Two Arguments in Defense of Unpaid Internships

Written by

I’ve heard a lot of arguments about how unpaid internships are evil or a form of exploitation. Recently I heard some of those arguments brought up again, and I decided it was time to stand up for this much maligned position.

An Argument from Principles

Let me lay out a few scenarios for you:

Five people start their own individual blogs, writing several posts a day and making them freely available online.
Those five people decide they want to ditch their individual blogs and all blog together in a group blog.
A small paper offers to have the five of them blog under their banner, but does not pay them to do it.
Instead of 3, the five people ditch their blog and get unpaid internships at the small paper.

I would venture that most people who think there is something wrong with unpaid internships don’t think that there’s anything wrong with 1-3 above. What I would like is for those who believe there is something wrong with number 4 to explain to me what distinguishes it, morally, from 1-3. Because I can’t see it.

I suppose they could argue that there is some distinction between number 4 and the unpaid internships they don’t like. I welcome people to explain to me if that is the case.

So my first argument is simple: if there’s nothing wrong with 1-3, and there’s no moral difference between them and 4, then, in principle, there is nothing wrong with unpaid internships.

An Argument from Consequences

You can’t really talk about consequences without making a bunch of assumptions about what good consequences are. So I’m going to tread carefully here, but I think the assumptions I’m going to make are pretty reasonable and widely shared.

Of course you can’t even talk about consequences without some idea of how the world works. Rather than pretending to know more than I do, let me lay out a few more possible scenarios for you:

If the small paper is forced by law to pay their interns, it won’t keep any of them; our five individuals will not be associated with the paper at all.
If the small paper is forced by law to pay their interns, it will pay one of them a paltry amount and get rid of the other four.
If the small paper is forced by law to pay their interns, it will pay three of them a paltry amount and not the other two.
If the small paper is forced by law to pay their interns, it will pay all of them.

I think some of the people who are against unpaid internships think that the world works in such a way to make number 4 possible. I, on the other hand, tend to believe that the world looks more like 1 or 2 than 4.

This belief of mine is subject to debate, of course. For now, all I’ll say is that in the news business in particular, margins are so low that I have to think we’re much closer to 1 than we are to 2, for that particular industry at the very least.

People take unpaid internships because they gain something from them; whether it’s experience, exposure, or the fact that it’s more prestigious to have a professional publication on your resume than a personal blog. Taking the unpaid internship makes them better off, at least in the long run. Taking a paid internship obviously makes them even better off, but they won’t always have the luxury of that choice.

Readers are also better off when they have more pieces to read that they enjoy. If fewer unpaid interns at the paper means fewer enjoyable pieces for the readers, then getting rid of unpaid interns makes them worse off.

So my second argument, while slightly longer in buildup than the first, is still quite simple: if we live in a world that looks like number 1 or 2 above, and arguably even 3, then getting rid of unpaid internships makes the potential interns as well as potential beneficiaries (in this scenario, readers) worse off.

EDIT: Patrick Delaney came back with a scenario that definitely merits discussion:

https://twitter.com/pxdelaney/status/218856415765344256

And discuss it we did–you can see the whole conversation here.

Comments

20 responses to “Two Arguments in Defense of Unpaid Internships”

June 29, 2012

Gregory Finley

This randomly got me to thinking: it’s legal to work for $0 an hour and $7.25, but not anywhere in between. How does that make sense?

Reply
1. June 29, 2012
  
  AdamGurri
  
  Yeah I’ve thought that for a long time. Of course, critics of unpaid internships will cite that as exactly why they think it’s wrong. But as far as I’m concerned, that just shifts the question to activities like volunteering. You’re still doing uncompensated work for an organization.
  
  Reply
June 29, 2012

L Man

Well thought out rebuttal to something that is increasingly in the news, but this still falls flat. In the Argument from Principles the paper is gaining site traffic or sales from having the bloggers write. The paper would not bring on the writers if they couldn’t gain something from their work. If the benefits of hiring writers don’t exceed paying them all minimum wage then they shouldn’t be brought on at all – why should being young and/or being a student change any of this?

What we have here is a misnomer, if firms routinely called for volunteers (with no expectation of paid work in the future) they would have a lot less free labor.

As for the Argument from Consequences, scenario 1 or 2 SHOULD happen more. Schools should be adequate to prepare potential interns for the job market.

Reply
1. June 30, 2012
  
  AdamGurri
  
  1. Let us say that when they were bloggers, they licensed everything under the most open creative commons license around. As a result, the small paper decides to start taking their work–with attribution–without paying them. This scenario has everything in it you think is wrong with the unpaid internship or bringing on the bloggers without pay–do you think it is still immoral?
  
  2. I fear the world you think we live in is different from the one I think we live in. Schools rarely prepare students for the job market–what you do in the classroom almost never has a 1:1 relationship with what employers want you to do.
  
  Reply
  1. June 30, 2012
    
    L Man
    
    1) Wouldn’t the open creative commons license be a “stamp of volunteerism”? If tomorrow the Washington Post ran a story by L Man and Adam Gurri debating the merits of unpaid internships that was our discussion and sold more papers I wouldn’t expect payment. However, if you and I were given internships by the Post under the pretense of potentially getting a job at the paper, had to rent apartments in DC so we could present for work at Post HQ, and the Post ran this without compensation I would definitely think it is immoral.
    
    2) Yeah this opens a whole new set of questions. Just because it’s not a 1:1 match doesn’t mean that employers should have the ability to not pay people.
    
    Reply
    1. June 30, 2012
      
      AdamGurri
      
      1) if you and I agreed to take the internship without compensation and without guarantee of future employment, then, in my opinion, we have no one but ourselves to blame if we suddenly had sour grapes about it. Only a fool thinks that an internship is a guaranteed future job. And there’s nothing immoral about offering someone an opportunity that might involve some risk of not having a very large upside.
      
      2) Since employers will always have the ability to not employ people, period (unless we are no longer living a in a free society), it seems to me far preferable to allow employers to pay little to nothing so long as the employee understands the terms up front, than to force them to either pay a higher rate or not employ at all. There are, as stated above, benefits to working at an organization even if those benefits are pushed into the future rather than the present.
      
      Reply
      1. June 30, 2012
        
        L Man
        
        I know where you might go with this, but what stops any employer from getting free labor from any individual under the pretense future benefits?
      2. June 30, 2012
        
        AdamGurri
        
        It depends on what kind of future benefits you’re talking about. If it’s something concrete, like a full time paying job at the end of the internship, then we can punish fraud if they promise it and renege.
        
        Otherwise it’s really just a matter of due diligence. Just as there are no guarantees (for instance, even a PhD in physics or computer science doesn’t guarantee you a well paying job, or any job at all, or career success), there are no perfect protections against making bad choices. Employers always want free labor if they can get it, so it’s really a matter of whether people choose to believe that there will be benefits to providing it. How people make that choice is a complicated question, one that social scientists debate over all the time and well beyond the scope of this comments thread.
        
        But the bottom line is that I don’t think the possibility that some people may make mistakes or some opportunities may not pan out is a good argument against letting people take chances of their own free will.
July 8, 2012

marcus

What are your thoughts on the wider context of this situation. X may be from a wealthy family who can subsidise their unpaid internship meanwhile Y may have no support network and therefore be shut out from certain professions that use unpaid internships as an entry point into paid roles. Using the example you use of bloggers if they all remained idependent unless they can secure paid work this would create more of a level playing field.

Reply
1. July 8, 2012
  
  AdamGurri
  
  My thought is that as our country grows wealthier (and as it has already done so over the decades) we are going to see more of that kind of behavior for reasons I spell out in this post: https://adamgurri.com/?p=345
  
  I disagree with your assessment that the bloggers remaining independent would create a more level playing field. The reason that industries like journalism use unpaid internships so extensively is because they are hyper-competitive, super low-margin industries. They were in our analogue past, and digital technology and the Internet have only flattened their margins further.
  
  It’s very true that people who have a wealthy family or support network as you describe are the ones most likely to be able to afford to break into something like journalism. The same has also always been true for things like acting. This is never going to change.
  
  The fact is that if you don’t have such a network you’re more likely to have to go into an industry where labor market competition is not as intense. I do not see that as somehow unjust. That’s just how the world works.
  
  Reply
  1. July 8, 2012
    
    marcus
    
    I agree that this is how it works but I do also think it is unjust.
    
    Unpaid internships perpetuate social divides and undermine meritocracy so even if they may be worthwile on an individual level it seems like they are damaging on a societal level.
    
    Arrangements can be made to ensure less well off people get into higher education etc but it seems a step too far if similar arrangements such as bursaries are required to help people do an internship as a way into a particular industry.
    
    Instead it would be much fairer if individuals only got a foot in the door by merit and once they were in they were paid a living wage. I know this an unlikely scenario but this is why I think internships are wrong and this is perhaps a missing element in your assessment of why they are okay.
    
    Reply
    1. July 8, 2012
      
      AdamGurri
      
      1. Just because the wealthier can better afford to take unpaid internships does not mean that the less well off are incapable of doing so. It will simply mean that they likely have to take on a second job (or maybe even more). Does it suck? Sure, but if working in one particular industry is what they want bad enough, the door is not closed. And I personally know several people who have taken this path with success. Note that no one is entitled to work in any particular industry just because they’d like to.
      
      2. If less well off people can get into higher education, the surest path to success is to get a STEM major of some kind. If they are choosing to go into a low-margin industry, then that is their prerogative but it is not socially harmful if they, like the vast majority of people who attempt to enter such industries, are unable to do so.
      
      3. I think you’re muddling the meaning of “meritocracy”. Low margin industries are the most relentless at driving out everyone except those who are able to be as effective as possible with the least wiggle room for mistakes. They are, in fact, the most meritocratic industries of all, which is what always happens with extreme competition of this sort. This is good not just for the individuals but also for society, as we get industries that only retain the most dedicated and skilled individuals. I don’t really know what you mean by “it would be much fairer if individuals only got a foot in the door by merit”. In an industry like journalism, there are hundreds of applicants for any given job opening, and at least a few dozen of whom are likely of the same or similar level of merit. How do you decide which ones to bring on? The same way you decide anything in the market–by who is able to offer you the most for the best price.
      
      Another way of saying this last part is–if there are 30 people of equal merit applying for one job, do you really think it’s bad for society if the employer then only considers the 12 who are willing to start off working for free?
      
      Reply
      1. July 8, 2012
        
        marcus
        
        It is worrying if journalism, politics, TV and other influential but potentially “low margin” sectors (with some people doing very well financially at the top) are dominated by one element of society due to them effectively buying their way into the industry by offering subsidised labour.
        
        Yes candidates will also need to have ability but it is likely that the candidate who is not having to work a second job or live in a squat to afford to work for free is going to be able to perform better in the role than someone who has to make it on their own.
        
        Unpaid internships feed into a system that concentrates power in one part of society and perpetuates inequality.
        
        Yes there are exceptions and people who have been able to overcome these challenges but in general unpaid internships encourage inequality. So in response to your final question I would say yes it is bad if employers only consider candidates who will work for free.
      2. July 8, 2012
        
        AdamGurri
        
        In the end you are making a lot of empirical claims here that I cannot respond to as I haven’t any actual data on questions such as how homogenous/heterogenous industries with unpaid internships are, the extent to which unpaid internships actually end up giving people a material leg up vs those who were unable to take them, etc.
        
        Meanwhile, you aren’t addressing the potential negative consequences that would occur if we live in a world like number 1 in the second section above. If getting rid of unpaid internships would just mean fewer opportunities to get into those industries, period, then their absence would promote inequality more than their presence, as it would increase the barriers to entry for those industries yet further.
        
        You are also embracing some implicit theory of how influential industries like journalism and TV are, a class of theory that I am highly skeptical of. Moreover, if writing and video are indeed influential, widely available internet access and extremely cheap digital devices make it possible for people of much lower means to get their voices out there. In this day and age, if no newspaper voices a perspective that is widely held by a certain group, people from within that group can easily voice it themselves on blogs and YouTube, etc.
      3. July 8, 2012
        
        marcus
        
        I don’t think that “getting rid of unpaid internships would just mean fewer opportunities to get into those industries”. It would just mean that shortcuts for better off candidates are removed and less well off candidates are competing for real jobs on a more even playing field.
        
        Like you mention this does not stop people starting their own independent projects but it does stop them from fast-tracking their entry into a particular industry and established company by subsidising their labour.
        
        I think that is good for society as a whole and good for the individuals who can not afford to undertake an unpaid internship but want a fair shot at entering industries that are traditionally dominated by those who can.
        
        Fair enough if you don’t want to look into the statistics. I don’t either. But I just think this is a consideration that was lacking from your initial blog.
      4. July 8, 2012
        
        AdamGurri
        
        I disagree with your first paragraph, but we’ll just set that aside–it’s clear we’re not going to see eye to eye there.
        
        What I don’t think you’ve really explained is how the independent projects are distinct from unpaid internships. Someone who is better off/supported by their network is able to devote a ton of time to blogging at a much lower cost than someone who can’t afford to not have a paying job. The exact same dynamic occurs–in order to devote a lot of time to blogging, someone who isn’t as well off will have to do it in addition to a full paying job, maybe more than one. Does that make blogging immoral?
      5. July 8, 2012
        
        marcus
        
        Very good point but I don’t think I would argue that far.
        
        What I would say is that it is very different to have an independent blog judged on its own merit than it is to be linked with a well known brand and given access to a wide variety of connections and opportunities by subsidising your labour – which a good unpaid internship can achieve.
        
        On the flip side of this there are also unpaid internships that don’t even have these benefits you would expect from an unpaid internship but exploit job hunters with the promise of opportunity so that they can get some free labour. E.g. if you want to be a runner in TV you may well end up being their delivery boy to save them the cost of a courier and not get any worthwhile opportunities at all. This is exploitative and annoying for the wealthy candidate but even worse for the less well off candidate who may be getting themselves into debt trying to break into this career path only to find they are being exploited and even worse off than before.
        
        In essence I think that if there is a worthwhile role then a candidate should be paid from the outset and thus given fair access to a profession. Meanwhile if there is not a paid role or a financially viable reason for taking someone on then a company should not exploit peoples aspirations and plays into a system that favours wealthier candidates and can leave less well off candidates in an even worse situation if they try and compete.
        
        It seems far better for people to work on their own projects building their own reputation. Yes the wealthy may have more time to devote to their independent project but at least they won’t be able to buy credibility, professional links and access to a profession in the same way that an unpaid internship makes possible / encourages.
      6. July 8, 2012
        
        AdamGurri
        
        You defend your perspective eloquently; think we’ll just have to agree to disagree for the time being. Thank you for contributing some well written critiques to my comments section.
November 26, 2012

aroth

In a non-asshole way, I don’t think your arguments make a whole lot of sense. In the first one, I don’t see why these people would let a newspaper use their blog without paying them or without the bloggers being able to collect any ad revenue they make from the blog. They might want to do it just to show that they were able to make a quality blog that got picked up my a paper. And yes, that would be similar to taking an unpaid blogging internship. Both scenarios are shitty for the bloggers. They should negotiate to get paid for the blog they created or say no thanks to the paper. I think interns should do the same. If people refused to take these unpaid positions and if the company needs those positions filled in order operate, they’d have start paying someone. But that would all take a lot of organization – like a union or something.

I don’t blame companies for hiring unpaid workers if people are willing to work for free. But people just shouldn’t be willing to do that. That’s why union workers hate “scabs” when they’re on strike. If someone else will do it for less, the union has no power to bargain.

Reply
1. November 26, 2012
  
  AdamGurri
  
  1. You might not see why people would do it, but it’s happening. People write on the Huffington Post without compensation, for instance. And some people who were already writing for free and having other full-time jobs might leap at the opportunity to have a recognizable brand associated with them (like the Washington Post or something).
  
  2. Your argument appears to be nothing more than “No one would want that, and if they do, they shouldn’t.” Don’t really see why it’s your place to decide that for someone else.
  
  Reply