Volunteering During a Downturn - Can You Do It?

Recently, Sam Baker, a PBS/NPR radio host, and Debbie Kratcky of Workforce Solutions in Dallas discussed how job applicants can patch-up holes in their resumes by volunteering. I've always thought that this was an interesting idea... as an idea, but I wonder if it really works for anyone.

Now I have a big admission to make, and you probably won't like it: I am not a big fan of volunteering! There. I've said it! If at this point, you're beginning to squint, scowl, furrow your brow, or otherwise disfigure your face due to utter disapproval of these sentiments... that's ok; I can take it. Let me explain my trepidation. I think that it is a beautiful, and wonderful thing for people to volunteer to help others, for example, at soup kitchens, or out on the street... "in the field" helping the homeless, or the poor. However, my dislike for most volunteering comes from my background as a member of the solidly lower-middle class... the, "working poor". Long story short, companies that "hire" volunteers get free labor, essentially killing paying jobs, all the while blatantly, brutally, and hypocritically extolling the virtues of capitalism.

I've considered this issue from many angles, so I know that some of you are thinking... "... but a lot of non-profits, for example, can't afford to pay all of their workers... they wouldn't survive if they didn't have volunteers!" However, I am, as usual, incredulous. "Non-profit" does not mean, "altruistic", "saintly", "perfect" or non-money-making. So-called non-profits have profits that they typically are required to reinvest into their businesses. Many of these companies pay top-level executives high salaries, while inviting students, recent grads, single mothers, and men with families to donate their labor for free, as volunteers. However, without changing the total amount of income designated for human resources, non-profits can reapportion salaries so that everyone gets something. After all, why should some executive at a non-profit make $100K, while some volunteer/intern makes 0? Succinctly put, they should allocate their budgets differently!

More disgusting to me, is when wealthy debutants volunteer to work just to have something to do, i.e., because they are bored, even when they could care less about the cause, or the mission of the organization to which they apply. Their wealth insulates them from being responsible for their performance, and often, they are appreciated simply for attending, even if they arrive late, and even if their work product is wanting/mediocre.

However, what I'm really addressing here today, is the question that follows:

Is it feasible for adults--who are NOT independently wealthy, or benefactors of a trust fund, but, who instead... like most people have bills/families--to volunteer to do work, when they need the $$, and when so many people are jobless? In my humble, perhaps selfish, opinion it's a bit obscene to think so. It seems to me that even in soup kitchens, instead of asking people to volunteer, non-profits/public agencies should just hire some of the homeless people who come there! I mean, they could use the money right?

More germane to the, "how to fill gaps in your resume" issue is the conundrum that people are being encouraged to offer their services to for-profit companies, not to gain a foothold in the door, or necessarily to gain experience... but, primarily, to have something that they may reference as time-spent-wisely, when talking to hiring reps. The requirement to demonstrate that one hasn't rotted, while unemployed, even if one has to spend hours a day giving away one's valuable labor, seems a bit like hazing: "Hey! Are ya unemployed/broke? I've got an idea! (Sinister grin.) Why don't you give away your services for free! Maybe something will come of it. (Haahahahahahah!!!)." Further, volunteering to get references is not a sure thing; if it doesn't work out, having done so would seem to evidence that the applicant had used his/her time inefficiently, and that he/she has poor business sense.

Why so cynical? As usual, whenever you find an angry person, you will find a hurt one. I'm bitter about the volunteer thing for personal reasons. In particular, there are two reasons:

1) When I graduated from my non-profit graduate management program, I applied to agencies that advertised paying jobs, but who then pulled a bait and switch. Specifically, I'd get to the interview and they'd say some variation of, "Wow, you have a really impressive resume! ... We'd really like to hire you, but you don't have any experience in this field, so... we thought perhaps you might be interested in volunteering." Well, if I wanted to volunteer, I wouldn't have borrowed a fortunes-worth of student loans to get through grad-school! I could have volunteered with no experience coming out of high-school. (This, of course, is what I was thinking, not what I said, as I smiled graciously, and politely declined.)

2) I had tried the volunteer thing, and it didn't work out well for me. During the last semester of my graduate program, I caved to the pressure that one must volunteer in order to get experience for work, post-graduation. I commuted to a part-time temp job in the morning, for pay, but I still was broke. In the early evening, I commuted from one state to another to attend classes; I took a bus and two connecting Amtrak trains, on an six-hour round-trip commute (+2hrs for my class). Upon my return, I commuted to my volunteer gig, which was directly related to my major. I loved it. I did great work for them, and they loved me/my work. However, I ran out of money. I actually could not afford to go there any longer. I simply ran out of cash for car fare! When I told them, they couldn't believe it; they begged me to stay, because it was "a really crucial time", and supposedly they, really needed me. What they failed to realize was that this was not a choice on my part. I really didn't have the money! My books alone had swallowed up all of my cash. I was going to have to borrow $$ just to get to classes. I did so. I finished classes, and ultimately, I've always wondered, "Why didn't they just offer me a stipend... or car-fare... or something?" Apparently, making oneself indispensable does not assure that one is not disposable.

Finally, consider the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of illiterate children and adults in this country. Most people can teach reading, because they teach their own children at home. However, millions of people are unemployed, while, most formalized jobs to tutor English are volunteer, "opportunities". Why are all of these teachable people illiterate, while all of these other people are unemployed?

What do you think?

Before you answer, I should mention what I think is the appropriate way to fill gaps in ones resume: Gain expertise in the field in which you would like to be employed, and if possible get certifications to document your progress; get a paid internship in your desired field; or work with a temp agency to find temporary work in your field... until a "head hunter" can find "permanent" work for you. (If there is such a thing.)

Now, what say you about the whole volunteer to fill in your resume solution?