So as we have been seeing many people are offering what used to be paid positions to "interns." Sidestepping the ethical question, we can consider the legal question of unpaid internships.
Many of the newer people in the industry want to know about how to graduate to paying assisting work. The fact is if people do not report the full time 2-3 month "internships" that are illegal then the concept of paid assistants will go away forever. Already many jobs that were paying in the past are being done by unpaid "interns."
How do you know if the internship you see being offered is illegal?
This is a great website that is a resource for these questions. You can also report illegal internships to the Department of Labor.
Unpaid internships can be illegal in the United States if they don’t meet some of the following requirements from the Fair Labour Standards Act.
1. The training, even though it includes actual operations of the facilities of the employers, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school.
2. The training is for the benefit of the student.
3. The student does not displace a regular employee, but works under the close observation of a regular employee or supervisor. 4. The employer provides the training and derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the student; and on occasion, the operations may actually be impeded by the training.
5. The student is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
6. The employer and the student understand that the student is not entitled to wages for the time spent training.
There’s a good letter to an intern from the Department of Labor that details those criteria. Note that you can report your employer on the web or by phone at 1-866-4-USWAGE. Or you can write a testimony to inform other potential interns – go to InternshipRatings.com or UltimateIntern.com. Even third parties can file a lawsuit against an employer that offers unfair internships.
Pay special attention to number 3, that is where most of these internships fail. If the majority of the activities are done solo, such as downloading images, filing, making phone calls, keeping the equipment tidy, hauling heavy equipment around, driving or doing errands then what you have is not a legal unpaid internship. At that point the positions must be paid at least min. wage.
Also internships that require 11+ hours of time a week could be logically seen to displace a regular employee.
I recently saw an internship that expected 40+ hours a week from the intern. That is not an internship, that is an unpaid job.
Star wrote: So as we have been seeing many people are offering what used to be paid positions to "interns." Sidestepping the ethical question, we can consider the legal question of unpaid internships.
Many of the newer people in the industry want to know about how to graduate to paying assisting work. The fact is if people do not report the full time 2-3 month "internships" that are illegal then the concept of paid assistants will go away forever. Already many jobs that were paying in the past are being done by unpaid "interns."
How do you know if the internship you see being offered is illegal?
This is a great website that is a resource for these questions. You can also report illegal internships to the Department of Labor.
Unpaid internships can be illegal in the United States if they don’t meet some of the following requirements from the Fair Labour Standards Act.
1. The training, even though it includes actual operations of the facilities of the employers, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school.
2. The training is for the benefit of the student.
3. The student does not displace a regular employee, but works under the close observation of a regular employee or supervisor. 4. The employer provides the training and derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the student; and on occasion, the operations may actually be impeded by the training.
5. The student is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
6. The employer and the student understand that the student is not entitled to wages for the time spent training.
There’s a good letter to an intern from the Department of Labor that details those criteria. Note that you can report your employer on the web or by phone at 1-866-4-USWAGE. Or you can write a testimony to inform other potential interns – go to InternshipRatings.com or UltimateIntern.com. Even third parties can file a lawsuit against an employer that offers unfair internships.
Pay special attention to number 3, that is where most of these internships fail. If the majority of the activities are done solo, such as downloading images, filing, making phone calls, keeping the equipment tidy, hauling heavy equipment around, driving or doing errands then what you have is not a legal unpaid internship. At that point the positions must be paid at least min. wage.
Also internships that require 11+ hours of time a week could be logically seen to displace a regular employee.
I recently saw an internship that expected 40+ hours a week from the intern. That is not an internship, that is an unpaid job.
If someone has a problem with the concept of 'internship' being legal . . . what would their position be on being an 'apprentice' ?
It has been common practice for hundreds of years in the artistic fields for people to serve as apprentices (sometimes for years) before ever being allowed to work for money.
I was under the impression that internships were through a school. There would be a formal arrangement between the school and the firm offering the internship. The student would be pay for the credit hours and get practical work experience. Was I mistaken?
Amazing Productions wrote: I was under the impression that internships were through a school. There would be a formal arrangement between the school and the firm offering the internship. The student would be pay for the credit hours and get practical work experience. Was I mistaken?
yes. I know of one right now that is being advertised as a "carrot." The person would do the work of a 2nd assistant, and work full time for two months with the hope of being a paid assistant after the "internship" period. However the person must have a long list of qualifications before they could intern.
It is basically an unpaid work position that does not conform to the Supreme Court's rules on what is a legal internship.
Ken Marcus Studios wrote: If someone has a problem with the concept of 'internship' being legal . . . what would their position be on being an 'apprentice' ?
It has been common practice for hundreds of years in the artistic fields for people to serve as apprentices (sometimes for years) before ever being allowed to work for money.
KM
Apprentices commonly had all their expenses paid while in the apprenticeship. They were taught the trade, and when they graduated were brought into their new professions world with a full set of tools and contacts in getting a career.
These "internships" use the people for free labor, never get the person into the paying field because they just get another person to work for free. That is illegal in the USA. Their are protections in place to prevent somebody from calling a position an internship when it is in fact an unpaid workers position.
Everybody wants to work in the entertainment industry because it is sexy. So they get people lined up willing to work for free. It is great for the companies that get free labor, but not good for society overall. I read one case where an unpaid intern had to apply for relief and food stamps. That means that the government and taxpayers are being asked to subsidize the big company. That amounts to corporate welfare.
Internships should be for a specific purpose, that is education. So internships should only be legal through a bona fide school. Then the schools can monitor the quality of the internship and make sure it is really educational and not just free labor.
Ken Marcus Studios wrote: If someone has a problem with the concept of 'internship' being legal . . . what would their position be on being an 'apprentice' ?
It has been common practice for hundreds of years in the artistic fields for people to serve as apprentices (sometimes for years) before ever being allowed to work for money.
KM
I done an apprenticeship that went for 4 years. Started off at $4.85AUD an hour and went up each year. As far as internship for university students go. They should be paid the standard 1st year apprentice wage.
Star wrote: It is basically an unpaid work position that does not conform to the Supreme Court's rules on what is a legal internship.
I'm sorry. Did I miss something?
(I'll re-read the thread)
Was their a citation to a Supreme Court case? If so, WHICH "Supreme Court?" (e.g. United States Supreme Court? Supreme Court of the State of New York? The Michigan Supreme Court . . . .etc?)
All I saw was a link to a website with countries' rules on illegal internships (countries OTHER than the U.S.) and a link to an Advisory Opinion from the DOL, indicating that it was unclear whether a totally fact-specific "internship" was a proper internship, under FLSA (and I'll note that the internship in question was to learn "Marketing"; not anything related to the arts)
NYC Craigslist has internship ads quite frequently.
The amount of hours vary.
Sometimes taking an internship in something one wants to learn about is the affordable alternative to school, especially that one won't have to pay back a school tuition.
I'm sorry. Did I miss something?
(I'll re-read the thread)
Was their a citation to a Supreme Court case? If so, WHICH "Supreme Court?" (e.g. United States Supreme Court? Supreme Court of the State of New York? The Michigan Supreme Court . . . .etc?)
All I saw was a link to a website with countries' rules on illegal internships (countries OTHER than the U.S.) and a link to an Advisory Opinion from the DOL, indicating that it was unclear whether a totally fact-specific "internship" was a proper internship, under FLSA (and I'll note that the internship in question was to learn "Marketing"; not anything related to the arts)
If you are the intern, and you agree to do a lot of work for no charge, legal or not, you agreed to do it. Now, you may come back and say "oh well, this work I should be paid for."
If you're over 18, and you sign into that sort of arrangement, that's your issue. I feel no pain for people who put themselves in that.
Apprentices commonly had all their expenses paid while in the apprenticeship. They were taught the trade, and when they graduated were brought into their new professions world with a full set of tools and contacts in getting a career.
These "internships" use the people for free labor, never get the person into the paying field because they just get another person to work for free. That is illegal in the USA. Their are protections in place to prevent somebody from calling a position an internship when it is in fact an unpaid workers position.
Again: The best protection to someone taking advantage of you, is being smart.
Surely, you're not referring to the inclusion in the DOL advisory opinion (which was, itself non-conclusory) of a citation to a United States Supreme Court case from 1947, which dealt with a 7-8 day training period for RailRoad Employees, before they were permitted to be hired, full-time, as employees.
You couldn't possibly be basing your conclusions on that reference, . . . could you?
Leaving aside the fact that FLSA and the Internal Revenue Code and 100 other relevant Federal (not to mention, State) statutes have been amended, modified, revised and updated in the 62 years since the Court issued that decision, that case was very fact-specific. It dealt with a required training period, which was mandated for the safety of passengers and the general public. It was an extraordinarily brief training period (7-8 days) for trainyard brakemen and employment was contingent upon completion of that safety instruction. Nowhere in the case, does the Court use the word "Intern" or "Internship."
I'm not going to issue a legal opinon on what is required to make an internship "legal" but I think that (as always) a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Armed with a non-definitive, non-conclusory advisory opinion from the Department of Labor, you have come in here, declaring what the law is.
Moreover, I question why you would even have an opinon on this.
What is your vested interest?
Are you offering an internship? Are you seeking an internship? Are you aware of some rash of (what you believe to be) "Illegal" internships being offered through this site?
Most of the people on this site are big boys and girls. If they wish to accept an offer for an unpaid internship (or apprenticeship, or mentoring program or tutorial or free instruction. . .etc.) and feel that they can benefit from the knowledge that will be imparted to them, during the course of that relationship, what business is it of yours to police whether the arrangement complies with certain provisions of certain Federal laws which may or may not be implicated and which may or may not have definitive rules controlling such relationships?
Although it applies specifically to students who are in internships, it's hard to imagine why the criteria would be less restrictive for non-students in internships. It appears to be reasonably current DoL guidance which, admittedly, is not the same as a court decision; still, it seems to outline the things that would keep an internship program out of legal trouble:
Here is another relevant decision on internship, which outlines the conditions under which the FLSA applies. Please note, it appears that if the work done by the intern is not involved in "interstate commerce", the FLSA may not apply to them - but the feds define "interstate commerce very broadly:
Without making claims about "Supreme Court" (although the DoL opinion cites one with approval, and does not seem to indicate that it is not now good law), I'm curious if any of the respondents to this thread have more authoritative guidance from somewhere?
Also of interest are "School to Work" programs, under which similar but less stringent criteria apply:
I would point out that federal law is not the only relevant law. Many states have their own labor standards which relate to internship. In California, where Star is, the state has set up criteria under which an internship may be legal. A description of those criteria are here:
Again, if someone believes that these criteria have been superseded, or do not reflect good law, please provide a citation to an authoritative source so we can advance the conversation beyond the "no, you are wrong" claims.
TXPhotog wrote: Again, if someone believes that these criteria have been superseded, or do not reflect good law, please provide a citation to an authoritative source so we can advance the conversation beyond the "no, you are wrong" claims.
It wasn't so much a "no, you are wrong" as a "yeah, so what?"
The DOL advisory opinion in question fails to reach a conclusion as to the status of a particular "intern" performing specific functions. Notaby, the fact pattern did NOT relate to the arts or any kind of artistic mentorship.
Since the DOL is unable to offer an opinion, it's a bit of a stretch to assert that any one particular kind of internship is "illegal" vs "legal" by relying upon that decision. Oddly, the DOL sets forth a test that it claims it would use to determine the "status" of the so-called intern, but then is totally unable to complete the analysis of the factual situation presented to that test.
Moreover, the DOL advisory opinion --aside from not taking a position, one way or the other-- is just that: an "opinion." There has been no indication that it has been adapted by any Court (or any legislative body.) The only case cited in the opinion is 62 years old. While I have not done any research to determine whether it has been overturned (in whole, or in part) there is no reason to do such research. An advisory opinion is meant as informal "guidance." Even if the DOL HAD taken a firm position (one way or the other,) reliance on such opinion would not have insulated a potential employer from a claimed violation of FLSA (or other labor or tax laws) if an action were commenced. The determination of the Court, ALJ, Arbitrator or Labor Department would be the final controlling word and (as Roger points out) there are also State statutes to consider.
All of which brings me back to the original point: SO WHAT?!?!
Again, if I want to go apprentice/intern for a photographer and am willing to take no pay, in exchange for the knowledge I gain from the experience, so be it. That's up to me. Why does OP feel it necessary to protect me from myself?
If I had the luxury of free time, I'd gladly give up two months of my law practice to go learn about photography from Markus Klinko or one of the other top photographers, here in NYC that offer unpaid internships/apprenticeships. In my mind, it would be worth every last minute.
Stephen Markman wrote: Oddly, the DOL sets forth a test that it claims it would use to determine the "status" of the so-called intern, but then is totally unable to complete the analysis of the factual situation presented to that test.
I'm not sure I see the oddity in that. I've read a few of the DoL decisions, and they quite commonly take that position based on incompleteness of the fact pattern presented. "You didn't tell us enough" does not, to me, imply anything at all other than that, with more information, a decision could be come to.
Stephen Markman wrote: Again, if I want to go apprentice/intern for a photographer and am willing to take no pay, in exchange for the knowledge I gain from the experience, so be it. That's up to me. Why does OP feel it necessary to protect me from myself?
If I had the luxury of free time, I'd gladly give up two months of my law practice to go learn about photography from Markus Klinko or one of the other top photographers, here in NYC that offer unpaid internships/apprenticeships. In my mind, it would be worth every last minute.
I agree with all that but (and you knew there would be a "but") . . .
Back in the days when I had an agency it was (and I believe remains) common for agencies to have unpaid interns. It seemed like an attractive alternative for us, so I did some research into it. I wanted to offer internships.
What I found was similar to what Star is stating: that it is a violation of the law (or, a close analog to it, a practice likely to get you in the cross-hairs of some government oversight agency) to have unpaid interns except under very constrained circumstances. I ultimately decided not to do it.
Your point at the bottom, as I understand it, is that "what is illegal" really doesn't matter if the "victim" doesn't complain, and that you and lots of other "victims" would not feel any need to complain. I agree. That still doesn't change the calculus of "what is legal," just "what is likely to get me into trouble."
The above link is from a blog on labor and employment law and addresses the same question as the OP. They seem to feel that the criteria that should be mainly looked at is #4, not #3 as whether it is determined if an internship is to be paid or not.
Stephen Markman wrote: Oddly, the DOL sets forth a test that it claims it would use to determine the "status" of the so-called intern, but then is totally unable to complete the analysis of the factual situation presented to that test.
I'm not sure I see the oddity in that. I've read a few of the DoL decisions, and they quite commonly take that position based on incompleteness of the fact pattern presented. "You didn't tell us enough" does not, to me, imply anything at all other than that, with more information, a decision could be come to. I agree with all that but (and you knew there would be a "but") . . .
Back in the days when I had an agency it was (and I believe remains) common for agencies to have unpaid interns. It seemed like an attractive alternative for us, so I did some research into it. I wanted to offer internships.
What I found was similar to what Star is stating: that it is a violation of the law (or, a close analog to it, a practice likely to get you in the cross-hairs of some government oversight agency) to have unpaid interns except under very constrained circumstances. I ultimately decided not to do it.
Your point at the bottom, as I understand it, is that "what is illegal" really doesn't matter if the "victim" doesn't complain, and that you and lots of other "victims" would not feel any need to complain. I agree. That still doesn't change the calculus of "what is legal," just "what is likely to get me into trouble."
Well, there also seems to be another issue we're kinda avoiding: the word "internship"
Generally speaking, I THINK that most of us presume that Internship in some way relates to on-the-job training done in conjunction with a program of study at an institution of (higher) learning.
A college student "interns" for the summer (and generally pays the University for credit-hours earned during the internship)
A PGY-1 graduates from Medical School and does the first year of his/her Residency as an "internship"; a formal, structured educational program for which the student earns "credit" (in this case, credit towards completion of the Residency, not towards earning a degree)
The flaw with this entire thread, I think, is the continued use of the word "internship" whereas "apprenticeship," "tutorial," "mentorship" and the like seem more appropriate for the situation we're describing.
I am not currently studying photography at a Univeristy. Therefore, if I were to go "study" with one of the masters, simply to hone and/or expand my skills, I'm not certain I'd refer to it as an "internship."
Stephen Markman wrote: Surely, you're not referring to the inclusion in the DOL advisory opinion (which was, itself non-conclusory) of a citation to a United States Supreme Court case from 1947, which dealt with a 7-8 day training period for RailRoad Employees, before they were permitted to be hired, full-time, as employees.
You couldn't possibly be basing your conclusions on that reference, . . . could you?
you are missing something still, but more then that when did the DOL not become the governing body of fair labor practices in the USA. And if all decisions made before the 1940's were considered no longer relevant then we would have a whole lot of women not voting etc...
Stephen Markman wrote: Are you aware of some rash of (what you believe to be) "Illegal" internships being offered through this site?
yes, and when reported the site let the castings remain active
Stephen Markman wrote: what business is it of yours to police whether the arrangement complies with certain provisions of certain Federal laws which may or may not be implicated and which may or may not have definitive rules controlling such relationships?
read the MM rules. You are not allowed to advocate illegal activities on MM, is that what you are doing?
You state you know they are illegal activities, but are ok with them. If so you are breaking the rules of MM and should be placed on probation for doing so.
If not please revise your statement to advocate what your true feelings on illegal activities are.
Stephen Markman wrote: Well, there also seems to be another issue we're kinda avoiding: the word "internship"
I'm not convinced the word matters.
As I read the DoL opinions, the label put on it is far less important than the nature of the activities performed. The distinction they use seems not to be "intern" or not, but "employee" or not. It is that last which seems to drive their conclusions, not arbitrary labels like "learner" or "intern".
To be considered an intern and not an employee, the following six statements must be true and supported by sufficient evidence provided by the person offering the internship [found at 10b11 of the Handbook and more recently, in a May 17, 2004 Non-Administrator Wage and Hour Opinion]:
1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees or students;
3. The trainees or students do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantages from the activities of the trainees or students, and on occasion operations may actually be impeded;
5. The trainees or students are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and,
6. The employer and the trainees or students understand that the trainees or students are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.
This fact and circumstances test applies to interns, externs, apprentices, and graduate students, those individuals for whom training without compensation may not create liability for a potential employer. The May 17, 2004 Opinion examines more closely factors 3 & 4 and provides employers with a concise summary of the analysis to be taken by the Wage & Hour Division.
I'm just beginning to wonder if there would be any difference if a company or organization issued a call for "volunteers" as opposed to offering a position as [unpaid] "intern." I don't know what they would be -- haven't done any cursory research -- but I'm going to assume there are guidelines as to what a volunteer can or can't do(?).
As an aside, since I work for a Fortune 100 company, we are compelled to have paid internships, only available through accredited universities. The literal avalanch of young (and not so young) people who offered themselves as unpaid interns (presumably in return for being able to jot down Fortune 100 experience on their resumes) was mind-boggling. Tempting as it was for HR, no doubt, they were all turned away.
Stephen Markman wrote: Again, if I want to go apprentice/intern for a photographer and am willing to take no pay, in exchange for the knowledge I gain from the experience, so be it. That's up to me. Why does OP feel it necessary to protect me from myself?
If I had the luxury of free time, I'd gladly give up two months of my law practice to go learn about photography from Markus Klinko or one of the other top photographers, here in NYC that offer unpaid internships/apprenticeships. In my mind, it would be worth every last minute.
One small caveat.
I won't sit here and pretend to know any top photographers. I do know a guy contracted by Conde Nast who regularly shoots for Harper's Bazaar etc's int'l editions, has an agent in NYC, Paris, London etc. His ad campaigns are recognizable.
At any rate, I never assisted him or anything but I did benefit from his advice/counsel for a while as it relates to fashion photography and he was adamantly against the notion of me taking an internship from someone. His take on the concept was that unpaid interns for real shooters basically sweep floors, get coffee & donuts and are general gophers for the 2nd and/or 3rd assistants. He didn't even spoke to his interns half the time and usually only when did something stupid like allowed their presence to be known. The people who actually learned stuff were the assistants and assistants always got paid reasonable assisting rates.
In other words, for a guy who's billing a $300K to $500K in a five-day period, adding in a line for three or four hundred bucks for an assistant is nothing. So it's not about being able to afford it, because they can. Mostly, unpaid interns don't learn much from top guys because there's a certainly level of expectation and responsibility that comes with being paid and, conversely, there's not much you can reasonably expect from someone who's not making dirt.
I mean, really, who do you trust to load your Hasselblad and setup your lights... the paid guy who's works alongside you or the unpaid gopher who's name you can't even remember?
That was his take. Maybe it's different with other shooters but I tend to think that it isn't. Anyone who's pulling in a reasonable amount of cash can just bill the client for an assistant and put interns on toilet cleaning duty...
Stephen Markman wrote: Well, there also seems to be another issue we're kinda avoiding: the word "internship"
Generally speaking, I THINK that most of us presume that Internship in some way relates to on-the-job training done in conjunction with a program of study at an institution of (higher) learning.
A college student "interns" for the summer (and generally pays the University for credit-hours earned during the internship)
A PGY-1 graduates from Medical School and does the first year of his/her Residency as an "internship"; a formal, structured educational program for which the student earns "credit" (in this case, credit towards completion of the Residency, not towards earning a degree)
The flaw with this entire thread, I think, is the continued use of the word "internship" whereas "apprenticeship," "tutorial," "mentorship" and the like seem more appropriate for the situation we're describing.
I am not currently studying photography at a Univeristy. Therefore, if I were to go "study" with one of the masters, simply to hone and/or expand my skills, I'm not certain I'd refer to it as an "internship."
Don't some PGY-1 get paid between $35,000 and $50,000 per annum? Especially now since "intern" year and the first year of residency is pretty much the same (for most med. disciplines.. Anesthesia, etc.. )
[EDIT]
Stephen, I couldn't agree with you more- Many people don't like the fact that the gov. is "protecting" people to the point of screwing them.
I think in this sort of case the DOL can take a flying leap, as the DOL is often counter productive to people getting work, especially with smaller entities. Ok, some person offers some gal the opportunity to work for 60 days and learn the ropes without pay- but room/board & travel taken care of. To some, that's a great deal. Good for them- I'm not going to break a finger nail dialing up the DOL or my local tax office to bellyache "wee wee wee.. someone's doing something a'foul.." as the reality is that it won't ever go away as long as the mutual benefit remains for the business and the budding photographer.
I think back to how many cargo outfits let hungry brand new commercial pilots get expensive multi engine (turbine) time, working 40hrs. (or more) per week without paying them one red cent. Illegal? .. doesn't really matter to the green horn pilot when he or she is quickly accumulating 1,000+ hrs of flight time that would otherwise be costing them over $1,200 per hour if they tried to get it themselves with the full blessing of the FAA, IRS, and DOL.
There's two ways to conduct business.
1. Do everything like you were taught in the masters program at B school.
2. Do what you have to do to remain competitive, and well in the black.
Star wrote: You state you know they are illegal activities, but are ok with them. If so you are breaking the rules of MM and should be placed on probation for doing so.
If not please revise your statement to advocate what your true feelings on illegal activities are.
I never stated that I know them to be illegal activities (thus, no Rule 13 Violation)
I specifically stated that there is NO indication in anything you've presented that they ARE illegal activities.
If you feel you'd like to CAM me and advise the Moderators that I don't care whether people participate in unpaid internships (which may or may not, depending on the facts, the State and a judicial or administrative determination turn out to be "illegal",) feel free to waste the Mods' time with such nonsense. I only wish there were a mechanism for brigging people who "cry wolf" which might just be in order if you really feel it necessary to CAM my commentary (which did not, in any fashion, advocate breaking any established law.)
While you're at it, you should probably contact the Department of Justice and demand the appointment of 50 Independent Prosecutors to investigate each of the States' Congressmen and Senators. The office of EACH AND EVERY member of Congress has unpaid interns who DO provide services for the benefit of their employer; services which would otherwise have to be performed by paid employees.
Under the DOL definition upon which you're relying, we've got a whole lotta illegal interns running around Capitol Hill. The determining factor, as you (and the DOL see it) appears to be whether the "employer" derives ANY benefit out of having the intern in his/her office.
Actually, we probably need to impeach the President as well, since there are unpaid interns working in the White House who are providing services which would otherwise have to be performed by White House Staffers.
If our learned Site Moderators are so convinced that you are right and that the President and 535 members of the United States Congress are wrong, then to the brig I shall go.
BUT, are you willing to take that Gamble?
Are you ready for some brig-time if you're wrong??
EDIT: by the way, as some of the participants in this thread will tell you, I've LONG held the position that MM members should NOT be permitted to speculate about the law. This is another great example of a little knowledge being dangerous. Under the OP's analysis (which she assures us is flawless) any intern who provides any service from which his/her "employer" dervies a benefit must be considered an employee and must be paid minimum wage.
The OP is a photographer and a retoucher. She is not an attorney. She is NOT an employee (to my knowledge) of the Federal or California Departments of Labor. She has no formal training in labor law and is nonetheless, starting a thread to instruct the masses that they are all committing crimes.
Amazing Productions wrote: I was under the impression that internships were through a school. There would be a formal arrangement between the school and the firm offering the internship. The student would be pay for the credit hours and get practical work experience. Was I mistaken?
Yes, you are mistaken. Your chances of landing an internship are greater if you go through a school but it is not mandatory for any company to only hire interns through an educational institution.
The title of this thread sounds like a joke. How do you know if your internship is illegal...?
Anyway, I once had a car dealership offer me an internship as a graphic designer. Oh really, and who is going to teach me and further my knowledge of graphic design. Interships no longer mean what they use to. An internship is supposed to give you hands on training in your specific field of interest, providing you with the opportunity to gain experience and give you actual in the field knowledge. Now an internship simple means, free labor.
Stephen Markman wrote: EDIT: by the way, as some of the participants in this thread will tell you, I've LONG held the position that MM members should NOT be permitted to speculate about the law.
Stephen Markman wrote: ...
Actually, we probably need to impeach the President as well, since there are unpaid interns working in the White House who are providing services which would otherwise have to be performed by White House Staffers.
...
If Monica hadn't been there whose job would that have been?
If Monica hadn't been there whose job would that have been?
I'm not sure there would have been any kneed for someone else to swallow that task. The young lady was just trying to do her job and get ahead.
BUT, to get back on point: I'm still waiting for OP to tell me she's so convinced that she's right that she's willing to spend time in the brig if she's wrong.
Teila K Day Photography wrote: I think in this sort of case the DOL can take a flying leap, as the DOL is often counter productive to people getting work, especially with smaller entities. Ok, some person offers some gal the opportunity to work for 60 days and learn the ropes without pay- but room/board & travel taken care of. To some, that's a great deal. Good for them- I'm not going to break a finger nail dialing up the DOL or my local tax office to bellyache "wee wee wee.. someone's doing something a'foul.." as the reality is that it won't ever go away as long as the mutual benefit remains for the business and the budding photographer.
I think back to how many cargo outfits let hungry brand new commercial pilots get expensive multi engine (turbine) time, working 40hrs. (or more) per week without paying them one red cent. Illegal? .. doesn't really matter to the green horn pilot when he or she is quickly accumulating 1,000+ hrs of flight time that would otherwise be costing them over $1,200 per hour if they tried to get it themselves with the full blessing of the FAA, IRS, and DOL.
There's two ways to conduct business.
1. Do everything like you were taught in the masters program at B school.
2. Do what you have to do to remain competitive, and well in the black.
Judgement call... as ethics is a concept that belongs in church.
and here I thought this was a case of the DOL making sure people are paid if they work as an employee.
Yes, people can do illegal and unethical practices to keep their business running with a min of expenditures.
Over and over I get asked, how does this effect me?
Well as I run my business in a fully legal manner it means that i am at a disadvantage to people willing to break the law in the course of running their business.
When operating a business in a legal and ethical manner it hurts my business when others in my market act in an illegal or unethical manner. It means that I cannot stay competitive because when I hire an assistant for the day I do pay them. This means my bids on projects necessarily higher.
And lets not forget, I live in a bankrupt state, people working for below legal wage, or under the counter, or no wage at all do not pay into social security nor into taxes. In the end I am forced to pay into the state to support these people.
Ethics do not belong in a church, since i have them and an atheist.
Again each person saying we are all big boys and girls is advocating illegal practices.
Stephen Markman wrote: I never stated that I know them to be illegal activities (thus, no Rule 13 Violation)
I specifically stated that there is NO indication in anything you've presented that they ARE illegal activities.
Under the DOL definition upon which you're relying, we've got a whole lotta illegal interns running around Capitol Hill. The determining factor, as you (and the DOL see it) appears to be whether the "employer" derives ANY benefit out of having the intern in his/her office.
Actually, we probably need to impeach the President as well, since there are unpaid interns working in the White House who are providing services which would otherwise have to be performed by White House Staffers.
You have yet to show me any legal argument against my OP. As such i am unable to hold any discussion with you in any way. You are not answering the OP and since there is no argument being put forth I have no argument to refute.
Please cite some legal sources stating the DOL links are wrong. Please cite some internships in the government that do not meet DOL standards.
As you well know the internships I am referring to are not for students. They do not offer college credit. You can continue to try and muddy the water, but as of now I am no longer going to respond to you as I am afraid I might be penalized for feeding a troll.
I would like to remind reader of this thread that not all lawyers are alike. That legal advice from anyone other then a specialist in the fields is just that. Lawyers can be anything from criminal court lawyers, to will and estate planning. There are somewhere around 1,143,358 lawyers in the USA. Or roughly 1 in 266 people is a lawyer.
Especially now since "intern" year and the first year of residency is pretty much the same (for most med. disciplines.. Anesthesia, etc.. )
