The Guardian journalist Hugh Muir was giving Tony Blair a hard time yesterday because his charity has advertised unpaid internships. He cites public indignation at the 'exploitation of the young by those who can afford to pay them' accusing Blair's charity of '..seeking help on the cheap'.
I think he's missed the point.
The superficial iniquity of getting workers for free is dwarfed by social engineering aspect of internships: the jobs, certainly those in high profile areas (usually in central London) where useful contacts and connections can be made are only open to the children of the already wealthy and well connected.
Sure, it's theoretically possible for someone from a poorer background to borrow the money or save up, but back in the real world this is highly unlikely, and they would probably be filtered out in the recruitment process in favour of more 'appropriate' candidates - i.e. the children of the wealthy and well connected.
At heart, the internship world is about patronage and preferment, about favours for potential allies and about the preservation of entrenched privilege amongst the elite.
It may even be to Tony Blair's credit that these posts are even being advertised and not stitched up for the select few without even the semblance of process. I doubt that James Caan's daughters had to go through a rigorous, impartial selection process to get their internships with the firms he's involved with.
The only silver lining is that pretty most jobs used to be allocated on this basis. At least we have the semblance of a fair system covering most recruitment activities. It may not stop unfair practices, but it sends a very strong societal message that it is unacceptable, and that at least, is the way to start changing attitudes.
The best thing the government could do to promote mobility is to ensure internships are covered by these standard employment practices, but that's hardly likely is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment