[sliverstorm]

This is not a useful argument. If we consider the unpaid internship in question a learning experience, and we compare a kid who can afford to work for free and a kid who cannot, all we conclude is "the kid who has more free time, gets in more learning". Is this a radical, unethical situation? I don't think so.

Besides, if we assume the work produced by the intern is of negligible to zero value, and we still decide to force companies to pay for such interns, in the current work environment they will simply stop offering them. This seems like a net loss to me.

[j_baker]

Wait, what are you saying? Employment should be predicated on the employer giving the employee an adequate monetary reward in exchange for an adequate monetary reward for the employee? And if either side isn't getting their adequate monetary reward, the job shouldn't exist? This is a radical concept!

Seriously though, perhaps I'm just cynical, but I seriously doubt that such internships won't be offered. Companies get monetary gain from interns, otherwise they wouldn't spend any time and effort on them (even if not money). I think the simpler answer is that companies are just cheap. I mean, experience is great and all, but if money is being made off of a person's labor, then they deserve my cut. How large that cut should be is up for negotiation, but that they deserve a cut shouldn't be.

[sliverstorm]

I agree individuals ought to get a cut if they benefit the company, but what if that benefit is only worth $2/hr?

[teamonkey]

Hire them part-time.