The Bank of Canada Governor set off a new round of discussions about unpaid internships. I love all the coverage, but I must say that while some of the articles sound tough they are really skirting some of the really IMPORTANT points.
1) Bank leaders like Mr. Poloz and other "Lords" of industry I am sure do not have their children working for free. They probably call up a buddy at another company and get their kids on the payroll somewhere. It may be an entry level job, but it is a paid job with a future, barring massive stupidity on the part of the young worker.
2) Why is it that the young people in earlier generations took on these same mail room type jobs and got paid? In the 50s 60s and even 70s there were jobs, and they all brought about the equivalent level of skill and knowledge, for their time, to the table as the young graduates of today. Somehow businesses valued what they brought enough to pay them, sometimes not much, but it was a paycheque and a chance to prove oneself. Now, whatever work the interns are doing in the companies has no value and the students, or graduates, the companies bring on have nothing to offer, and the companies do not see them as having any potential. If they did then they would pay them right?
I understand that it will take a couple of generations to plant the seeds that this is OK, and that a form of serfdom is a way to get ahead. But even serfs were able to use some land to feed themselves and were entitled to protection, and justice. OK, so the state has taken care of the justice part, sort of, and the protection of things like OHIP, but what about the feeding part. I guess they have to work triple hours, most for free and a bit at the food counters to keep fed.
I am not seeing any great improvement from the Middle Ages in terms of treatment by the "Lords" of industry. Wage pressures continue increase the levels of poverty for those that are working, and now we are asking parents to carry the burden so multimillion dollar corporations can increase executive compensation and dividend payments to the people who can afford to own shares. (Yes, I know many of the parents' pensions benefit, but hey may never retire if they have to keep supporting their kids.)
Is anyone else seeing a problem with this?
I understand that it is an opportunity to build a resume, or try a new field, but people used to get paid to do the same work. I guess if I were an intern I would be happy to go in and observe the work of others, and see how it all came together, but the minute I actually had to do something I think it is fair to get paid. Right?
Maybe they think of this as an apprenticeship? If so, then if we are sticking with the historical references, then there was a legal agreement that the apprentice was bound to the master and got something in return.
What it was like to be an apprentice in early New England is indicated by these words from a 1640 indenture.
"Know all men that I, Thomas Millard, with the Consent of Henry Wolcott of Windsor unto whose custody and care at whose charge I was brought over out of England into New England, doe bynd myself as an apprentise for eight yeeres to serve William Pynchon of Springfield, his heirs and assigns in all manner of lawful employmt unto the full ext of eight yeeres beginninge the 29 day of Sept 1640. And the said William doth condition to find the said Thomas meat drinke & clothing fitting such an apprentise & at the end of this tyme one new sute of apparell and forty shillings in mony: subscribed this 28 October 1640." (http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/Apprenticeship/About/History/)
While not always treated fairly, they were housed and clothed, I am not seeing that today, that burden is shifted to the families, who may also be struggling.
We are sort of getting the points across in the media, but the media also seems to be missing a big point. Just because those who shape society want us to believe it is OK to work for free and thus also enslave our families who then have to feed and clothe us, does not mean it is actually a right and just thing. For the leader of the Bank of Canada to say this proves that he is part of the machine of mistreatment and not looking to the companies to help grow the economy.
Saving a company a few dollars is nothing compared to the value to an economy of giving any person paid employment and having them contribute to the economic life of the whole society in a meaningful way. Do not forget the more impoverished the family they less likely they are to be able to navigate the system and crime for some, even middle class youth, may becomes a more enticing future because there is money in criminal behaviour, right big companies?
