I think it's a semantics issue. Volunteering to me implies things like community engagement, religious organization involvement, etc. It also implies...being voluntary. But businesses don't offer volunteer opportunities; they offer internships and these are usually considered a prerequisite for a job despite requiring the same amount of work as a job (but for no pay). Volunteering isn't necessary to break into an industry, but internships can be.
Perhaps. When you say "businesses don't offer volunteer opportunities" I don't think you mean force is involved (i.e. it's not "voluntary"). I think you mean it's not a religious or community-engagement context. That's clear. We can say there are a variety of opportunities to work without salary: picking up trash, serving food in a shelter, teaching English in a church, calling voters, answering phones, filing paperwork. People take these opportunities for a variety of reasons. Knowing how to read isn't necessary to pick up trash, but it is to file paperwork. Knowing how to speak English isn't necessary to serve food, but it is to teach English. I still don't see any moral distinction. If we didn't know which opportunities were called "volunteer" and which were "internship," how would we tell them apart?I think it's a semantics issue.
Not force exactly but coercion certainly. It's the implication that you MUST take a period of no pay in order to maybe get pay in the future. I don't think people are going out and picking up trash or serving in a shelter in order to get a corporate position; it's usually for the reward of doing a good thing in and of itself. I think calling voters, answering phones, and filing paperwork all constitute employable work. I think volunteering is something you do for the benefit of the community while interning is for the benefit of a company which is where the moral distinction might come into play.
Expressing the requirements you have of workers before you offer them salary is no more coercive than having requirements of flavor before you offer money for coffee. Starbucks is not forced to provide Pumpkin Spice if you are only willing to buy Pumpkin Spice. The only coercion I see is coming from people who aim to force organizations to pay for labor. The article says that interns are often students. What is a student? A student is a person who works in a structured environment, with a fixed schedule, for an extended period. A student receives no salary. Do advocates of minimum wage condemn this arrangement? Of course not. Sensible people support financial aid, to make it easier for disadvantaged people who can't afford to work without salary to become students. What are the benefits that a business receives from an intern? Answered phone calls, filed paperwork, cases researched, facts checked. All in support of the real goal: to make more money for the business. When I said the student receives no salary, I left out a detail of the working arrangement. Students pay for the opportunity to work hard in school. The university benefits more immediately and directly than any business. Any other business, I should say. There's nothing wrong with that.Not force exactly but coercion certainly.
interning is for the benefit of a company