Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulrpotts | Hacker News Reader

So much this. I am absolutely disgusted Green's attitude in response. Green, apparently, never was young, or arrogant, or inexperienced in dealing with work culture, and now stands wholly as a representative of some noxious company's status quo. She tells the fired intern that she "squandered" her opportunity. No, her opportunity was squashed by impatient arseholes eager to bully Millennials. Whelp, I guess learned an important lesson about just how respected their views will be, in their future workplaces! Or something.

Added: if they fire a whole group of interns to teach the group a lesson, why the hell did they have interns? They were, apparently, of no actual value to the company? In that case, the internships were effectively BS jobs to begin with.

Added 2: there are companies that still require women to wear heels? (TIL...)

Added 3: something something ACLU wrongful termination lawsuit something...

View on HN

Banding together with other interns and petitioning the company to change their culture is crazy levels of naive. As an intern, you are most likely a net-negative. At best, consider yourself on a long term interview. It's not the time to ask that the company change its culture. If you happened to get picked up by the company and find yourself in a job, it's still not the time. It's not a democracy. The business was built to make money and it was determined long before you got there that the dress code would help them achieve that goal. Unless you can put some money where your dumb petition is, your best hope is some extreme eye rolling.

>As an intern, you are most likely a net-negative

I'm confused by this.

Why would I want to take an internship where I was considered a net-negative?

If the institution of learning that is placing these interns is slotting people into internships, and they are worth than useless -- net negatives, as you say -- where is that institution's accountability here?

Why would any intern walk into that situation? Why would a company take them on under those circumstances?

Sure, I would expect an intern to be very inexperienced, to need mentoring, to need training, but the idea is that I'd get free or nearly-free labor in exchange for some of this required mentoring and training... and potentially have some partially trained future employees in the pipeline.

It would be, I think, crazy to expect that interns walk in already completely hammered into the appropriately shaped pegs to slot into jobs.

I'd fire the person who fired the interns -- I mean, how much time and effort on the part of the people who arranged those internships, did that person waste by being a dick? How does it affect the department plans to get work done with these interns?

If the answer is "not at all," why the !@#$% do they take on interns? Some kind of tax break thing?

When I was an intern [sometime mumble mumble nineteen-eighty-mumble], I spent a year earning a tiny stipend and working crazy hours because I did tedious work that my organization wanted done but no one had time or inclination to do. I learned a lot, including how to work with people in my department, but I did not learn "I'm worthless and should never question authority because I'll be immediately fired."

And, p.s., I've worked with and supervised interns before in several different workplaces.

Many internships are not like what you did. Many require a lot of supervision but even if an intern is mostly shadowing a staff member, they'll be a net negative as the staff member will either work more slowly or take the time to explain what they're doing or what they did.

Some internships are basically a form of charity, the mild negative effect on everyday work is at least partially balanced by the longer term potential of an intern becoming a good candidate for a staff position or by the positive effect on reputation of taking such interns.

In my specific area, the interns are a net-negative for the time they're with us but when they work with another group, I think they're (minimally) a net positive.

This. As someone who hires interns, it takes a lot of time and effort to train them to be effective. It takes away our resources, and we're essentially PAYING them to train them. (I have not done unpaid internships). To have a bunch of know-it-alls think they will come in and make business decisions rather that focusing on learning and becoming effective speaks volumes of those people and they need to be removed. It's not about teaching a lesson. There's just no room for that if you want to be a well-oiled ship.

>it was determined long before you got there that the dress code would help them achieve that goal.

That's a big assumption to make. I doubt the company ever tested whether their business made more or less money without dress code.

It doesn't matter. The company doesn't need to justify their reasons for having a particular dress code.

If the interns placed so much stock in what they were required to wear during their internship, they should have asked about it during the interview, and withdrew themselves from consideration upon learning of the dress code.

But no, they felt that the company should change its policies to suit them. Because they're that darn special.

Every human is special.

Including the humans who took the risks and did the work that built that company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com