Replies

You’d argue otherwise. If there is value in the work an intern does, then pay for it. The intern can then use it to pay for the training. That way, the intern can see the tangible value he provides and judge whether or not the training the company provides is worth the cost.

Here's the facts of life: if the interns did not see the training and opportunity to be worth putting in a month or two of unpaid labor, they wouldn't apply for the internship.

The alternative is for the company to take them on as part-time temporary workers (minimum wage, no benefits) doing bottom-rung menial tasks (mopping floors, sorting mail, etc). Then for maybe a few hours per week they get put down the mop and spend a couple of hours doing what they would like to base their careers on. After a year, they either get promoted to doing what they want, or they get laid off.

Do you see that as an improvement over an unpaid one or two month internship?

The point of an internship is to allow an opportunity to examine the candidate over time, to see if he's going to fit in and be worth hiring. It's a natural consequence of current discrimination and "wrongful termination" laws, which make hiring somebody a risk, unless you can verify ahead of hiring that he will work out.

Here's the facts of life: if the interns did not see the training and opportunity to be worth putting in a month or two of unpaid labor, they wouldn't apply for the internship.

Actually, the fact is that the prospective intern doesn't know what the job will be like until they get there. After all, if they did know the job, they wouldn't be needing the internship in the first place...

...for they'd already know the skills.

(Well, unless you back my assertion that in some careers, people can only get hired on in permanent positions if they undergo unpaid internships, regardless of their level of skill.)

The 'wrongful termination' laws need to be seriously revamped... no argument there.