I haven’t had a lot to say about the growing debate overinternships because I don’t really believe there is another side to the issue;
asking someone to work menial or even entry-level jobs for your company without
pay – and without any other conceivable benefit for the employee – is wrong,
and ultimately counter-productive. That is, I believe that any benefit the
company might gain from exploiting interns is likely to be outweighed by losses
resulting from low motivation, resentment from both the interns and the paid employees
they are displacing, poor public relations, poor customer relations (if the
customers have any contact with the disgruntled interns) and ultimately
lawsuits and government sanctions. But even if we accept that the current
standard for unpaid internships is criminal, and that expecting your own
employees not to exploit such interns if you have them is naïve to the point of
lunacy, the question still remains if unpaid internships are inherently
unethical, or if the system has just been exploited in recent times…
As originally conceived, an internship was a way of learning
a profession that could not be learned in any way other than hands-on
experience, much the way a craftsperson or tradesperson might go through an
apprenticeship. They weren’t always paid positions – it depended on what
profession you wanted to train for and what era you were in – but the interns
would generally work directly for an experienced professional, doing the same
work under close supervision that they would eventually do themselves. If there
is no professional school that can train new individuals in a specific field
this type of training may be the only avenue available, and even where such a
school exists there may still be aspects of the job that can only be learned
hands-on. In that definition, an intern is being paid for his or her work with
the job training and professional development received through the experience;
this could easily be worth more than the intern would make in a mundane job
over the same period. Where this breaks down is when the company is gaining
more from the labor of its interns than it is providing in terms of experience,
training, or future career enhancement…
On the flip side of the issue, it is entirely possible for
interns to exploit the system themselves, most often by working as little as
possible and paying no attention to anything the company is trying to teach
them, and then presenting themselves as superior candidate for employment
because they were interns at, and gained knowledge and experience from, a
specific company. In doing so, the intern has wasted the company’s resources
(time, ability to instruct new personnel, productivity, etc.) as well as
defrauding both the company and any future employers. But is an intern refrains
from such abuses, it is entirely possible for him or her to provide a useful
competitive advantage to the company with enthusiastic work and fresh
perspectives on the process and flow of the work her or she is doing, and wind
up providing significant added value to the company, as well as any future
employer. And that doesn’t even consider the potential value to the company of getting
the opportunity to evaluate potential new hires (the interns) before offering
permanent positions…
The real difference would appear to be how all of the
parties involved approach the situation. Certainly, there is the potential for
savage abuse of the system by interns and their employers alike – but that
applies to all aspects of every business. So I have to ask: if both parties
receive value in return for their contributions, is there an ethical issue with
the transaction? Or does the existence of the power imbalance between employer
and employee automatically mean that the company is benefiting more from a
situation where it receives labor without providing wages? Does power corrupt,
and if so, will it always invalidate the relationship between intern and
employer?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment