Letter to the W+M Office of Career Services
Dear Ms. Garrette:
My name is John Castiglione, and I graduated from the College in May of 2002. Prior to my graduation, I accepted a position with the Fund for Public Interest Research, a non-profit group that conducts recruiting on-campus. I stayed with the Fund for approximately three months, and have recently left the organization. I am writing this letter to inform you about my experiences there, and why I believe the Fund is not being forthcoming with the real expectations, hours, and pay of the jobs they recruit for at William and Mary. It is my hope that you will read this letter and take whatever action you deem necessary. I feel it is my responsibility to the students that will in the future interact with this organization to share my views with you. Perhaps the best place to start would be with a description of how the Fund describes the job they recruit for at the College, and then contrast that with what I experienced in my time with the organization. According to the job description given to me last year at an information session conducted in James Blair Hall (which can also be found at www.fundcareers.org) the position of “Citizen Outreach Director” (also known as “Canvass Director”) would consist of recruiting and training a staff to go into communities and talk to people about the issues. Next, you would organize a field campaign, writing news releases, call and speak at press conferences, build coalitions with elected officials, and meet with editorial boards. Finally, you as an office would be responsible for raising funds, while you yourself would going out “into the field” (meaning at street corners or door-to-door) “two or three times a week”, ostensibly to “train staff, raise money, identify members, activate supporters, and educate the public.” As for the hours and pay, the Fund advertised the job at 55-60 hours a week, at $19,500 a year, with $18,500 being the base salary and a $1,000 “expected bonus.” There is also a college-loan repayment plan.
This job description is reinforced by the Fund’s on-campus recruiters, as well as in the two-stage interview process. According to my own notes from the information session at the College, and the second-round interview in Washington, a canvass director was responsible for first recruiting and managing a staff, then organizing a field campaign, then fundraising, and finally dealing with administrative responsibilities. In my conversations with Fund staff members, as well as with the Fund’s national recruitment director Wes Jones at the time of the recruiting and interview process, I came away with the impression that this was an accurate portrayal of the job.
Almost immediately after I started working with the Fund, I found this portrayal to be inaccurate. Canvass directors were routinely working hours far in excess of 60 per week (In the summer, which ranges from May until September, I would estimate that directors worked approximately 75-80 hours a week, with hours on Saturday and Sunday. For the other 8 months, 55-60 hours a week is accurate). New canvass directors were expected to canvass in neighborhoods 4 days a week, and in three months I never canvassed less than 3 days per week, contrary to the “two to three days per week” advertised by the Fund. This is indicative of a canvass director’s real job, which was not to direct the efforts of the office, but to be a door-to-door canvasser with extra responsibilities. Campaign activities such as holding press conferences and meeting with lawmakers were virtually non-existent, and were explicitly downplayed by my Regional Director as not as important as canvassing. This was perhaps the most egregious falsehood perpetrated by the Fund. Any potential candidate for this job will tell you that the job’s draw is to be involved in these types of campaign activities, not simply going door-to-door to raise money. Yet I would estimate that up to 90 percent of the job consisted of the fundraising process, a number far in excess of what any reasonable person would expect given how the job is portrayed to candidates. Indeed, I was told one day that I had to raise a certain amount of money in the next week or be fired, a quota-system requirement for directors that was never, in any way, alluded to during recruitment, or in my three months on the job until that point.
The pay described by the Fund is also misleading. The supposed “$1,000 expected bonus” is really a bonus for directors that raise a lot of money canvassing. Out of the 4 new directors working in the D.C. office, none were even close to raising the requisite amount of money to even approach the full bonus. It is my estimation that few new directors nationally receive this “expected” bonus, which is significant given the low pay of the job in the first place. Paychecks are routinely and unapologetically sent late to offices, and directors are asked to pay for almost all office expenses out of pocket, with the burden on them to submit requisitions in a sometimes confusing and inefficient repayment system.
The “loan repayment plan” offered by the Fund is also extremely misleading. According to recruiters, if an employee pays at least $50 a month on college loans, the Fund will pay $100. It seems pretty simple, until after 3 months on staff, you find out the details. In order to be eligible, the director must “make an effort to extend your payment over the longest possible schedule” and then the Fund will provide the $100, with federal and state taxes being withheld from the director’s paycheck. Essentially, this program discourages employees from actually enrolling in it, since extending your loan in order to receive $100 a month would almost surely be more expensive in the long run (And you would not actually receive $100 a month due to taxes – something the Fund knows but doesn’t tell candidates). Yet you don’t find all this out until it is too late. This, again, is significant, given the draw of a loan-repayment plan to graduates taking on such a low-salaried position.
I could go on at length about how the Fund misleads, hedges, and outright lies during the recruitment and hiring process. Yet I feel that the information provided here gives an accurate portrayal of some of the most egregious actions on the part of the Fund. Essentially, they gloss over details, fudge on specifics, and only tell you the real requirements of the job after you have accepted it. Already, two new directors besides myself have quit over these issues (including another 2002 William and Mary graduate), and I know that the other 3 new directors in the D.C. office will quit once other employment is secured.
Ultimately, I feel that it is my responsibility to make you aware of what is happening inside an organization that is using the College as a main recruiting arm. I feel that I would be remiss in my responsibilities to the College and to the student body if I did not make known to you what I have seen. If you have questions or wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone, email, or post.
Sincerely,
John Castiglione
Class of 2002
