I believe that they can be, but as someone who actually had an unpaid intern (and who eventually got said intern a job at the company where we were working), let me make a case that they do not have to be exploitative.

I personally enjoy teaching, and have taught at two different universities. In addition to simply being a rewarding thing to do, it is a good way to get even better at whatever you are teaching.

So when I was the production manager in charge of making a bunch of marketing sites for small insurance agencies, I called up one of the local universities. They were quite happy (after some conversations with their faculty) to send me a student who was getting ready to graduate and who was interested in creating content for the web.

I didn't expect the intern to get any actual work done, just to kind of try and work through some of the projects that we were doing. The work that I was giving him was pretty much the same work that the paid staff were getting, and although we actually did end up using elements of his designs he was much slower and had a much smaller skill set than someone I would actually hire.

However, after a semester of working with us, his markup, scripting, and associated skills were a lot better. In addition to his own efforts, I spent time structuring his work assignments in ways that built from one topic to the next, and was available to critique his work in ways that he found useful.

So, this relationship was mutually beneficial: he is more skilled than he was, has at least some work experience to put down (other than food service), he received course credit (IIRC), and got a picture of what the inside of that kind of agency looks like.

For our part, we got a very small amount of marginal work, and for my personal part I improved my own scripting and CSS skills, in addition to simply enjoying working with folks who are learning.

Now, if we were just trying to fill a minimally skilled position with someone who was an employee and skim by calling them an "intern" instead of "an exploited worker", that would be different.

But I believe it is possible (though perhaps not likely) that unpaid, non-exploitative internship relationships can exist.

But what about the other kid who may or may not have been more qualified than the kid you hired, but couldn't afford to work for free?

Besides, if we assume the work produced by the intern is of negligible to zero value, and we still decide to force companies to pay for such interns, in the current work environment they will simply stop offering them. This seems like a net loss to me.

Seriously though, perhaps I'm just cynical, but I seriously doubt that such internships won't be offered. Companies get monetary gain from interns, otherwise they wouldn't spend any time and effort on them (even if not money). I think the simpler answer is that companies are just cheap. I mean, experience is great and all, but if money is being made off of a person's labor, then they deserve my cut. How large that cut should be is up for negotiation, but that they deserve a cut shouldn't be.

I mean, ultimately, the big obvious problem of capitalism is that the upkeep of labor is pushed onto the laborer... almost to the point where (to a very small extent) it could be possible that forcing labor to pay for its upkeep while exploiting it for profit is a defining characteristic of capitalism.

While I find it to be an interesting discussion, unless you want to decry systematic problems, you're really not going far enough with your "what about".

And we don't have to do everything within that system, do we? I mean, isn't direct action a good response to large, systematic problems?

"Wait, what are you saying? Employment should be predicated on the employer giving the employee an adequate monetary reward in exchange for an adequate monetary reward for the employee? And if either side isn't getting their adequate monetary reward, the job shouldn't exist? This is a radical concept!"

No, my point is that an internship is not a"job", interns shouldn't be treated like "employees", and that I was trading, based on my experience as a both a teacher and an expert in the content area for a personal reward of getting to teach for a bit.

When internships are equivocal with jobs, they are exploitative. I agree with you and the linked article on that.

What is not exploitative is when there is an actual exchange of, say, useful information and pedagogy in a system where you can't learn techniques without making stuff, especially in a way that privileged the growth of both a specific person and a larger workforce.

But I am not saying that we shouldn't make it better (though if it would ceases to function in favor of some yet unnamed better thing, I will be much happier than if it were merely "better").

However, once you want to talk about freedom in the labor market, it should be pretty clear that there is none at all: what about me? Through no fault of my own, I can't afford to commute into a city, so I occasionally lose work and make less than I otherwise would.

But since we really can't do much about these systematic issues on an individual level, I can respect your stance towards banning unpaid internships outright: seems like an okay idea to me.

I am not saying that we should make reforms.

I am saying that it's possible to modify how capitalism operates by means other than banning practices, that is, by improving what people are doing with unpaid internships by 1) not treating them as labor in any sense and 2) not making their exchange about money.

Or if you prefer, why internships at all: why not abolish the whole concept of underpaid, low skilled labor and -only- hire "employees" at a real rate while working on helping them gain newer and better skill sets?

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/114/31740564320cb174fabflz1...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42041000/gif/_42041256...

http://www.realitysandwich.com/fantasy_finance

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2004/el20...

For some companies having to pay interns would just mean they wouldn't offer internships at all.

The reason interns are paid less (or not at all) is that there are lower expectations for interns and other staff usually has to take time to mentor them or check their work.

Maybe not the best example, but if a new paid employee says, "No, I've never used source control, what's that about?" it's a big problem. If an intern says it, you explain it and move on.

Not only that, the intern will have to learn a lot of things he did not learn at school because it's not the market reality.

If they did a good job they generally get a nice gift (like an ipad) and sometimes a job.

Granted we have no Harvard around, i guess it could be different but, I don't think unpaid intern are dramatic at all, rarely an intern can do as well a job that even a 2 years experienced guy does.

And thus it came to pass that the unpaid internship replaced the entry-level job.

I know there's no point in pleading with an economically rational capitalist like yourself, but stop exploiting the proletariat, or one of these days we won't even walk into your damned office.

If you don't think you're being treated fair, that's exactly what you should do. Duh.

I got a half semester worth of college credit for various internships and wouldn't have my current job (or subsequently my car or home) had I not had it.

Go back to Mother Russia and leave the thinking to the adults.

You think it's not exploitation to have to work without being paid? Are you fucking kidding me?

Is there really a large glut of recent graduates and a corresponding lack of new jobs, or is this just a collective action problem where since recent graduates can't reject unpaid internships en masse we're stuck in a race to the bottom?

Do we offer unpaid internships because there are just so many people willing to work for free, or do we offer unpaid internships because there are people willing to work for free and everyone else is also doing it?

We're only one or two steps away from reverse paid internships, or looking at them as investments. "Seeking executive assistant. Minimum MBA or equivalent post-graduate degree. First one to pony up $20k gets it".

So we have millions of kids graduating college with no discernable skills, and an industrial economy that is all but dead. Perfect ground for exploitation of these kids who just want to get their foot in the door of some place that has air conditioning and decent medical benefits.

Both. That's the way the labor market has always been: a collective-action problem where any one worker can undercut living standards for everyone else in their field whenever supply outnumbers demand. The answer to the problem, traditionally, has been to unionize.

We're only one or two steps away from reverse paid internships, or looking at them as investments. "Seeking executive assistant. Minimum MBA or equivalent post-graduate degree. First one to pony up $20k gets it".

Which is going to be the point where the Protestant Work Ethic finally breaks down and America's youth goes on strike. I'm looking forward to it.

Since engineering department paid their interns, they always had to work out some project plans and business necessity in order to have the position(s) open for the summer. So kinda obvious that many students did not get a chance to intern, as with paid internships the company was way more frugal and selective.