We place certain legal restrictions on employment relationships for public policy reasons. For example, we don’t allow people to sell themselves into slavery.
While that is true for job types where paid internships and entry level jobs are the norm (and only less reputable employers try to pull naive people into unpaid internships), those job types where unpaid internships are the norm for entry level people would be inaccessible to those from low SES families who cannot afford to support them during unpaid internships.
^^or, what TV4 is saying, is that the po’ folk need not apply to certain industries - such as TV? --where an unpaid internship is the first – and nearly required – door opener.
That is not what I am saying at all, because for one thing an internship is not “nearly required” to get a foot in the door. We go through entry-level positions like most people go through underwear. I would venture to say that fewer than 10% of our new employees have internship experience, and it might even be way down in the single digits.
Where it might help is getting someone noticed for having certain skills or knowledge that might help them advance. However, it is just as easy to get noticed by showing initiative and a good work ethic. Kids that learn new skills on their own time almost always move up quickly. Oh wait, I suppose we should pay them to learn a new skill when they come in two hours early? 
Seriously, though, if kid comes in two hours early and learns a new skill because he wants to get ahead but another lower SES kid can’t afford to come in two hours early because he has another job, how is that different? Should we be required to pay an EL worker to learn a new skill when it is not part of their job description and they are just doing it to be able to put on their resume that they can edit etc?
I wonder how many of those industries there are. TV certainly is not one of them. VERY few of our entry-level hires have ever done an internship.
Not only does being low income make it impossible to take unpaid internships, it can interfere with the networking necessary to get the best college assigned internships. The more well-to-dostudents at our school had more time to chat with professors than those of us who worked full-time jobs did. Not surprisingly, the best TV internships (the studio jobs) went to them. (Several of my male classmates bragged about flirting with the internship coordinator, who they despised, and competed to see who could get the “best” internahip). But, every single one of us had to do one to graduate.
100 percent exploitation. If they valued what you were bringing to the table, they would pay you. At least minimum wage…
@Qwerty568 Your statement about value is true. So what do you suggest for situations where companies don’t value what a kid brings to the table and are simply trying to give the kid a break?
This thread and, specifically, the last two posts (#226 and #227) illustrate why so many do not make near the amount of money that they could: this shortfall is the result of not knowing how to assess one’s value, how to qualify said value, and how to quantify said value.
Irrespective of level of unpaid internship being discussed, the value of an unpaid intern is relative to the environment, i.e., the intern is the truly the beneficiary, not the environment. Therefore, if one does not understand how to assess one’s value or if one thinks everything manually done by someone has reimbursable cash value in every situation, then this is not something one would understand as economically sound, but it is economically sound.
Maybe an example would help (or maybe not). Which of the following is the more valuable, useful internship?:
- a paid intern who fetches coffee and other things for an executive and who is responsible for making sure everything that executive needs for a meeting is present etc. Pretty much the standard “go for” paid internship in many companies. This intern never attends high-level meetings or meets higher-ups and more powerful people because he is just seen as the help. Pay is $15/hr or so.
Or, 2) the unpaid intern who took an unpaid internship to shadow the executive for 8 weeks - seeing the inner workings of the company; sitting in on real, consequential decision-taking meetings; being able to ask intricate questions; and being given the respect of complete answers with detailed explanations. This intern does not fetch coffee and the like (maybe occasionally though), but actually sits in with the executive as he prepares for meetings and the executive explains why he is doing what he is doing and why it is important to organization etc. The unpaid intern also attends business luncheons and dinners and sees how that internal world functions.
The answer is obvious - the unpaid internship is more valuable because the unpaid intern will learn and gain much more useful experience and knowledge than the paid intern.
However, it is important to note that the unpaid intern goes unpaid because of his relative value to the environment - he really brings nothing of trade-able value, and actually is an expense and a drag on the organization. Why? People have to stop and explain him things and answer his questions. That costs time and money, as it slows things down a bit. Relatively speaking, it is the environment that is most valuable to the unpaid intern, not the intern to the company. The intern knows he is getting the better value proposition, and he pays for it with his own opportunity costs, i.e., his turning down a paid internship. But, in the end, he is way ahead in terms of gained trade-able value, i.e., knowledge.
In contrast, the paid intern also took a choice. He took the paid internship and received a paycheck, but he paid for it dearly because he valued his opportunity costs differently - specifically he discounted and qualified his value to $15/hr - his opportunity costs were he learned less and is way less valuable after the internship.
Both interns assessed their value differently. The paid intern low-balled his value relative to the environment and did not see that the environment was more valuable than his paycheck. The unpaid intern correctly assessed his value and that of the environment and took his “payment” in the form of increased knowledge and specific experience. The unpaid intern correctly assessed which was more valuable, himself to the company or the knowledge gained from the company.
Basic point - it is not exploitation if the unpaid intern comes out ahead value-wise based on what he could reasonably contribute to the environment, which is relatively nothing useful. Some on here are so stuck on the concept of money being the only indicator of value that they do not see that the increased personal value of the unpaid intern after the internship is his payment.
In terms of this discussion, this is a false equivalence. Slavery and unpaid internships are not even comparable.
There is a reason the IRS has a term called “payment-in-kind.” The issue with slavery is there is no equivalent payment based on the value of what the slave brings. This is not the case for unpaid internships for college students and entry-level workers because they have very little useable skills to begin with. However, the end result after the internship is they can use that position /experience to get a better position. The unpaid intern is paid-in-kind with increased knowledge and trade-able experience.
In contrast, slaves, even if paid cash, are paid less than their value. Furthermore, they cannot use their experience to get a better position and are actually devalued from day one and are worth less each year.
Therefore, for some public policy bureaucrat to define what he does not like as slavery does not necessarily make it so, but nice progressive bumper sticker for Joe Idiot though - sounds reasonable, even if economically flawed. Sad part is Joe Bureaucrat rarely understands business because he never has built or paid for anything out of his own pocket.
Reminds me of factory in a US territory that we were invested in. The workers there made 4 to 5 times the average of the entire territory. A US government agency told the board that in accordance with national policy (US national policy, not territory policy, which was different), we needed to raise wages. That would raise wages to over 10X the territory’s average. Essentially, we were accused of underpaying and of corporate slavery, even though we gave these people the equivalent of real comfortable middle class lives when they were dirt poor before.
Well, there was the mandate. In short, we had a choice of doubling our labor costs which accounts for 70% of our overall costs. The choice was either get a return of 4.5% (instead of the usual 8% return) for all the work producing and managing the product or get a return of 4%, which is essentially the yield of a some tax-free instruments. No brainer - why do all the work of running the division for only 0.5% more than a tax-free instrument that required no work? Only a silly person would take on that headache for so little. The other option was to move to another country. Result, we moved.
There you go - some bureaucrat under the guise of smart public policy took several hundred people who were now were middle class back to being poor because he deduced their wages were too low, even though stratospheric for them. I guess that bureaucrat felt great that he saved the people from our corporate slavery, even if they all became unemployed, and too bad, still are. Only an intellectual public policy bureaucrat would think that is progress. Bet he never asked the people what they thought though about their “low wages,” as they were paid multiples above the average worker.
Again, please cite a single non-fantasy example of this internship.
Re: #228
What percentage of unpaid interns are shadowing executive management (your scenario 2) versus doing “go for” type of things (your scenario 1)?
In other unpaid internship threads, film production is commonly brought up as an example (and this where Glatt vs. Fox Searchlight came from). Of course, another “industry” where unpaid internships are common are politicians (of course, they wrote the law to exempt themselves from having to pay interns who do real work).
Companies near is regularly post ads for interns. The qualifications they’re looking for (a combination of education and experience) suggests to me that the interns are expected to bring something useful to the table.
Companies shouldn’t be allowed to have permanent unpaid positions. Why would they offer true entry level positions when they can require a year of free labor first? Students whose families can’t afford for them to donate their time to businesses will be discriminated against because of their economic status.
Students whose families support them while they work unpaid internships lose the income that the position should have paid and their families lost however much it cost to support them. Housing, food, transportation, and health insurance costs aren’t cheap. The only ones coming out ahead are the companies who are getting a constant supply of free labor.
When families complain about how assets are assessed to determine financial aid, we explain that colleges shouldn’t be expected to finance their 2nd homes or retirement. The same policy should apply to businesses. Families and students shouldn’t be expected to subsidize companies by providing a free workforce.
Sure, but that value is relative to what the company is bringing to the table. Simply, the rudimentary skills of the unpaid intern relative to the environment is pretty much non-existent. However, you are correct a functioning brain good social skills, and dependent on the internship, some specific skills and the ability to understand what is going on around you are the required skills. These are valuable to take advantage of the internship, but that is baseline and not something that one needs to pay for if the internship is beyond anything the intern as ever done.
I will let this pass, as it makes no sense. There are no permanent unpaid internships that I know of. I suspect given the carefulness and clarity of your writing that you did not mean permanent.
Because the unpaid internship is not an entry-level position; it is often several steps below, and literally comes with no consequential responsibilities, which is opposite of even the lowest entry-level workers.
Just because you decide to call an internship an entry-level position does not make it so. You are discussing this topic based on a self-fulfilling prophesy of what you decide is so and you start from there. Well, in that case you will always be correct in your view, even if wrong in reality.
Think about what you are saying here - You are saying that businesses are discriminating against less well-off families by offering unpaid internships, which only wealthier families can afford. OK, that is your take on it, openly discriminatory behavior. But, how is this any different than any other business in existence that sells products?
Is Mercedes being discriminatory in that it sets a price of $70,000 for its average car when the average family can only afford a $30,000 car? Do you also charge that Mercedes is discriminating against poorer families who delusional-ly think they should have access to a Mercedes? Is Ralph Lauren being discriminatory by setting a price of $75 for its average shirt, when the average student can only afford an $18 shirt? Of course these companies are not being discriminatory because they are selling to the people who can afford their products. I highly doubt that you think you can go into a Mercedes’ storeroom and tell them that they must set a price for a Mercedes so that your can afford it like the wealthier families. Same for the shirt, as you would be laughed out the stores.
In this vein, companies, which offer unpaid internships, are doing the exact same thing. They have decided to set the “price” of certain internships at $0, just like Mercedes sets its price at $70,000. And the people who can afford said internships apply and get them and those who cannot then do not “buy” them and go for other internships that fit their budget, just like with cars and shirts.
I surely hope you are not going around living your life envious that others get to have things you do not. That would suck.
See previous section above.
It is not your right or position to tell any other person or family what he / it should spend his money on, same as you cannot tell someone not to buy a Mercedes. The family did not lose that income; it decided to spend that potential income on the unpaid internship, i.e., the price of the internship, which is its choice, not yours. They chose to voluntarily pay that price, same as they voluntarily by $70,000 cars.
You are stuck on only money again. The labor of the unpaid intern is not free, as the company is teaching the intern things the intern would not have learned, if not for the unpaid internship. The intern gets payment-in-kind, same as getting money.
An erroneous analogy, as families are not businesses or vice versa.
Families gain by functioning like a business in some aspects, but they are not businesses for one very important reason - a business must answer to investors and are responsible for other people’s money. In contrast, a family is responsible only for its own money.
Thus, a business must produce a return for other people - this is a much higher legal and fiduciary responsibility than a family has dealing with its own money. One goes to jail for mismanaging and giving away other people’s money. A family does not have this problem hanging over its head, legally or fiscally.
They are not expected to subsidize; they choose to because they see the value of the knowledge and experienced gained, as greater than small paycheck. You seem not to understand that differential value, and only see the money as value.
It is easy to lose out on a lot in the future if one thinks everything you do must be compensated with a cash value. Not everything you do is worth cash payment at the time / moment it is done; however, if parlayed correctly, it is worth serious cash value in the future, and that is the real payoff.
Varies by industry, but easily 30% (unpaid) vs 70% (paid). And, I have personally seen it has high as 40% unpaid.
So you mean that 30% of unpaid interns are shadowing executives, and 70% of paid interns are shadowing executives?
Why is it unethical? If a kid takes an internship for three months, whether paid or not, it tends to get you jobs. That’s the end point. A to B. Back when I was at Cal I had an unpaid internship (through Cal) at the local TV station news room. X-number of hours a week. I also got some college credits. I got a job from it. Not at that TV station, but another.
I also coach kids on how to get short-term internships - a few hours a week, unpaid, for a few months. It has helped them get actual jobs. It isn’t all about exploitation.
@lindyk8 I agree. It answers the old imponderable: “I need experience to get a job. But how do I get experience without a job?” Some limits should be placed on it so young people aren’t taken advantage of. But mostly it’s an important learning opportunity. And you raise a good point on the college credit.
Your ANALOGY IS FLAWED in a many ways:
- in the internship market, the intern is the seller. In the Mercedes transaction the car dealer is the seller.
Find me a Mercedes dealer who gives away free cars on speculation that the recipient might buy a car from him in the future.
- the Mercedes dealer might throw in free floor mats to entice the customer to buy a car. But the dealer never gives away the floor mats unless the buyer agrees to buy.
By contrast, in the unpaid internship market, the intern can offer to work unpaid (give away free car mats) , but there is no obligation for the employer to hire. Therefore, the employer is free to engage in successive exploitation.
- A Mercedes dealer sets the sales price at 70k rather than 30k, because that’s the price necessary for the dealer to make a sustainable profit. If the dealer sold his stock at 30k, he wouldn’t last very long.
Likewise, if an intern worked at an unsustainable level of compensation (unpaid), s/he also wouldn’t last very long.
- an unpaid internship is not equivalent to a Mercedes “test drive”. The cost of business for marketing a car is already built into the car’s sales price. The cost of an unpaid internship is not built into the starting salary of an entry level job.
Anyone is eligible to walk in off the street to do a test drive. The threshold for participation is low: only 15 minutes of your time. The threshold for participation for an unpaid internship is considerable. Kids who need to work a paid job in the summer to be able to stay in college, get shut out from the start.