Critical examination of unpaid internships and labor concerns

Internships

Kamenetz (2006) and Halperin (2010) take opposing views of the value of unpaid internships. Both write about the issue, Kamenetz arguing that unpaid internships distort labor markets and do not meet the needs of interns, while Halperin argues that even though paid internships are better, there are benefits to the student of unpaid internships. This article will outline the different issues involved in the unpaid internship question, and the perspectives that each of these different authors has to argue. At the conclusion of the essay will be a determination of which author made the better case.

One of the issues that both authors raised was that of the value that the intern was getting. In particular, since there was no pay, the internship must provide value to the student in terms of the knowledge transferred to the student, the training the student receives and the contacts that the student makes. Halperin, taking the positive side, argues that most unpaid internships do provide valuable experience or at least college credit. She cites a number of students who provided a positive view of unpaid internships. The theory is reasonable -- the issue is that in practice many internships provide little value to the student as the work is low-quality entry level work. While this might provide them with good experience for the entry level jobs they are soon to receive, Halperin does not resolve the issue of whether such experience is worth working for free. Kamenetz takes a clear stand on this issue. She notes that while there might be some gains in experience or contacts made from an unpaid internship, this is often not much, and does not equate with the opportunity cost that the student faces. Students in unpaid internships, for example, must forgo other opportunities including paying work, and they must put themselves further in debt for these opportunities.

Kamenetz does put an emphasis on the cost issue. She notes that unpaid interns are often already borrowing for their studies, so that these internships put the student further in debt. Yet, there is little increase in future potential earnings from unpaid internships to offset this. Kamenetz does not provide citations for this, and in truth there is probably little evidence available to either support or refute this claim. Halperin does not sufficiently address the question of cost at all. While she argues that many unpaid interns must juggle the internships with school work and paid work, she makes little mention of what the cost to the students might be, both in terms of diminished paid working opportunities or in terms of the student's health and well-being from being run ragged juggling studies, work and an internship.

Another issue that Kamenetz raises that is the distortion of labor market economics that unpaid internships create. There are several points that she makes in this complex argument. The first is that unpaid internships effectively replace entry-level work, something that represents welfare for corporate America, implying that companies benefit more from the unpaid internship arrangement than the students do. The second point she makes is that unpaid interns keep down real wages, something that hurts all workers. In addition, unpaid internships benefit disproportionally wealthier students who can afford to work for free, creating a distortion in the merit-based economic system for the benefit of those wealthier students. In addition, productivity increases in the economy relate to finding the best matches between available jobs and worker skills. When unpaid internship experience is factored into this equation, it places poor and middle-class students at a disadvantage and delivers worse matches between skills and available jobs, instead emphasizing such matches only among a smaller group of wealthier students. The argument is relatively strong, if theoretical, and is not addressed by Halperin, who takes only a micro-level view of the issue.

That micro-level view brings about a point on which both authors agree -- that the unpaid internship is not as good as the paid one. Some companies, it is noted, cannot offer a paid internship but can offer an unpaid one. As such, there are more opportunities, net, for students to gain experience in their fields when unpaid internships are taken into account. The paid internships might be better, but an unpaid one is better than nothing at all. Kamenetz disputes this, arguing that working experience even at a menial job is better than the internship experience. Her point rests on the assumption that internships do not accurately mirror real work job experience, an assumption that she does not back up with so much as a rhetorical argument. For her part, Halperin is steadfast in arguing that unpaid internships offer valuable experience.

The final point in the two papers about unpaid internships is with respect to the value to the student. Halperin notes as a central part of her argument that in addition to experience, unpaid interns present a good face to the working world, highlighting their willingness to work hard and changing perceptions about their generation. Kamenetz is unsure about this argument. She points to a study that shows that paid internships give students more. Companies that offer paid internships, for example, offer higher-quality internships and are more likely to hire their interns. In addition, she offers as evidence that while unpaid internships can help a student find a job faster, it doesn't help them find a job that is a good fit faster. This point dovetails with her point that interpersonal connections are rewarded with internships rather than skills matches. Embedded in Kamenetz's claim here is that unpaid interns do not learn much, but also that working hard does not show the employer much, at least when pay is not involved -- it is not a real world scenario. Halperin clearly feels otherwise, though she does not really support her contention that the willingness to work hard for free sends desirable signals to potential future employers.

Rhetorically, both writers rely on assumptions that they fail to support. They draw on anecdotal evidence, sometimes aggregated, and theories in order to present their cases. Kamenetz's arguments suffer from lack of clear evidentiary links between her theories and conclusions -- evidence that could easily come from studies if there have been any. I find that Halperin's experience lends her credibility, but this is undermined by the weak anecdotal evidence from students about their experiences. While she found four students supportive of unpaid internships -- in her career position this could not have been difficult -- three of the four are presently unemployed. That fact significantly undermines her claims of high value in unpaid internships, if one assumes that the value in an unpaid internship lies in the acquisition of skills, experience and connections that will lead to better future employment prospects.