Posted on 04/06/2010 8:11:56 PM PDT by JohnRLott
The Obama administration's top law enforcement officer at the Labor Department, M. Patricia Smith, is targeting companies that give young people unpaid internships. She claims that internships are rife with abusive practices and that serious violations of labor law are widespread. Arguing that interns should get paid at least minimum wage, Ms. Smith and the White House risk destroying a valuable steppingstone that gives many young Americans training they need to get jobs they want in the future.
Unpaid internships are valuable for many reasons. Most simply, they help people test whether they are a good fit for a particular industry. If interns like the type of work at particular companies, internships can help them get the training and contacts they need to make their career aspirations a reality. The short time that interns spend at jobs - often just two to three months - makes it difficult for firms to both train these young people and get much work out of them. From manufacturing to nonprofits to media companies such as The Washington Times, hands-on opportunities open through internships are almost endless. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You very nicely sidestepped the observation that the internship is non-classroom learning that is provided to the intern for free, as opposed to the classroom learning obtained while enrolled in college, for which one has to pay tuition.
You also sidestepped the fact that the intern, when in their college student role, still has to pay for his or her needs, and yet going to college to learn isn’t a paying job.
Ignoring these truths do not make them less true.
It’s a question of Return On Investment (ROI).
For an established professional, the company gets positive ROI because of the quality, relevance, and volume of work produced by the individual. Therefore, the ROI merits paying the individual commensurate with his or her performance.
For an intern, the company trains the intern while receiving very little (if any) usable work product in the profession being interned for. Therefore, the amount of investment that is merited by the return is much, much lower - and in some cases is (monetarily) nothing.
Huh, now that's interesting. This is basically what the school district I interned at (unpaid) was doing. Eliminated one office job and fills it with a continuous supply of interns.
Don't want to be an intern? Don't be one. Learn the skills and get the experience some other way.
However, to say the government has the right to do this and that you have no problem with it means you are, indeed, a liberal dumbass.
This is not directed at you JohnRLott, but at all of the idiots on this thread, and others, that seem to think Bozo has the right idea in imposing his will on the American free enterprise system.
Not if there are no alternatives for the prospective employee in a particular career field in order to secure a job. Then there would be implicit coercion to then work without pay.
You don’t read much of Thomas Sowell, do you.
The above is an attitude of entitlement.
“I must be paid a living wage in my CHOSEN career field or someone is oppressing me.”
No, it means that there isn’t enough demand for the “particular career field” in order to justify payment - or, the “supply” of people wanting to enter the particular career field is much higher than the current market need for that skill set. There is no “inherent coercion”. People used to hire themselves or their kids out as apprentices with little or no pay in order to learn a skill.
In a liberals’ screwed up worldview, any “situation” in which someone, or a group of someones, has chosen a particular product or occupation from a particular company indicates “coercion” by that business, because people’s choices were affected. Yes, that’s an ignorant and screwed up worldview.
And I take it the person in question was forced to make that particular career choice? I'm not sure what type of career you are talking about where an unpaid internship is the *only* way into the career, but if that is the case then people would not be choosing that career unless the benefits gained from the unpaid internship of entry into the career made the unpaid internship worthwhile.
But, if you favor increased government regulation of the workplace because you think the government isn't doing enough for the workers, then that is your prerogative. I guess you also probably favor card-check too, eh?
No, that's what'd I'd expect. But what makes it appropriate is that the new hires *ARE* getting paid. I've never advocated that interns should be paid equal to that of regular employees. What I argue is that if someone provides work/labor for a company, they must be paid the value of the work. Not be told, as many here think, that their labor is valueless and that the intern should just be grateful for the experience.
Taking that line of reasoning to the extreme would find that, unless you literally are the most experienced person in a field, companies could simply say that they don't have to pay, for the experience alone is compensation.
For everyone is always learning how to get better at their job.
Except I’m not talking about college students going to corporations for on-the-job training in their field of study, for college credit. The college credit is their pay. Now if the college refuses to grant it... I’d have a beef with it.
I’m talking about fully graduated college students, or those in the workforce who’ve made a lateral career move, or former military, etc, etc, etc. Many here are stating that internships are the only path into a career field, so by default... these people, regardless of how skilled they are, must spend a time as an intern in order to be hired as an employee... without pay.
For the argument goes something along the lines of “These people are unskilled and their work is garbage. It costs the company more to correct their mistakes, so they should be grateful for the opportunity to learn. Then, once they’re trained, maybe the company might consider hiring them, or not.”
And that’s bull. If you are hired to do work, then you should be paid for the work.
And the company would get an even great ROI if they just didn’t pay their employees at all... and simply hired a few guards to keep them from leaving.
Chinese firms have figured this out. How could we even consider hindering our company’s ability to compete?
Only a communist thinks that one can get something for free.
You are a communist, since you support having companies get free labor.
Your arguments are entirely at odds with your tagline, FRiend.
We disagree.
This is another instance where the government is seeking to “improve” the lives of its subjects (and I use that word intentionally) by exercising ever increasing levels of central control.
You appear to be just fine with that. I am not.
Where do you get the idea that since I believe that if anyone, interns included, provide labor... they should be paid for it...
...with a living wage?!?
Seriously, WTF?
Interns are unskilled, so they should be paid like unskilled labor. The point I make is that they should be paid for their labor.
PERIOD!
Too many here think that it’s right and good for companies to demand free labor of prospective employees as a prerequisite for employment.
And that is wrong.
No, it means that there isn’t enough demand for the “particular career field” in order to justify payment - or, the “supply” of people wanting to enter the particular career field is much higher than the current market need for that skill set. There is no “inherent coercion”. People used to hire themselves or their kids out as apprentices with little or no pay in order to learn a skill.
If there is too much supply and not enough demand for a particular career field, then why would companies even take interns? They'd be topped up on skilled personnel in the first place. And if there was a opening, then they would be able to simply hire a skilled person from whose job had been eliminated somewhere else.
If anything, the type of internship discussed here can only survive in careers where job growth is matching the growth in the pool of prospective new employees. For I've already discussed the situation where supply exceeds demand for the career skill... and in situations where there is a sudden increase in the demand for new hires, companies would be offering top dollar for ANYONE slightly capable.
Snarky.
No, I support the basics of the free market. You provide a supply of something... and you are paid the market price based on demand.
And labor is a commodity. If the company is taking your labor, then they pay the market price. End of story.
You’re the one arguing that people providing the commodity of labor should *NOT* be paid for it.
Which is more in line with the practical application of Communism throughout the world. (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba)
How can any supposed free-market supporter believe that if one supplies a commodity (labor), that they shouldn’t be paid the market value of it... based on demand?
Demand is shown by companies hiring on interns, thus there is a value for their work. Therefore, PAY them the free-market value of their work.
(or, at least, pay them the closest you can get with our current set of laws)
Why do you believe that the government should set the market value, or that the value is only to be set in terms of dollars?
live Free or Die! (But don’t have unpaid interns) ;-P
What a dumb ass.I support a mutual agreement between companies and interns. The interns are not working for free, they get paid in knowledge and experience, too very valuable commodities, plus they are free not to work as interns. The only communist on these threads are the ones who think the government has the right to control free enterprise. If you believe this then you are a communist and a dumb ass, a very terrible combination.
If they’re willing to do it for no pay, they ought to be allowed to do so.
...
Talk about ripping a page out of the Soviet Union's playbook.
...or that the value is only to be set in terms of dollars?
No need for money, comrade. Your Order of Labor Glory medal is waiting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Labour_Glory
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.