the necessity of the voluntary sector propping up the welfare state makes my blood boil).

I know how much the voluntary sector has helped dd2 and countless others.

"No I don't think libraries add anything to society based on their costs to run."

Ha really gingerdad?! I agree with leedy above. And if you don't then I think you're pretty shortsighted. Your shortsightedness also extends to the fact that you think that because you can volunteer, then so can everyone else. Look outside of your own world.