'The student will work'?
So they just straight up admit they're exploiting students as unpaid employees? Students aren't supposed to work, they're supposed to learn. Damnit, America.
Why not both? Don't get me wrong, I think its shady to make money off someone without paying them. I personally just had a really positive experience working while I was in school, and never really stopped learning just because I left school. Curious why you think this is actually a bad thing?
That would be bringing about a world where students don’t have to work or in this matter, be exploited.
It’s not useful to equivocate or find nuance in these things. After all, I doubt the students who wind up working for them will think kindly of the random Internet person who was like, “I think it’s shady” and then equivocates.
That’s like saying, well at least the illegally below wage people have a job. Usually those people begrudge the equivocators. You should be able to see why.
If they produce value for a company, what exactly precludes them from being compensated?
Hey now, they're based in Bratislava.
Pretty big worry if a bunch of readers at HN haven't worked that out yet. I only figured it out because I didn't think that was what LiveAgent did.
They might be getting paid by someone else, but the comment I quoted specifically talked about getting paid by the company.
Unpaid internships are a lot more common than some people appear to believe. I initially believed it as well, because my internships were well-paid, but then I realized our industry was the exception rather than the rule.
This sort of stuff happens all the time. Its surprisingly common for unpaid interns to operate in a grey area. Can't really say this company is doing anything illegal without actually knowing what the program looks like for the apprentices. Every company I've worked at has decided its better to just pay them something, even if just minimum wage, to avoid risk of lawsuit. I also just think thats the right thing to do.
> The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
The argument would be made that since the company is charging for work from unpaid interns to be fulfilled only by unpaid interns, it would be displacing the work of paid employees as opposed to complementing them. Of course, there's a lot more to it than just that going into the litmus test.
I don't think it's a bad idea, as in many times the real knowledge comes from practicing and using all the techniques you have learnt. But agree that working for free sucks.
- is the student doing something that tangibly contributes to the business? - is the student doing something that you would normally pay an employee to do?
If the answer to either of those questions is yes, you should pay the student/intern. Of course, IANAL, and this only applies to the ISA, but that is how acquaintances who are self-employed handle their interns.
The only time you can have an unpaid intern is when their work is substantially education, and does not contribute to the bottom line.
[0] https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...