click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Join 400,000 Aish subscribers
Get Email Updates




The Jewish Ethicist  - Apprentice

The Jewish Ethicist - Apprentice

Are they being taken for a ride?

by

Q. Many successful firms hire summer interns. These dedicated volunteers are generally of significant value to the firms, yet are paid nothing. Is this fair to the youngsters?

A. There is certainly something paradoxical about internships. The law forbids hiring workers for below minimum wage, but allows employers to hire them for nothing! This may be understandable in the context of a non-profit organization, which solicits donations. But the wealthy business firms which engage summer interns are hardly in need of voluntary support.

However, there actually is an important logic behind this institution. One of the most valuable assets a young person brings to the job market is experience. Even a few weeks as an intern in a well-known firm provides valuable exposure to the environment and culture of business, and the backlog of willing volunteers shows that the young people feel they are getting adequate recompense via experience and the addition to their resume.

The logic of internship is dictated by a number of considerations. One is the short-term nature of the work. Small businesses with high turnover are often accustomed to hiring workers for short periods of time, but the kind of firms that employ interns usually create a strong mutual commitment with workers and seek only employees interested in a prolonged working relationship. It's not worth changing this orientation in order to provide pay for a few dozen summer interns. Another consideration is that these interns often make significant demands on managers. While it is true that companies actively solicit interns, it is also true that universities sponsoring student internship programs actively solicit sponsors, who are sometimes reluctant to take responsibility for students who are sometimes outstanding employees but sometimes can turn out to be dead weight or worse.

Jewish tradition acknowledges the importance of workplace learning. The Talmud makes frequent reference to a "shulia," or apprentice. The relationship of an apprentice to the workman is not an ordinary employee-employer relationship; the master workman is almost like a parent. The reason is that the apprentice is learning a valuable skill, and giving someone the means to earn a livelihood is an important mitzvah (commandment) in Judaism.

The book of Ecclesiastes (9:9) tells us: "See life with the wife you love". (Today we might translate this, "Live it up!") The Talmud comments, "This likens life [i.e., livelihood] to a wife," and concludes: just as parents need to provide their children with the social skills and standing to establish a durable marriage, they must provide their children with the skills they require to make a living. (1) (It is instructive which is learned from which: in Talmudic times, it was taken for granted that parents appreciated the importance of educating their children for stable family life. They needed to be reminded about the importance of making money.)

For this reason, the employer of an apprentice has the legal status of an educator, not an employer. The Talmud explains that this is precisely because the employer is teaching him a livelihood. (2)

By the same token, firms who take on short-term interns with an express commitment to provide them with skills and experience that will serve them in future jobs should be considered educators, with the corresponding responsibilities and simultaneously with a legitimate exemption from the need to pay.

SOURCES: (1) Babylonian Talmud tractate Kiddushing 30b. (2) Babylonian Talmud tractate Makkot 8b.

Send your queries about ethics in the workplace to jewishethicist@aish.com

To sponsor a column of the Jewish Ethicist, please click here.

The Jewish Ethicist presents some general principles of Jewish law. For specific questions and direct application, please consult a qualified Rabbi.

The Jewish Ethicist is a joint project of Aish.com and the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem. To find out more about business ethics and Jewish values for the workplace, visit the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem at www.besr.org.

Published: April 14, 2007


Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.

Visitor Comments: 1

(1) Michael Makovi, April 20, 2007 7:17 AM

Excellent article! Especially enlightening is the rabbi's teaching that the Talmud takes raising a child for marriage for granted, and instead has to exhort parents to not forget teaching for livelihood; a dramatic reversal of the values in vogue today.

If I may add something: regarding the paradoxial nature of internships: "The law forbids hiring workers for below minimum wage, but allows employers to hire them for nothing". Besides what the rabbi here points out, that the education of an internship IS the payment, there is another factor I think:

I would say that in theory, an employer ought to be allowed to pay whatever wages he wishes; if he doesn't pay enough, it doesn't matter, because no one is forcing anyone to work for him. In other words, he should have the freedom to pay his workers whatever he wants, since potential employees have the freedom to choose who they work for.

In reality, however, things do not work this way. There is a limited number of employers, and everyone else needs to work for someone. Often, a person will have no choice but to take a given job, regardless of whether it pays enough. Thus, the need for a minimum wage: the employee has no practical choice but to work for that employer, and so the employer has the obligation to pay a living wage.

With an internship, however, since the intern is paid nothing at all, the intern has no immediate practical reason whatsoever to work for employer, insofar as earning a livelihood goes. There is no issue of the intern being practically coerced to work for the employer despite the insufficient wage. In the case of insufficient wages, the employee accepts his lot and takes whatever he can get, however insufficient, because not enough is better than nothing, and thus he is abused [by insufficient wages given] by the employer. But in the case of an intern, the wage IS nothing, and there is no chance of abuse by employers of employees who have no practical choice but to work for said employer; the intern loses nothing by not working (since he earns no wage anyway), and so there is no abuse. This I think is a crucial difference that would serve to make minimum wage irrelevant to internship, even were there no education that substitutes for payment.

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub
Sign up today!