Posted on 04/06/2010 8:11:56 PM PDT by JohnRLott
In my case the young intern comes in to learn computer system administration. At first his/her jobs consist of moving customers' computers to/from the parking lot and preparing the units for the main technician to have a look. He then gets to assist as requested by the tech.
It's also not uncommon for the intern to be running network cables in offices - sometimes maybe climbing a bit.
How could I not pay a stout young intern for doing all this physical labor, even while learning a more cerebral career path? It just wouldn't be right.
Yes. I had to go to bed right at the moment I posted, as I’d had a long day stuck in traffic, and was exhausted. I really should apologize for my snarkiness to the other poster.
Your example is right on the mark as well as a couple of other posts by others that followed.
Thanks for your response.
Different situation really. Please go back to the thread and read some of the other responses for some examples. Thanks in advance.
Oh, no problem, I’m probably in a different time zone. I understand it to be a hot topic, and it can be spun a lot of ways. I have a friend who is having trouble right now, because, as he states it, “[He has] no marketable skills.” It’s not that he’s a poor worker, it’s just that he hasn’t had a lot of opportunity to obtain them. I have him volunteer with me at places sometimes to pick up more skills, because it’s a dog eat dog world out there. It’s hard to define absolutes at times, but with respect to me, unless it’s a safety concern in the workplace, which I may not know about, I’d just as soon be able to set my own standards for whom I will work and how, Obama free, IMHO.
In that sense, I think you’re right, and maybe the term “intern” has multiple meaning. For example my father (who was a Union Electrician) always used to say, “You know what a pre-aprentice is: cheap labor.” (The essentially clean up the job site and ran and got tools and wire. Where we lived, for about $10.00/hour, as opposed to the $34/hr the Journeymen made, and the $15 or so the aprentices made).
Essentially, he said the pre-apprentices (or “go-fers”), go to be on the job and see if electrical work was what they wanted to do, and were paid, but only a nominal amount, more than minimum wage, but far less, and benefit-less. This was a job to the pre-apprentices, and a cost saving (in not paying journeymen wages to do the work) way to run the business (union in this case).
I think the difference here is between things like an engineering or legal intern or such, who doesn’t do a lot of that kind of labor, and basically does less difficult, less important work, learning the ropes as they go. I can see the merits of both viewpoints, but I would still maintain to keep the Government out of private business as much as possible. Government has proven time and time again to diminish the standard of living and economic state, I know of almost nothing they have improved, ever, and nothing they haven’t had a hand in and destroyed under this administration...except their own jobs and benefits...at the expense of the American taxpayer. If you know of something government has been able to improve, let me know, otherwise that alone may be a reason to take a hands-off position.
Because I have options that the skills I possess give me. Skills that were partially gained long ago at an unpaid internship; an internship that turned out not to be unpaid at all.
Please do if you personally please.
It should go one way or another: we have a minimum wage or we don’t, because it is probably low-skill workers more the more capable workers who could use that boost into acquiring the needed skill for their new positions. You could perhaps level the playing field by allowing anyone to work three weeks free, then require them to be paid.
That’s the old, more noble form of internships.
Lots of companies now just bring in a slew of fresh interns every few months to be their free, low-skill labor force. It’s part of an ugly business model and once some companies in a market practice it it is prohibitively expensive for their competitors not to.
Exactly! It’s also often a blatant form of age discrimination.
Obama eyes interns.
Ummmmm.
Maybe we need to get Obama an intern to distract him from all this ruining of the country he’s been doing...............................................................
The remedy would be to encourage internships to be opened up to older folks with the means to support themselves. That is no more absurd than to go back to school.
So you believe candy stripers should be illegal?
I guess the fact that the intern chooses to participate, instead of finding a paid position elsewhere, is of no consequence?
This is just one more anti-freedom, pro-government-control stance from the Obamanation.
No - indentured servitude is also not correct.
Interns are not required to stay on for a specific time frame to pay off a specific debt.
Do you believe candy stripers should be illegal? That is the position you have espoused, in my view.
When in college, one pays for one’s own food, clothing, and shelter in addition to tuition.
Perhaps your @ss needs a bit of free schooling?
No, but I certainly believe they should be paid.
I think all Americans should be taught from the moment they are born that their time has value - which is the very essence of self-esteem.
I agree - people’s time has value.
But I disagree that it should be illegal for a person to choose to donate their time in return for intangible remuneration - such as the candy striper or intern does. REQUIRING that such a position be paid means that it becomes ILLEGAL for a person to do the work unless they are paid.
Why do you believe that a person should be prevented from donating labor to a cause they deem worthy (whether it be their own future career, the local hospital, habitat for humanity, or some other cause)?
why does the value attached to their time have to be monetary? why does that need to be decreed? there are intangibles which may motivate someone to choose to DONATE the value of their time in exchange. Will we decree that the used goods that i donate to the various charitable organizations that come to my house to pick them up must be PAID FOR IN CASH?
Anyone arrogant enough to think that he or she knows better than the market what wages should be doesn't have an economic clue. When the Pelosi/Reid congress of 2007 achieved its singular accomplishment of Bush's lame duck term by forcing through an increase in minimum wage, everybody with any understanding of economics knew that unemployment would start increasing, and that it would hit unskilled workers - especially teens and minorities - hardest. Whenever the minimum wage exceeds the market wage for unskilled, entry-level "minimum-wage" type work, unemployment rates in those areas will go up. It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east each morning.
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.