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