On Wednesday I had a debate on Twitter about internships. Liz Cable tweeted
May I ask you a leading question? Why would you NOT take on a free, bright, useful intern for 6 weeks?
— Liz Cable (@lizcable) January 30, 2013
I tweeted my immediate reaction (well, thought about it, and edited it down to 140 characters, thought better of sending it and then changed my mind – as one does…):
Rt@lizcable: Why would you NOT take on a free, bright, useful intern for 6 weeks? > because I believe it is exploitative and ethically wrong
— Patrick Hadfield (@patrickhadfield) January 30, 2013
And hence I got into a friendly discussion with Liz, and also with Doug Shaw, who joined in. (As an aside, this kind of discussion emphasises some of the values of Twitter: we clearly hold different viewpoints, but are able to engage with each other and debate a topic back and forth. In 140 characters…)
I was surprised by strength of my reaction, and thought I’d set out my reasons hear.
Fundamentally, it stems from a belief that if one is engaged in productive work, one should be paid for it. We have laws protecting workers from exploitation – including setting a minimum wage. (Which isn’t much.) Using interns to do “real” work – tasks which an organisation would otherwise have to pay someone to do – is exploiting them. And, because of those laws, illegal.
If firms couldn’t use interns, they may need to hire more employees, paying them real wages at the minimum wage or above.
Only those who can afford to work for (more or less) nothing can be interns. They are therefore the realm of the privileged, increasing inequality and reducing social mobility.
I also think internships teach some of the wrong lessons. If someone’s first experience of a working environment is exploitative, exploiting others appears to be ok. Indeed, by allowing this exploitation, society is implicitly making it ok. And yet we bemoan a lack of business ethics as a cause of some of our economic ills.
I can understand why young people want to do internships: in a tough job market, anything that can demonstrate skills, determination and ambition – anything that might make a CV stand out from the crowd – will be pursued.
I can definitely see why companies want interns: a cheap supply of labour; and potentially seeing able candidates perform in a working environment must be better than more formal interview processes. The major benefit will accrue to shareholders: those firms using interns will make more profits (none of which go to the interns).
It is of course not this black and white. Interns are, I’m sure, willing: they want the experience. But the power in such a relationship is so skewed towards the firms that willing or not, it is still exploitative.
I can’t reconcile where voluntary work fits in to this, either. I have done voluntary work at different times in my career, and it can be rewarding for both the worker and organisation they volunteer for. But I think the power in this relationship is much more toward the volunteer.
I’m not the only person who thinks like this. The Guardian website describes internships as “institutional exploitation” and “a scandal” – as does the Daily Telegraph’s website (the latter referring specifically to internships with MPs in Parliament). The website JobMarketSuccess outlines many of the objections I’ve expressed.
None of my criticism of internships is directed towards Liz: I’m sure she is trying to do the best those for whom she needs to source internships, and I have no doubt she, the organisations she works with, and any interns placed would work in an ethically fashion.