Internship scheme.

Companies, in particular sectors, have an interest in taking on people, seeing if they'll fit and, if they do, keeping them. That can work, it can be exploitive, but, in some sectors, you have to put up with. It'll be a disaster if it spreads through all sectors, becomes institutionalized via the state and becomes part of a normal career path in Ireland.

Ideally, internships should be kept to specific sectors, and should be done by companies in those sectors, not the state. They should be paid minimum wage, terms of reference should be set out clearly in advance and whether there's a chance of being taken on permanently at the end of the internship should be made clear at the beginning.

Speaking from the position of a successful guy, I started out doing free and almost free work for experience. I was lucky enough to end up with bosses who made an effort to impart their knowledge and experience and I truly believe I am where I am today as much to the work of people at the beginning of my career as to my formal education.

My company takes in interns, paying a stipend to cover their expenses. They work out an internship program - what the individual hopes to gain and what we know they need to - that is a curriculum to follow, and get regular face time to talk and learn from those they hope to one day be.

We subsequently hire many interns when positions open up.

Companies wishing to take a punt on an untried employee is difficult enough, the fact that our third level education system produces workers who need at least six months to a year on the job (our internships are 3 months or less, btw) to become truly proficient is another downside to hiring people fresh.

A business that takes in interns and treats them properly gives the intern a lot more value than any dogsbody work the intern will do in return.

I agree that internships should always be framed so that the people get real and valuable experience, and not just be coffee runners.

Psychedelic wrote: »

One of the problems with this scheme is that employers can get rid of one of their existing employees on decent wages and then get an intern to do the same work for free. When the 9 months internship is up, just get another intern.

In my place of work, one employee who is 20 years in the job was recently told that management decided they want him gone soon. His role is essential to the business so management will obviously replace him with someone else, which will most likely be an intern.

I'll believe these scare stories when I see quantified evidence of them. Otherwise they're just reds under the bed type crap.

Interning has been going on on a big scale for a few years now, with experienced as well as inexperienced people going for them; and I've not encountered a single senior manager who would offload critical staff and replace them with interns. Or any staff for that matter.

Psychedelic wrote: »

Well it has happened in the company I work in anyway. And the very similar WPP Scheme proved that employers will take the piss.

Look at it from the employer's point of view, why pay for something you can get for free. A good employer will recognise the adverse affect of doing this would have on staff morale etc. But stupid and greedy managers looking at things from a purely financial perspective might get rid of core staff for an intern.

One joy of the recession has been that stupid and greedy managers have increasingly become obsolete or exported elsewhere.

I know a lot of SMB's through various activities, being an MD myself, and know nobody who does this. It's bad for staff morale, operations, etc.

Any business doing it is on its last legs.

Besides, naming a shaming these businesses will be easy if it becomes a major problem. It's not difficult to add two and two, and fired employees won't have much to lose in screwing their ex-employer!

I wouldn't buy from a company that had this policy, personally or in my business dealings. That's something I think most businesses recognize.

For now, I err on the side of believing these tales of intern run companies with a single paid manager are old wives scare stories.

When the FAS WPP scheme came out I saw an advert for a job were the employer stipulated that the person must have at least two years experience and be over 25yrs for insurance purpose:eek:,Now in order for a person to do that job and get trained up these days would be around 4/5k and then work for nothing.
I know off a well known MNC who informed one of their employees that there job title would be changed along with a 17k pay drop yet still be doing the same work,Now this company posted Q1 profits of 3 bn and along with them taking over another contract were I heard from a good source that there was not much between the two tenders yet the company pays their staff half the amount in wages that the company who lost the contract pays their staff.
IBEC the employers union must be falling over them selves using the R word as a means to beat employees T&Cs down to a bare minimum.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/burton-slashes-dole-for-jobless-who-wont-work-2629338.html

I would see that a PR stunt to be honest.

When my partner was out of work, she did whatever she could to get a FAS placement.
It took them just 6 months to organize a course for her, and when they did, it was on the other side of the country!! It took another 6 months before they could organize one she could actually attend.
So she was actively seeking retraining, pestering them to get something and it took a year to get off their arses.

What pissed her off even more, was that she couldn't get a cent because they wouldn't approve her for JSA, and there were plenty of time wasters at the course who didn't even want to learn, they were just there to get money.

My General Manager has asked me to consider introducing the scheme. I certainly will consider it, but I have no intention of hiring someone to do something menial.

It's a scheme that would give me an opportunity to hire someone in a skill area that I currently have someone doing that is overworked, it's also a revenue generating area, so if it's viable work and someone is good at it, they can be retained on a salaried basis at the end of the period on the basis that they have proven their ability to self-fund the position.

Otherwise I'll end up hiring a student on placement who'll be doing it for free. I just don't have the budget for endless salaries.

Some people would have you think that's a crime.:rolleyes:

Internships are fine for certain areas (accounting, programming and other IT roles etc.) but no unskilled position that will bring nothing experience wise to the candidate should be called an internship. People doing such work should just be paid for their labour.

RichardAnd wrote: »

The internship scheme is a great example of a good idea that has been dreadfully executed by politicians and civil servants who are way too institutionalised to make rational decisions. The basic idea of trying to get people into employment via internships is a good one but why should the state be paying these interns when it is the companies that will benefit?

If I was setting up a scheme like this, I would have the following rules in place:

1. All interns must be paid minimum wage by the company taking them on.
2. The internships being advertised must only be for positions that require some manner of qualification (prevents "washroom assistant" becoming an internship).
3. The intern must be present with a contract of employment that lays out their entitlements.
4. If a company takes on several interns, they must commit to hiring a set % of these at the end of the placement period as permanent staff or they must extend the intern's contract.

That's what I can think off off hand. A scheme like that might result in less internships but they would be paid workers, generating tax and not costing the state a cent in welfare. Anyone like to add more to this?

Even in the boom times many employers did not pay interns minimum wage, that defeats the concept of interns.

Over the years my employer has taken on many, many interns (it is a standard program) who come in for the summer, or in some cases for almost a year, during which time they save us very little work and cost us, in the short term, because so much time and effort by qualified staff goes into training them up. They are paid, but they are not paid an awful lot.

However, we do this, because a 3 month internship gives us a much better idea of who we want to recruit than a half hour interview, nothing more or less than that. The internship costs us, hiring the best staff benefits us.

Some years, most interns get offered contracts, some years few get offered contracts, it is all down to how bright they are, how easily they learn, and how well they fit into the organization.

For professional internships I think you will find that this is the norm. The interns will have none of the practical skills when they walk in the door required to do the job. So they get to learn professional skills, and if they're good enough they get a job offer. But you cannot expect this to work if you start pre-empting the system by presupposing that a percentage should be given job offers, or presupposing that they should be paid a certain wage because they will automatically be of value during their internship.

Yes, if the internship was stacking shelves in Tesco I can see the presumption that they will be adding value from day one, if the internship is for a profession then this presumption is reversed.

RichardAnd wrote: »

The basic idea of trying to get people into employment via internships is a good one but why should the state be paying these interns when it is the companies that will benefit?

If the companies in question had the money, they'd advertise the job and pay someone to do it.

What part of companies not having bottomless payroll pits is it difficult for people to understand.

ninty9er wrote: »

If the companies in question had the money, they'd advertise the job and pay someone to do it.

What part of companies not having bottomless payroll pits is it difficult for people to understand.

What about a MNC who has made huge profits over the past few years?

There are plenty of them here in Ireland. Surely they can afford to pay a professional with a couple of years experience an honest salary in return for their skillset.

You sound like an employer who is actively involved in this 'work-for-free' scam.

Deleted User wrote: »

again, cut wages if you want more staff

but you wont, sure why would you because you can now get staff for free

To pay someone the same as myself I need to come up with €24k to cover PRSI etc... I'm not really looking to give someone a career on anything less than that.

fat__tony wrote: »

You sound like an employer who is actively involved in this 'work-for-free' scam.

Not yet I'm not, but i have someone looking in to it for me. You seem to think all employers are out to screw people, you need to get over yourself. I've 2 students on 6 month placements for free working on commission on sales which is a minor part of what they do. They've both gotten good experience, neither is too familiar with a photocopier or the kettle, in fact I'd be more likely to have made them more tea.

It doesn't really matter what you think anyway, if I get someone it makes no odds to you, as your attitude seems to suggest you'd prefer to sit idle on the dole than take an internship.