- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
I had no idea the topic of unpaid internships was so contentious when I first blogged about it on Let’s Level the Playing Field by Ruining Everyone’s Chances, as it elicited vociferous and emotional responses from readers and fellow arts bloggers alike. I assumed it was clear that by forcing arts organizations to pay set wages for specific periods of time, it would reduce the availability of internships and ultimately hurt the pool of hopeful interns trying to get their foot in the door. In the already-competitive world of the arts, depriving interns of choices just makes it that much more difficult to get necessary experience and resume-building opportunities.
Since then, the unpaid internship debate has been making some headlines, with pro and con opinions abounding online.
Wall Street Journal, “War on Interns: Making It Illegal to Work for Free”
While the Department of Labor may insist the world owes these kids a living, the truth is that many young workers are willing to trade free labor for a chance to demonstrate their skills and build a resume for the next job. Especially in a bad labor market, the choice college students face may be to work without pay, or hang by the beach.
This isn’t exploiting young people. It’s letting young people exploit an opportunity.
The Washington Examiner, “Obama’s war on internships (and female employment)“
Pricing interns out of the market proves especially salient for women, who make up 76 percent of the internship pool nationwide, according to the American Psychological Association. When opportunities evaporate for would-be unpaid interns, women will be the hardest hit.
The Future Majority “Unpaid Internships Bridge on Slave Labor“
Despite the overall con opinion, even Future Majority writer says,
I’ll admit I did unpaid internships while in college full time and working part time and many of the innovative online experiments I run in campaigns I am only able to do with the support of a staff of unpaid internships because campaigns don’t want to pay their staff to try new things. So I rely very heavily on interns both for support staff and for new and sometimes crazy ideas.
To be clear, it appears the administration is only cracking down on unpaid internships with for-profit organizations, which seems it would not greatly affect non-profit arts organizations, but who knows what the future holds.
The major flaw in thinking with those who want to crack down on unpaid internships is they believe organizations will replace all previous unpaid job opportunities with paid opportunities and pull from the same pool of unexperienced workers. Like it or not, most internships often include a component of “real” work in addition to the educational experience that is supposed to be provided, and employers offering internships are likely to be more discriminating about the prior experience of applicants when they have to pay for it. Furthermore, it seems odd to have to pay a student to give them an education – this model is unlike any educational model I’ve seen – which all require payment by the student for their learning experience (either through tuition or taxpayer support).
The most amusing response I read on the topic shed light on the ultimate hypocrisy of our government in this debate. From Donald Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek:
It’s unclear, however, why the same young people whom the President judges to be unfit to choose for themselves whether or not to work as unpaid interns at for-profit firms are fit to choose for themselves whether or not to work as unpaid interns at not-for-profit organizations. So I urge this administration, which is ever-vigilant at protecting us from our irrational and helpless selves, also to prohibit young people from working as unpaid interns at not-for-profit outfits – such as political campaigns.
Indeed, Mr. Obama should not only apologize to the thousands of young, unpaid volunteers whom he exploited in 2008 for his own profit – namely, to win his election to the highest pulpit in the land – he should also give to each and every one of them back pay (with interest) for their efforts on his behalf.
The bottom line in this entire debate is that people should be free to work for free if they want to. End of story. The argument that young people are too stupid to make the decision to work for free and are being exploited because they are afraid to call out evil would-be employers is just laughable! I’m assuming they are equally free to quit the job? The argument that only rich kids can afford to work for free is equally comical.
Again, increasing the wage of internships will not increase their availability and many people need to work for free to gain experience. If someone truly cannot afford to work for free, their path may be longer and more indirect or they may need to work two jobs (one paid in an unrelated field and one unpaid) in order to gain experience. The reality is, an unpaid internship is simply a formalized extension of the oldest business and networking advice, “Do people favors for free.” This puts you on their radar, shows you are a go-getter, and makes you far more likely to get a paid position when it becomes available.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=62fcfce5-9ca4-4fbb-bede-720b8124b5ca)
Tags: Arts, Business and Economy, Capitalism, Civil Disobedience, Creative Careers, Fiscal Viability in the Arts, Labor Economics, Politics
Milena,
Hi, I’m back! With all due respect, I think you’re completely missing the point. I see the internship controversy as one of labeling and expectations, not whether or not people should be allowed to work for free. Of course people should be allowed to work for free, at least in the nonprofit sector. The question is in what context it’s appropriate and whether people are given the information and tools they need to make an informed decision about what they’re doing. I hope we agree that transparency and good information is an important tool for the correct functioning of markets, yes?
Maybe your experience has been different, but where I come from the word “internship” carries with it very different connotations and expectations than the word “volunteer.” It’s different in two ways: (1) it carries with it an expectation that the experience will be educational in a fashion that is a supplement to or replacement for classroom work (this is why educational credit is often offered for internships, but never for volunteer work); and (2) it carries an expectation that the experience is equivalent to a job for the purposes of being listed on a resume (whereas volunteer work is generally relegated to its own section and deemed less important). In short, volunteer work is recognized by all parties as being, well, voluntary – yes, you can do whatever you want with me because I believe in the cause and I want my work to benefit you. By contrast, internships are more transactional in nature – I am doing this because I expect to get something out of it that benefits me directly.
These two critical differences are why the government instituted the six tests for unpaid internships to distinguish them from work. It’s very easy for an employer to sell their internship as an educational experience and then, once the intern gets in the door, turn the tables on them and have them doing drudgery that solely benefits the organization. Your statement that “they are equally free to quit the job” is glib and false because there is generally a specific seasonal market for internships (fall, spring, summer), and an intern would not become aware of the gap between his expectations and his employer’s until after the hiring process for other positions has ended. Thus, the choice is either “bad internship” or “no internship,” not “bad internship” or “internship I actually thought I was getting.” It’s exactly the same as if you bought a product based on false advertising, except that you can’t just return it to the store; you’re never getting those wasted hours of your life back.
As for your argument that “the argument that only rich kids can afford to work for free is …comical,” we’ve tangled on this before and you chose not to engage me at that time. Rather than reiterate my points, I’ll instead direct your attention to Scott Walters’s writings on this topic, which well illustrate how a system in which unpaid internships are a requirement to get ahead further stacks the deck against the poor, both in theory (http://theatretact.org/?p=169) and in practice (http://theatretact.org/?p=118).
@Ian –
I’m not missing “the” point, as the point I’m addressing – forcing paid internships – is different from the one you bring up: you say, “I see the internship controversy as one of labeling and expectations, not whether or not people should be allowed to work for free.” I’m not certain what we disagree on in that regard then. If you are concerned that the definition of “internship” is being used when the word “volunteer” is more appropriate (which I would agree is a perfectly legitimate concern as words do have distinct meanings), then that should be addressed directly.
The proposed government solution of forcing organizations to pay for their interns will not alleviate the problem you bring up. My point in the post, distinct from yours, addressed the issue that forcing pay will have negative effects on the entire pool of hopeful interns, which are also largely comprised of women. By simply calling something a “paid internship” and making it for-pay, how could that possibly guarantee an improvement in the labeling, expectations, and quality control issues you are talking about? The two things are unrelated.
So, your assertion that the issue is “not whether or not people should be allowed to work for free” may be true for you personally (which shows you are more insightful than most politicians), but it is the crux of the public debate as far as I can tell, not the issue of “labeling and expectations,” which is certainly a problem it makes sense to address that won’t be alleviated simply by making organizations pay for their interns.
You also say, “Your statement that “they are equally free to quit the job” is glib and false…” This statement is not false, they are free to quit. Furthermore, if they are not being paid, at the point it is discovered they are in a bad unpaid internships, it is a net gain to quit, as they may still have a chance to get some kind of paid position elsewhere, regardless if the chances applying for seasonal internships are dried up. As for the wasted hours of life that a bad internship certainly may cause, that person gains valuable experience about how crappy the real world of work can be. I don’t know anyone who considered all their paid positions to be “exactly as advertised.”
Perhaps a solution for potential interns would be using sites like glassdoor.com, theemployerguide.com, or getunvarnished.com, which rate employers and manage worker reputations (which ostensibly includes hiring managers or those otherwise in charge of internships). I’m pretty sure there are other sites like this – these are just the ones I found doing a quick search. Another solution could be creating a site dedicated solely to anonymous internship ratings or creating a “Top Internships in America” list or “Best and Worst Internships” list like in Time, Forbes, Fortune, etc. – which could go a long way to improving what I think we both agree are legitimate information asymmetry problems. It would recognize organizations that are doing things right and encourage others to do the same.
Mere legislation will be ineffective and cannot guarantee the results you seek, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post: policing the world of internships via a centralized government organization is logistically cumbersome, a waste of resources, and unlikely to make a real difference for the legitimate problems being identified – hence, why the current laws/guidelines policing internships are ineffective.
Furthermore, for the interns afraid of outing their opportunity-provider to a governmental policing body, anonymous Internet and/or magazine polls and rankings are much safer to protect their own reputation if they feel they would rather go that route. Plus I would think the negative rating could reach more potential interns via a website or major media news source than if the labor department got a hold of the info and was then responsible for policing organizations and/or alerting future interns.
I believe the issues you brought up in remainder of your comment are addressed by me in this and my previous posts, so I would just be repeating myself. I can only conclude we will not be seeing eye-to-eye. You do not need to convince me that being poor is more difficult than being rich in every area of life. So, where we seem to differ is in how to effectively alleviate disparities between rich and poor and make a meaningful difference in the lives of those who go without. Agreeing that steps should be taken is one thing – there we do not disagree. Agreeing philosophically and politically on how is another.
My personal experience is that my unpaid internships – of which I had several – were not nearly as useful of the multiple jobs I held throughout college. I still go back to the lessons from my primary job during college as a “tele-funder” – persistence, persuasiveness, positivity. Corny, but it’s been valuable for me. The unpaid internships ended up being more resume filler. The extra-curriculars that showed I cared. I think they certainly can be valuable, but my sense is that if an organization – for profit or not, doesn’t have the time and resources to provide compensation, then they may not have the resources to provide a mutually beneficial opportunity.