Unpaid internships are becoming EXTREMELY common (if not in the CS field, certainly elsewhere). In NYC this used to be only the case for fashion, but has now spread to basically every other industry.
We had a discussion the other day at lunch whether this was legal/ethical. I'm still not sure how I feel about it...
I'm in an unpaid internship right now and I love it. The employer actually hires most of their talent through the unpaid internship program. They get to see if the people who do the internship are really there because they want to learn and contribute regardless of monetary compensation.
I know everyone can't do this because at some point you need compensation, but the arrangement has taught me a great deal about how to program scalable applications that I will definitely use in the future.
I know everyone can't do this because at some point you need compensation
Which is why using unpaid internships to screen your hires is unethical. It's an artfully disguised form of class discrimination.
Lots of very smart and hardworking people cannot afford to work for free. Apparently those people are at a severe disadvantage when applying to work at your company. And it's not as if unpaid internships offer financial aid, like schools do.
I think it's fine to screen prospective employees as paid interns. I also think it's fine to try them out as consultants first, or even to have them perform a few hours of work for free, as a test. But in general work should be paid for. Unless, as I've said elsewhere, it is 100% free-software work.
Of course, just because it's unethical doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that you can do anything to change it.
Unethical is way too harsh. This is NOT class discrimination. If you ask me,judging on the basis of GPA alone is class discrimination. Poor people don't stand a fighting chance.
But that's a slightly different argument. Unpaid internships don't impose requirements that would keep you from getting paid elsewhere, so regardless of your economic situation, you can decide how much you want to work. My employer doesn't care if you work 30 hours or 2 hours...they just want to see how much you enjoy doing the work.
Any smart and hardworking individual wouldn't be at a disadvantage because they could find a way to make it work.
For the record I'm pretty poor myself. I have two jobs to pay my bills. But I don't see anyone who has significantly more money having more of an advantage than me.
they just want to see how much you enjoy doing the work.
Here's what I'd say to that: "I enjoy doing work that adds value. If you have something valuable for me to do for your company, pay me what it is worth. If not, I'll be happy to sit in your air-conditioned office writing free software that has value for me. And then you will be able to see how much I enjoy doing that."
But you probably shouldn't say that out loud. You're not in a very strong negotiating position, after all.
This illustrates another reason why unpaid internship is pernicious: It doesn't teach anyone how well you add value. Because your time is unmetered and unpaid, you have no incentive to spend it wisely. And your employer certainly has no incentive to track it -- at least not out loud. (Imagine the conversation: "Wow, last week you worked 10 hours for free and saved the company $100k. Have a muffin!") What, exactly, is either of you learning? I guess your employer is learning how much value you can be coerced to add, for free, without you noticing or complaining. And you're learning how to look and act like a model employee.
Onward. "You can decide how much you want to work?" Yeah, I guess. I could also "decide" to live in a cardboard box and save on expenses. If I have a family, I could "decide" to never see them because I have to work two jobs instead. If I've got elderly parents I could "decide" not to take care of them.
But, more likely, an unpaid internship requirement will tend to select for young people with no family and a lot of time to spend at work. How convenient. Especially since overtly screening your employees for these traits is against the law.
Do you see why I'm tempted to call this "unethical" yet?
Anyway, none of this is to suggest that you're doing the wrong thing. We have to live with the hands we're dealt. Congratulations for finding a way forward, and good luck with your jobs.
Wow. You are very passionate about this aren't you? (I'm not being sarcastic, I really admire you for voicing this).
I guess I just don't see this practice as unethical because if I look at the whole spectrum of unethical behaviors, this seems very minor to me. Does that make it excusable? Probably not. But to me this is just about acquiring a skill which I previously did not have. It's not about recognition or compensation.
But even still, I fail to see what my employers are doing wrong. You will be compensated for the skills you bring to the company and what you produce. And if you're middle aged with a family to support you could get a paid job there if you had the skills. If not, you could apply for the unpaid internship.
But nothing bars you from getting hired, so that's why I don't view it as an injustice. At the end of the day, its a choice, and if you didn't like the terms, you are perfectly free to go somewhere else.
I went to graduate school. A Ph.D. program is like being an unpaid intern for six years.
(And, yet, in some ways it's better. There is some pay. And a Ph.D. is a regular old-fashioned apprenticeship program: The bad news is that you're a slave, but the good news is that your adviser has a fairly strong incentive to help you graduate. The commitment goes both ways.
And, of course, if you've got an apartment and a web connection you can teach yourself to be a professional programmer -- especially if you already have a CS degree -- but you can't say the same for semiconductor engineering.)
No, it's not unethical. It's downright criminal. It's called fraud. Someone is being misled into supplying someone else with labor. What are the falsehoods? The purported benefits to be obtained in exchange for the labor.
Prevents? No. I didn't say that. But being poor usually means you don't have access to the same levels of education. Read the comments in this thread. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520836
No -- you didn't say anything about education level, which is tangential to GPA. What you said is "judging on the basis of GPA alone is class discrimination. Poor people don't stand a fighting chance." In other words, if you're poor, you don't stand a chance of (i.e. are prevented from) being able to achieve a high GPA. My experience says differently.
I've read one of Gladwell's other books, and I think he makes the same mistake you are making. A correlation does not necessarily imply "discrimination" or that the odds can't be overcome. For instance, women have higher GPAs than men, on average. That doesn't mean that using GPA as an indicator of performance discriminates against males. It might mean that males might need to work harder or do something a bit differently in order to get the same GPA.
In the end, my admittedly subjective take is that the biggest factor is individual motivation. We all have our setbacks and obstacles to overcome, but that's just the craps of life. I can verify, however, that it is indeed possible to go from moving out of your house at 16 with no money to graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford (not me, but someone very close to me). Difficult, yes... but it shows that there is almost always a "fighting chance."
Alright. You got me. I shouldn't have made such a strong statement, but I think it's safe to say that you would atleast be put at a pretty big disadvantage. But you're right in that wherever there is a will, there is a way.
What about equity? Most stock options end up being valueless. I'd say that a free summer at TechStars (or YC for that matter) would have a greater chance of tracing to some monetary reward than equity in most startups.
So someone with absolutely no experience can apply for and get a job with your company, work however many hours they want, and wouldn't be expected to produce work that you could charge for...and still get paid?
A few months ago, a guy from DePaul sent me an email and we got coffee. His "weekend" was during the normal work week, because of his shift job. He was looking for something to do during that off time. He had no work experience in our field. We picked him up. He's been excellent.
So your (somewhat strange) questions, broken down:
"Apply for and get a job" --- Check.
"Work however many hours they want" --- You need to make a commitment; you can't just come in Wednesday this week and Friday the next week. But if "however many hours you want" means "I'll give you days X, Y, and Z of every week", then, Check.
"Wouldn't be expected to produce work we could charge for" --- I have no idea what this even means. Who produces work for no reason at all? Of course we're going to want you to do real work.
If your intern does work that you charge your client for, then of course it makes sense to compensate him or her.
At my unpaid internship, I came in with no programming experience. They basically paired me with sr. programmers so I could learn how to program efficiently, but was still too inexperienced to give me actual client work they could charge for. Believe me, I wouldn't want to charge the client either for the crap that I put out initially. But their investment will eventually pay off because when my skills strengthen enough to meet their standards, they'll hire me.
Our interns aren't "billable", but there's always plenty of work to be done to support the people doing billable work. Last year, one of our UIC interns wrote (in what I believe to be his first ever actual start-to-finish "program") a programmable symbolic process debugger for OS X, in Ruby:
http://bit.ly/13kxv3
Nobody paid us to do that, but that debugger work is now Ragweed, our house debugger, and we've got it working under Win32, Linux, and a couple embedded platforms. It's extremely useful. And we scored an excellent blog post out of it.
(Timur works for us full-time now, of course).
I don't have to compromise the work we deliver for our clients to put interns on useful projects. And we're a special case: we do hard core programming work on a billable basis. Most of the companies people talk about on HN don't have that problem. There's a million useful things an intern can do without jeopardizing product quality.
Actually in Austin TX it's been a common practice for a very long time. The reason being, in many degree programs at University of Texas students are required to do a semester internship to graduate. Therefore, it can actually put a pretty enormous burden on companies in the area to facilitate internship programs twice a year. Because it is tied to degree programs, there's also a fair amount of documentation and work that these employers must do. In addition, interns require training which costs money and wastes time, and they usually quit as soon as their requirements are complete.
That said, unpaid internships are justified and common here. However, as a general best-practice I always advise companies to pay their interns if they are working on billable / revenue-generating work. If they are just doing mindless work, then I feel they are compensated with 3 hours of school credit and the cost/time sink.
Having worked with a lot of interns from the school, you get a lot of fickle results and often it's really more of a waste of time than beneficial situation for the company. And I damn sure would not trust an intern to work on mission-critical projects until they proved themselves, which often takes longer than their internship requirement. To any UT students, I was able to get out of mine and get 3 hours credit because I was self-employed w/ 2 companies. :)
We had a discussion the other day at lunch whether this was legal/ethical. I'm still not sure how I feel about it...