I've seen a number of posts here concerning unpaid internships and thought this article in the nation might help clear up some of the legal issues and concerns.http://www.thenation.com/blogs/question/525995/the_il_legality_of_unpaid_internships
that's rough. i am a new grad in that position. on one hand, i desperately need the experience to get my foot in the door. on the other hand it's very difficult to sustain myself. it's unfortunate because i don't know how much longer i can do this.
The Nation article was very interesting, and timely.
I was approached yesterday to take on an upaid intern from UIC undergraduate architecture for 20 hours per week for six months. I believe that candidate will get course credit for the time.
At this time we do not need anyone. In fact, We will need to make work for that person. However if we are not paying that person and they are getting school credit, we my consider it.
While we are awaiting the CV, it did get us thinking about the problems of taking on a green intern. Read: someone who does not have any office experience.
We talked about the time and effort we put into training someone is not offset with the output the intern produces. Furthermore, the training, the teaching of standards / conventions, the basic questions, and the fixing of their mistakes, all consume a ton of our time that could best be placed elsewhere.
In our experience of training over 22 interns during the past 12 years, the mean time to train a green intern into a profitable employee is two years. Over this time there has been only one exception.
So if DOL says the following...
<<The United States Department of Labor provides six criteria that must <p>all</p> be met for the student to not be considered an employee and therefore does not have to receive compensation.
The six criteria include:
1. - "The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
2. - The training is for the benefit of the trainee;
3. - The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
4. - The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
5. - The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and
6. - The employer and the trainee understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.">>
Our last green intern - 4 year degree only. started in 2007 @ $12.50 and was brought up to $15 over an 18 month period. Note: we do pay time and 1/2 and health benefits. We encouraged over time as long as it was productive - Read: don't bill me for time on facebook.
The reasons for the department of labors criteria is legal. It relates to contract I think, I'm not an expert but doesn't there need to be an exchange of consideration, equal value for work? It would actually open up the firm to contractual liability if the firm were receiving any form of value to their business that it could profit from, and were not providing equal consideration in return. That is why all of those criteria need to be met otherwise the firm has no contract... I think that's how it works... In your contract for architectural services also, the firm has direct liability for it's employees, but if the unpaid intern were working on project work, they are not an employee... Maybe someone with more contract law knowledge can weigh in...
In our experience of training over 22 interns during the past 12 years, the mean time to train a green intern into a profitable employee is two years. Over this time there has been only one exception.
On the one hand, firms say that students out of architecture school don't have enough "real" experience to be either hired, or paid.
On the other hand, the first criteria states that the training must be similar to what is given in school.
It seems to me that employers want to say "you can't learn this stuff outside of a firm" when it comes to hiring, but then when it comes to paying people its "you could learn this stuff in school somewhere".
Isn't that the exact definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it too?
When I first left school, I worked at a big firm, and my productivity was 100% according to a standard firm-wide rating within 3 months. I don't think that production work takes longer than two months to grasp.
I agree the rudiments of production drafting can be learned in two months. However, we measure productivity as time spent on billable work. I don't know if time spent redoing a markup was counted as "training' or back to the job.
At DSC, at the end of the two years, our interns are able to take rough sketches from the PA and flush out the design. They should be conversant in the building and zoning code, as well as be able to discuss when the building should and should not be sprinklered, the fire rating of the walls, as well as know how many toilet fixtures there should be. They will be able to develop a decent ada bathroom, and create a decent SD set complete with preliminary building sections and wall sections that meet the office standards in sheet set up and layout.
Then after getting receiving an SD sign off from the PA they should be able to develop the majority of the CD set and perform comcheck / rescheck, develop a hardware schedule, a draft finish schedule, and know the difference in finish interior types.
At this stage you are profitable to a firm. Couple this with some field experience and office training you are ready to take the exam.
Back to the point milwaukee 08 makes:
<<It seems to me that employers want to say "you can't learn this stuff outside of a firm" when it comes to hiring, but then when it comes to paying people its "you could learn this stuff in school somewhere".>>
My feeling is that the employer's beef is that the 4 year grads have little exposure to construction documents as well as the building codes and their application.
If the schools do not want to do this in a classroom environment, then between 3rd and 4th year of undergrad, students should work a six month unpaid internship for 20 hours a week at a firm. The firm should be given a curriculum for the student to complete and the firm should receive as compensation the amount of tuition for 6 credit hours. - desk space, computers, and training time all cost dollars.
BTW I did get the CV for the intern today. I have not read it yet.
DSC_arch: most of what you are discussing is production work. Most sprinkler systems are solved by MEP anyway. Sections, ADA bathrooms are so easy. Most firms already have a template for ADA bathrooms, if not a separate sheet discussing ADA bathrooms in the CD set, typically cut and pasted. That is a piece of cake for any intern.
Everything you discussed can be learned in 3-6 months time and require little training from staff. I think most architecture work is 85% PRODUCTION work. In my firm, principals don't even know how to use AutoCAD much less Revit. In fact, it is the junior staff which figure out kinks or problems from loose sketches. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE OR DEMEAN THE ROLE OF THE INTERN, WHICH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT!
with all due respect, dsc.. i think you are mistaking what profitable means.
if someone is doing redlines and renders and assembling documents and then you just have to do a once over at the end then they saved you buckets of time.
especially since a lot of what happens in offices is oh no! we need to add 3 feet to this building, can you extend the lines 3 feet on every plan plz?thx.
or .. can you add dimension strings to all of the cds?
that kind of stuff doesn't even really need to be double checked! and sometimes it can take a couple hours to do.
if you're not doing it and someone else is doing it for free.. that's time you got to spend doing other things = profitable.
i totally agree with okay that after 2 months you are pretty much good to go.
if you switch offices, then it takes about 2 weeks to get adjusted and then you're back up to speed. this of course doesn't mean you're a master but it means you can do all the production stuff that your boss can't because he's at a meeting in hong kong.
However, based on your comments above, it appears that the intern WITH NO EXPERIENCE , would be grossly overpaid for the first two months at minimum wage.
Even a 16 y/o that starts working at McDonald's gets paid 8.75/ per hour. It's only fair that someone w/ a professional college degree should get compensated for their efforts. This isn't sweat shop labor here. Even sweat shops get paid even a small sum. I would never be an intern at your firm, EVER!
This is a ridiculous discussion and any employer that hires a graduate and doesn't pay them should be disgraced and ashamed of themselves. Any person graduating from college with any degree has little to no office experience, yet other professions are not considering hiring a college graduate and not paying them! Shame on you for thinking this is acceptable and you should be able to get away with this!
dsc_arch said "However, we measure productivity as time spent on billable work. "
Your receptionist who is answering phones-is he/she billable work? Do you pay them? Just b/c something is not directly billable to a client does not mean it is not productive and not needed. Training of new employees is productive in that it is creating new members of your team, who, if treated fairly and with respect, AND PAID, will probably become a great asset to the company.
This continuing discussion in architecture firms is insane. When I was in undergrad, I was studying construction and had a summer internship where I made $12.50 an hour-not even a college graduate yet...and this was 13 years ago. When I graduated, you can be damn sure my offers for jobs included a salary.
If you don't have the money to hire someone then don't hire them.
Robert Siegal Architects runs this CL ad all the time. Many firms will remain anonymous 'til the day you walk through the door for an interview. I called the labor department and didn't think what was going on was for real (reasonably intelligent professionals with degrees willing to work for free) and encouraged me to follow up with the attorney general.
We need a whistle blowing movement to hold these crepes responsible. It is illegal even for an intern getting course credit to do work for a firm that benefits the firm to be uncompensated.
Unfortunately we did this to ourselves and the universities set us up for this through endless hours of grueling work and then treating us like shit in reviews. After five or six years of this we become submissive and worthless feeling. Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate.
And don't forget, montagneux, employees treating employees like crap. I have no respect for someone at my firm that starts working for less than I did. And that wasn't a lot.
Good to know. I would feel uncomfortable having an unpaid intern anyway.
okay,
don't get pissy because I am taking a contrarian position in this debate. Please do not threaten to slander my office because of my position in this debate. You do not have any real facts.
I did not say I do not pay interns, the person we still have was one of our first interns and is an integral part of our team. Most interns have stayed with us until they either go to grad school or three years.
also, the fashion and marketing, and film industry is built on unpaid internships so do not use absolutes.
tinydancer,
We pay what the market demands.
We only do private sector work. We are getting squeezed by clients that $750 is too much for a tenant finish project that will take 25 man hours to do. In the end we chose to walk away and found out that we were undercut by half!
However, we do pay time and one half, and when we were busy interns worked an average of 12 hours of O.T per week making their minimum net pay $13.94 per hour or $37,500 per year. - previous posts have hashed out quality of life issues and demanding a living wage of $40K at 37.5 hours per week - so lets not go there.
back to the internship question:
However, I feel bad for this person who wants an internship. Mainly, she needs the internship to graduate, I do not have 20 hours of work per week to support her so unless things change I will have to take a pass.
I did some calculations on the cost of interns.
For ease of mathematics, at $10.00 hour I would still need to pay the feds an extra $1.50 per hour for employer side taxes. Since she has NO office experience probably for the first three weeks we will need to go over the basics including how to use a DSC template, print on a network and fax. (No kidding we have had to teach five people how to use a fax machine.).
Assuming a PM - is training the person. A rough guess is that 10 hours per week will be spent answering questions and doing one on one training. If I am paying that person $25.00 / hr. That is $250 in salary to the PM plus another $37.50 in taxes. So to train a FRESH OUT OF UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL INTERN WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE it costs the employer about $747.50 per week.
Over this hypothetical two month period to profitability it costs the employer $5,980.
At that time many interns then do look for greener pastures and the cycle repeats itself. Any office that hires a FRESH OUT OF UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL INTERN WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE is taking a risk.
I feel that the schools need to do a better job in getting the undergraduate ready for an entry level job in an architecture firm.
Unfortunately, Redo... that's a trend that will continue for at least the next two decades.
Wages are expected to drop for entry-level employees. In addition, purchasing power is expected to drop and has been dropping for a long time.
Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, I'm sure there's someone you can blame. But blame or not, employers have been mostly acting in unison on this regardless of their political or economic idealisms.
I'm sure unions could be to blame but let's not also forget Reaganomics of the 80s. I mean... honestly, could even stop trying to be the best all the time. By mathematics alone... 100% cannot be 10%. It's up to employers to realize that their companies 90% of the time are a joke to people from outside looking in.
Say... in 1985, you took a job for $30,000 USD.
Well, in an urban market, that has a relatively buying power of $59,000 USD.
The problem with trying to find a balance between then and now is the consumer price index in an average of an average in one single market.
If you calculate it backwards, however, an entry-level job today was roughly about $17,500 USD in 1985 money. The average wage in 1985 was $19,500 USD.
Technically, if you really want to get weird about it...
The average wage in Europe between 1250-1400 (supposedly the worst time in Europe to be around) was between 4.5-8.0 grams of silver per day.
(Mind you, the average work day was around 230 days per year with 4-to-6 hour work days.)
At the lowest, 4.5 grams of silver for a day for an absolute shit job (like, literall... you'd be scopping up shit), you'd be making around 70-90 dollars per day.
(For this sake, I'm going to completely ignore purchasing power and consumer price index which would actually double this figure. Depressing? Yes).
So, in 1350... a lowlife was making $13.25 an hour. Oxford data puts the average wage for the 13th-to-15th centuries at around 9.50 pounds ($14.8 USD) per hour. Mind you, if you adjust the 13.25 to working a modern full time work week.... minimum wage in 1250 was about $28,000 dollars a year (around $65,000 if you add in purchasing power calculations).
Since, the average household in the 14th century was often 3 adults... that puts household income at nearly $200,000.
Mind you rent up until the 17th century was 5 percent of income!
With the exception of some blips in the 16th and 18th century... wages have been double what the average minimum wage has been since World War I.
People at minimum wage today live at a standard comparable to wage workers in the 7th century.
I'm glad I have an iPod and vaccines because not having sedative material wealth would make me pretty upset that I have been the most ripped off generation in over 13 centuries.
My personal sentiments have been conditioned through experience over the years to have the same feelings as Redo in this regard:
"Unfortunately we did this to ourselves and the universities set us up for this through endless hours of grueling work and then treating us like shit in reviews. After five or six years of this we become submissive and worthless feeling. Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate.
And don't forget, montagneux, employees treating employees like crap. I have no respect for someone at my firm that starts working for less than I did. And that wasn't a lot."
I've been licensed for about six months now. I'm pretty sure my generation and younger is SCREWED thanks to the schools having subverted the profitability of the profession.
Redo: "Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate."
Oh please ... I've read a lot of AIA-bashing on this forum, but that's about the most nonsensical post yet.
Methinks you should be looking more to your school "to ensure that you are in demand" than the AIA. The AIA didn't train you, nor - I suspect - has the AIA ever received a dime of dues money from you.
The expectations of the AIA around here have become so boundless as to be irrational. It simply cannot be the solution to everybody's personal problem, nor does it try to be.
You want a villain to blame for the joblessness in this profession, look no further than George Bush and his Republican cronies who wrecked the economy during eight irresponsibly disastrous years of governance. John McCain can ridicule BIOB all he wants, but - to my way of thinking - this still is Bush's recession.
I think it's legal... As you said, you can have an unpaid intern, just be sure to meet these criteria:
1. - "The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
2. - The training is for the benefit of the trainee;
3. - The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
4. - The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
5. - The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and
6. - The employer and the trainee understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.">>
the point being, not to take advantage of unpaid labor to *make money* for yourself... If you are not paying them, they cannot be billable anyway and cannot be doing project work...
re: training... i think the problem some firms relying on unpaid labor face is a vicious cycle... a work culture breeds more of the same... if those firms had a culture for mentorship, of actually promoting the growth of employees and sought to build an enduring practice without the high turnover, things would be different...
if you can show an intern how to do something, they could in turn show the next intern, and so on and so on... that is the benefit of having a culture which seeks to help individuals grow, rather than simply looking short term to expend them like a resource and make a profit... it eventually turns to autopilot and takes on a life and growth of its own...
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Of course, this assumes you can create an organization that *retains* that employee... your company needs to have a good work culture where employees *want* to stay (and this relates IMHO to the kinds of people you hire in the first place, the kind of work you seek to do, and the work environment you create)... suddenly you are developing powerful enterprise... your company has growth potential and each intern employee can in turn teach other interns to fish based on your example... This is not just making a good work environment, it is actually a more sustainable business strategy... Retaining talent, and that talent helps build on what has come before... IMHO, good business organizations, the best companies to work for are built out of talented people and a work culture that retains talented people for the long term... People organizations...
what about *pro-bono project work* at firms? what if firms did *free design work* for clients as a form of charity, and employed *free studnet labor* to do that work? Use the pro-bono work as a means of giving interns experience, teaching them, but also building some portfolio for the office... And using these opportunity to mine the talent pool on new graduates to find the talent... You contribute to non-profits, etc. you give the fresh graduates say 6 months of experience as a standard, and at which point you can offer them a job if you need them.
the benefit that the firm woulr get from that pro-bono work would be significant... which is the legal question, but i'm sure that the intern would benefit at least as much as the office for building up their own portfolio and resume, so it seems to me a fair trade... (especially given that in order to do the pro-bono work, the firm is donating the lead designer's time, overhead, training of the interns, etc. to the project)...
Great idea bRink....That may work, but the only question is, who pays your bills? The office space. The lights. Insurance. Maybe you daddy can open a firm in my neighborhood and give me spending money and a cool car to take my girlfriend out with on the weekends. That would be swell!
The way I see it. If you rely on free labor then you bid the job too low.....Get outta business and make room. Its supply and demand. It pisses me off knowing that the holding the "slow" sign on one of my projects is getting paid more and has better benefits than me.
Right... That is what pro bono means... The firm donates overhead expenses... Not saying this is intended as a direct profit generating model, but training potential employees while building relationships in the community, mining young talent for ideas, building a portfolio of community work that is good PR and develops a culture of mentorship has a long run return that is good for business... Invest some of that lights and electricity bill in your community with some positive long term return on investment... Seems worthwhile to me...
After looking through the entire thread, it's comforting to know that, generally speaking, the consensus is that interns (at least in the architecture field) should be compensated for work. bRink brings up a good point that firms should foster a mentorship w/ its junior staff. In the past architecture has always been a mentor-apprentice relationship, and there are important aspects to that dynamic which should be incorporated into modern practice.
DSC_Arch: I failed to look through the entire thread before responding, and only after did I realize that you actually are paying your interns. I got a little bit thrown-off by your previous comment (and didn't realize that you were making a general hypothetical statement).
bRink: I really do appreciate your comments on this discussion; you bring a lot of insightful ideas to the table.
I hope firms learn from whatever ideas are being generated from this discussion. As you may all know, I am a junior level staff, and most of my friends in the architecture field have all been compensated for their work, whether it be big or small firms. However, there have been a few who have been working at firms for FREE, uncompensated for their efforts. One guy I graduated w/ has been working for free at a very reputable firm for two years! Unlike him ( he comes from money) most of us can't support ourselves on free labor. And most importantly, younger architects need the mentorship from senior staff; I think there is a lack of mentorship, evident through a survey which states that most junior architects stay at a job on an average of only one year before moving on to the next firm. I actually have issues w/ this type of job hopping between internships.. What do you all think?
We charge a design consultation fee when new clients call and ask us to meet on site.
Mentoring is a very important thing. Even after employment I still mentor two of our former staff.
both worked for us for over three years and one is only one exam away from his license. the cool thing about mentorship is that it is a two way street.
I am gaining a lot of information about a type of practice we no longer pursue - public work, and i talk to him about how to not become pigeonholed, how to expand his exposure to upper management and most importantly - keep employed.
As an aside, i base a lot of our two year stats on him and after he left he has become the most valued employee at the three firms he has gone to. Since he came to us fresh out of school, he left us to experience other firms. While it was sad to see him go, he needed to spread his wings.
For the other former intern that we mentor, we are assisting in her class project of analyzing our marketing plan as a case study. She is pursuing her March/MBA.
Just want add something regarding *employee retention*... the mentorship retains talent... And by this, I don't just mean short term. If your firm hires interns and invests time training them, mining them for ideas, they may still leave, maybe you kept them only for say half a year or whatever... There are hugely successful firms out there Ive seen that have ongoing *rolling* internships... A fixed duration, where talented students and young graduates continually cycle through the office, gain invaluable experience while there, actually are paid, contribute fresh ideas and energy, but then go on to other jobs... While on the one hand it may seem as though your firm is training people only to ship them off to other firms, what in reality happens is, you benefit from that ongoing fresh energy, contribute to the profession as a whole and *build long term relationships* with those interns... Over time, your mentees/interns are everywhere throughout the architecture firm community, talented indiviuals who are accumulating experience from all of the other diverse firms in your relatively small, tight local architecture community, and they *all carry that positive experience and reputation as they grow their careers, and many of them, even if they leave in the short run, would be happy to come back to you as a much more experienced employee in the future, after having gained valuable experience elsewhere... In other words, treating your interns right, building a solid reputation of mentorship actually makes you more competitive in th market for talented labor of experienced employees in the long run and is good business practice... A strong reputation as a great place to work means you will actually attract and retain the best talent, not just the best young people...
Conversely, not compensating interns, or having a reputation for not treating interns well, can damage your reputation in th labor market and an abused intern is *guaranteed* not to return, and may carry that negative reputation to their future careers and community... It pays to be fair in a sustained business... 2 cents...
In otherwords maintaining those relationships with mentees/interns means they may be a potentially valuable resource when you need good people in the future... Even if they have a job and cannot return, the architecture communities are small, they will know good people and a referral goes a long way when seeking talent pool...
I think what I'm trying to get at is, trust and relationships matter in this business... Integrity matters, so it pays to mentor or compensate employees and contribute to the growth of the profession and community... The cash flow might not be obvious but there are intangible long run benefits...
Fair and good employers keep the best people because they develop good work cultures, comradery, and employee loyalty... And reputations for being great places to work...
I agree with your argument and I can understand how it can be fair to hire uncompensated interns. I'm also glad you do pay your interns.
okay:
Your blog totally made my day.
bRink:
I completely agree with you on the matter of mentorship and your take on this situation is very refreshing. (Thanks for your post in my 'where are you now?' thread btw.)
I am a recent graduate and currently an intern for a small design firm. I receive a stipend that covers my commute and a little extra for food. In my short time there, I have been thoroughly involved in the design process. I have produced numerous study models and drawings; many of which have been used for review by the clients. I understand this profession can require long hours, and I am willing to dedicate the time it takes. However, I also have a part-time job to help keep me afloat and I am afraid I can't be there whenever the firm needs me. Like the article said, there's always someone willing to work for free. That and the fact that I know experience is worth more in the end, is what motivates me to stay.
My question(s):
*Has what I've done given the firm an immediate advantage?
*Does getting a stipend count as compensation? (Worked out hourly, it is nowhere near minimum wage.)
*Can the firm "expect" me to stay long hours or come in on weekends, despite not paying me?
As a new grad, I honestly don't know any better. I am willing to do whatever it takes to gain experience and learn, but it's starting to get difficult financially, physically, and mentally.
Sorry for the emotional rant, but Archinect users understand my situation better than my parents lol.
pdigi: i think the issue with the stipend is... yes its compensation but it's a lump sum and you aren't getting benefits... i think it's better than nothing, and it's good work experience, but think of it as a foot in the door... learn what you can, and then move onto something better imho... as an intern you aren't getting benefits so i think you should really be getting wage + wage and a half for overtime...
if you are getting a stipend only, treat this as a temporary gig while you look for work elsewhere... imho
If I want to voluntary at a soup kitchen or assist a company with the layout of an elaborate float for the Rose Parade, then technically I should be getting paid for my services. But I don’t. I’m volunteering. Certain business force you to sign a contract that states if someone gets injured, then the company is not responsible or something of that nature. What if certain firms follow that same principle? Meaning have the intern or “volunteer” sign a document that gives away their rights to the company. Wouldn’t that be a loop hole in the system? Granted that the firm will try to put the volunteer in a safe environment meaning I wouldn’t want that person in the model shop or running errands outside the office. But still. Would that work too? I’m not taking positions here but just wondered all the things that I volunteered in the past that benefited the company but buy law, I should have gotten paid.
Even though as an intern my goal was to learn and gain the experience I needed to become a professional, I still did work for the companies that I worked for and got paid for that work, even though it may not have been much. I did encounter a few job openings several years ago that were unpaid internships, but since I didn't live there, the only way I could have worked at those places would have been if they helped with housing and living expenses.
How about this archinect job post from today. Assuming the word "intern" is not a typo, this is real chutzpa.
JZA+D is seeking Intern Architects with three to six years experience, a strong design portfolio, and an March, BArch, or equivalent. This is a perfect opportunity for a motivated, responsible, talented self-starter interested in working on a wide range of commercial, residential, and institutional projects across the country. You will be involved in all aspects of a project from schematics through construction.
A successful candidate must:
* Be an excellent designer who is comfortable with collaboration with other team members.
* Have excellent visual, verbal and written communication skills.
* Be proficient in AutoCAD.
The following skills sets are beneficial:
* Strong graphic and rendering skills.
* Viz/3D Studio.
* Photoshop.
* Ability to manage the internal project team, external consultants, and client relationships.
* A broad knowledge of materials, systems and details.
* Familiarity with sustainable design concepts and the LEED rating system.
* Familiarity with residential and institutional projects.
I might be missing something in the job posting, but I don't think that the phrase "Intern Architects" necessarily implies that the position is unpaid. A lot of firms refer to unlicensed employees who are fairly new to the profession or student who are working in their offices as Intern Architects or Interns. In most cases, these positions are paid, either salaried or hourly. Now if the job posting said "unpaid intern," then I think that you would be on to something.....
We call anyone who is not licensed an intern, unless they have given up the license track (typically at about year 5 out of school).; then we are looking to call them either Project Managers or Job Captains.
I have found in our firm that interns are highly profitable. Yes, they have lots and lots to learn, and we teach them what they need to move towards registration. They get a lot out of the relationship, including a decent salary. They save more experienced architects lots of time- so much that we can spend some time 'wasted' teaching them, and still be ahead. We still make profit on them. If your firm cannot, there is something wrong with your firm.
For example, why are you surprised someone needs to be taught to use a fax machine? It not like every home has one sitting around. It takes about 1 minute for a smart intern to learn this. Big deal. And by the way, who uses a fax machine anyway? We send and receive faxes digitally from our computers and copy machines.
My point was that at $10.00 per hour, the opportunity cost / investment for the firm to train a intern fresh out of undergraduate school with no experience is about $6,000.
An employer needs to take that into consideration before hiring.
BTW I enjoy training interns. Their optimism and fresh perspective give us all a lift. Even better, all of the stories I have bored the older staff with are new to them :)
what planet do you live on? do you pay your interns $12.50 /hour?
Scandalous, how dare interns demand pay - they should be paying at least $6000 for the unmatched experience they will gain from your firm (tell us are you peter eisenman , come on you can tell us) not to mention the free use of your toilets and access to your fascinating stories about sprinklers.
So what do you think an intern fresh out of undergraduate school with no office experience make?
What did you make at that level? Were you paid time and one half? Were you given an opportunity to be entrepreneurial?
Tell us your experience?
BTW until Illinois changed the law requiring a masters degree, many of the interns we trained decided not to go to graduate school. They didn't need to. They were confidant in their abilities to take and pass the ARE.
Unpaid Internships
I've seen a number of posts here concerning unpaid internships and thought this article in the nation might help clear up some of the legal issues and concerns.http://www.thenation.com/blogs/question/525995/the_il_legality_of_unpaid_internships
that's rough. i am a new grad in that position. on one hand, i desperately need the experience to get my foot in the door. on the other hand it's very difficult to sustain myself. it's unfortunate because i don't know how much longer i can do this.
The Nation article was very interesting, and timely.
I was approached yesterday to take on an upaid intern from UIC undergraduate architecture for 20 hours per week for six months. I believe that candidate will get course credit for the time.
At this time we do not need anyone. In fact, We will need to make work for that person. However if we are not paying that person and they are getting school credit, we my consider it.
While we are awaiting the CV, it did get us thinking about the problems of taking on a green intern. Read: someone who does not have any office experience.
We talked about the time and effort we put into training someone is not offset with the output the intern produces. Furthermore, the training, the teaching of standards / conventions, the basic questions, and the fixing of their mistakes, all consume a ton of our time that could best be placed elsewhere.
In our experience of training over 22 interns during the past 12 years, the mean time to train a green intern into a profitable employee is two years. Over this time there has been only one exception.
So if DOL says the following...
<<The United States Department of Labor provides six criteria that must <p>all</p> be met for the student to not be considered an employee and therefore does not have to receive compensation.
The six criteria include:
1. - "The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
2. - The training is for the benefit of the trainee;
3. - The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
4. - The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
5. - The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and
6. - The employer and the trainee understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.">>
... then I can see a place for unpaid interns.
in that respect, i agree with you dsc_arch. course credits cost money and office experience often does contribute towards graduation?
what about if the intern is a new grad working full time, with minimal training .. getting thrown in the fire, so to speak? is that not exploitative?
For me, then it is paid position.
Our last green intern - 4 year degree only. started in 2007 @ $12.50 and was brought up to $15 over an 18 month period. Note: we do pay time and 1/2 and health benefits. We encouraged over time as long as it was productive - Read: don't bill me for time on facebook.
The reasons for the department of labors criteria is legal. It relates to contract I think, I'm not an expert but doesn't there need to be an exchange of consideration, equal value for work? It would actually open up the firm to contractual liability if the firm were receiving any form of value to their business that it could profit from, and were not providing equal consideration in return. That is why all of those criteria need to be met otherwise the firm has no contract... I think that's how it works... In your contract for architectural services also, the firm has direct liability for it's employees, but if the unpaid intern were working on project work, they are not an employee... Maybe someone with more contract law knowledge can weigh in...
On the one hand, firms say that students out of architecture school don't have enough "real" experience to be either hired, or paid.
On the other hand, the first criteria states that the training must be similar to what is given in school.
It seems to me that employers want to say "you can't learn this stuff outside of a firm" when it comes to hiring, but then when it comes to paying people its "you could learn this stuff in school somewhere".
Isn't that the exact definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it too?
DSC_Arch:
When I first left school, I worked at a big firm, and my productivity was 100% according to a standard firm-wide rating within 3 months. I don't think that production work takes longer than two months to grasp.
I agree the rudiments of production drafting can be learned in two months. However, we measure productivity as time spent on billable work. I don't know if time spent redoing a markup was counted as "training' or back to the job.
At DSC, at the end of the two years, our interns are able to take rough sketches from the PA and flush out the design. They should be conversant in the building and zoning code, as well as be able to discuss when the building should and should not be sprinklered, the fire rating of the walls, as well as know how many toilet fixtures there should be. They will be able to develop a decent ada bathroom, and create a decent SD set complete with preliminary building sections and wall sections that meet the office standards in sheet set up and layout.
Then after getting receiving an SD sign off from the PA they should be able to develop the majority of the CD set and perform comcheck / rescheck, develop a hardware schedule, a draft finish schedule, and know the difference in finish interior types.
At this stage you are profitable to a firm. Couple this with some field experience and office training you are ready to take the exam.
Back to the point milwaukee 08 makes:
<<It seems to me that employers want to say "you can't learn this stuff outside of a firm" when it comes to hiring, but then when it comes to paying people its "you could learn this stuff in school somewhere".>>
My feeling is that the employer's beef is that the 4 year grads have little exposure to construction documents as well as the building codes and their application.
If the schools do not want to do this in a classroom environment, then between 3rd and 4th year of undergrad, students should work a six month unpaid internship for 20 hours a week at a firm. The firm should be given a curriculum for the student to complete and the firm should receive as compensation the amount of tuition for 6 credit hours. - desk space, computers, and training time all cost dollars.
BTW I did get the CV for the intern today. I have not read it yet.
DSC_arch: most of what you are discussing is production work. Most sprinkler systems are solved by MEP anyway. Sections, ADA bathrooms are so easy. Most firms already have a template for ADA bathrooms, if not a separate sheet discussing ADA bathrooms in the CD set, typically cut and pasted. That is a piece of cake for any intern.
Everything you discussed can be learned in 3-6 months time and require little training from staff. I think most architecture work is 85% PRODUCTION work. In my firm, principals don't even know how to use AutoCAD much less Revit. In fact, it is the junior staff which figure out kinks or problems from loose sketches. DON'T UNDERESTIMATE OR DEMEAN THE ROLE OF THE INTERN, WHICH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT!
with all due respect, dsc.. i think you are mistaking what profitable means.
if someone is doing redlines and renders and assembling documents and then you just have to do a once over at the end then they saved you buckets of time.
especially since a lot of what happens in offices is oh no! we need to add 3 feet to this building, can you extend the lines 3 feet on every plan plz?thx.
or .. can you add dimension strings to all of the cds?
that kind of stuff doesn't even really need to be double checked! and sometimes it can take a couple hours to do.
if you're not doing it and someone else is doing it for free.. that's time you got to spend doing other things = profitable.
i totally agree with okay that after 2 months you are pretty much good to go.
if you switch offices, then it takes about 2 weeks to get adjusted and then you're back up to speed. this of course doesn't mean you're a master but it means you can do all the production stuff that your boss can't because he's at a meeting in hong kong.
</rant>
I think we have diverged way off topic.
However, based on your comments above, it appears that the intern WITH NO EXPERIENCE , would be grossly overpaid for the first two months at minimum wage.
Should the first two months be unpaid?
No, because every entry level person in any field gets compensated. Who the fuck are you?
http://pimpingarchitects.blogspot.com/
dsc_arch: your firm is next in line for this blog.
http://pimpingarchitects.blogspot.com/
Even a 16 y/o that starts working at McDonald's gets paid 8.75/ per hour. It's only fair that someone w/ a professional college degree should get compensated for their efforts. This isn't sweat shop labor here. Even sweat shops get paid even a small sum. I would never be an intern at your firm, EVER!
This is a ridiculous discussion and any employer that hires a graduate and doesn't pay them should be disgraced and ashamed of themselves. Any person graduating from college with any degree has little to no office experience, yet other professions are not considering hiring a college graduate and not paying them! Shame on you for thinking this is acceptable and you should be able to get away with this!
dsc_arch said "However, we measure productivity as time spent on billable work. "
Your receptionist who is answering phones-is he/she billable work? Do you pay them? Just b/c something is not directly billable to a client does not mean it is not productive and not needed. Training of new employees is productive in that it is creating new members of your team, who, if treated fairly and with respect, AND PAID, will probably become a great asset to the company.
This continuing discussion in architecture firms is insane. When I was in undergrad, I was studying construction and had a summer internship where I made $12.50 an hour-not even a college graduate yet...and this was 13 years ago. When I graduated, you can be damn sure my offers for jobs included a salary.
If you don't have the money to hire someone then don't hire them.
Robert Siegal Architects runs this CL ad all the time. Many firms will remain anonymous 'til the day you walk through the door for an interview. I called the labor department and didn't think what was going on was for real (reasonably intelligent professionals with degrees willing to work for free) and encouraged me to follow up with the attorney general.
We need a whistle blowing movement to hold these crepes responsible. It is illegal even for an intern getting course credit to do work for a firm that benefits the firm to be uncompensated.
Haha...
Maybe inappropriate to suggest a correlation here but this sounds like a definite "circle of violence" sort of deal.
Employers treat current and potential employees like crap.
Which means that employees treat employers like crap.
And then employers treat employees like even more crap.
Which leads employees... well, you get the picture.
Does this entire industry need arbitration?
Unfortunately we did this to ourselves and the universities set us up for this through endless hours of grueling work and then treating us like shit in reviews. After five or six years of this we become submissive and worthless feeling. Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate.
And don't forget, montagneux, employees treating employees like crap. I have no respect for someone at my firm that starts working for less than I did. And that wasn't a lot.
Good to know. I would feel uncomfortable having an unpaid intern anyway.
okay,
don't get pissy because I am taking a contrarian position in this debate. Please do not threaten to slander my office because of my position in this debate. You do not have any real facts.
I did not say I do not pay interns, the person we still have was one of our first interns and is an integral part of our team. Most interns have stayed with us until they either go to grad school or three years.
also, the fashion and marketing, and film industry is built on unpaid internships so do not use absolutes.
tinydancer,
We pay what the market demands.
We only do private sector work. We are getting squeezed by clients that $750 is too much for a tenant finish project that will take 25 man hours to do. In the end we chose to walk away and found out that we were undercut by half!
However, we do pay time and one half, and when we were busy interns worked an average of 12 hours of O.T per week making their minimum net pay $13.94 per hour or $37,500 per year. - previous posts have hashed out quality of life issues and demanding a living wage of $40K at 37.5 hours per week - so lets not go there.
back to the internship question:
However, I feel bad for this person who wants an internship. Mainly, she needs the internship to graduate, I do not have 20 hours of work per week to support her so unless things change I will have to take a pass.
I did some calculations on the cost of interns.
For ease of mathematics, at $10.00 hour I would still need to pay the feds an extra $1.50 per hour for employer side taxes. Since she has NO office experience probably for the first three weeks we will need to go over the basics including how to use a DSC template, print on a network and fax. (No kidding we have had to teach five people how to use a fax machine.).
Assuming a PM - is training the person. A rough guess is that 10 hours per week will be spent answering questions and doing one on one training. If I am paying that person $25.00 / hr. That is $250 in salary to the PM plus another $37.50 in taxes. So to train a FRESH OUT OF UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL INTERN WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE it costs the employer about $747.50 per week.
Over this hypothetical two month period to profitability it costs the employer $5,980.
At that time many interns then do look for greener pastures and the cycle repeats itself. Any office that hires a FRESH OUT OF UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL INTERN WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE is taking a risk.
I feel that the schools need to do a better job in getting the undergraduate ready for an entry level job in an architecture firm.
Unfortunately, Redo... that's a trend that will continue for at least the next two decades.
Wages are expected to drop for entry-level employees. In addition, purchasing power is expected to drop and has been dropping for a long time.
Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, I'm sure there's someone you can blame. But blame or not, employers have been mostly acting in unison on this regardless of their political or economic idealisms.
I'm sure unions could be to blame but let's not also forget Reaganomics of the 80s. I mean... honestly, could even stop trying to be the best all the time. By mathematics alone... 100% cannot be 10%. It's up to employers to realize that their companies 90% of the time are a joke to people from outside looking in.
Say... in 1985, you took a job for $30,000 USD.
Well, in an urban market, that has a relatively buying power of $59,000 USD.
The problem with trying to find a balance between then and now is the consumer price index in an average of an average in one single market.
If you calculate it backwards, however, an entry-level job today was roughly about $17,500 USD in 1985 money. The average wage in 1985 was $19,500 USD.
Technically, if you really want to get weird about it...
The average wage in Europe between 1250-1400 (supposedly the worst time in Europe to be around) was between 4.5-8.0 grams of silver per day.
(Mind you, the average work day was around 230 days per year with 4-to-6 hour work days.)
At the lowest, 4.5 grams of silver for a day for an absolute shit job (like, literall... you'd be scopping up shit), you'd be making around 70-90 dollars per day.
(For this sake, I'm going to completely ignore purchasing power and consumer price index which would actually double this figure. Depressing? Yes).
So, in 1350... a lowlife was making $13.25 an hour. Oxford data puts the average wage for the 13th-to-15th centuries at around 9.50 pounds ($14.8 USD) per hour. Mind you, if you adjust the 13.25 to working a modern full time work week.... minimum wage in 1250 was about $28,000 dollars a year (around $65,000 if you add in purchasing power calculations).
Since, the average household in the 14th century was often 3 adults... that puts household income at nearly $200,000.
Mind you rent up until the 17th century was 5 percent of income!
With the exception of some blips in the 16th and 18th century... wages have been double what the average minimum wage has been since World War I.
People at minimum wage today live at a standard comparable to wage workers in the 7th century.
It seems that it should be apparent that the schools are failing, esp. the schools that are supposedly graduating kids with "professional" degrees.
The schools are mostly to blame for subverting professional practice.
I'm glad I have an iPod and vaccines because not having sedative material wealth would make me pretty upset that I have been the most ripped off generation in over 13 centuries.
My personal sentiments have been conditioned through experience over the years to have the same feelings as Redo in this regard:
"Unfortunately we did this to ourselves and the universities set us up for this through endless hours of grueling work and then treating us like shit in reviews. After five or six years of this we become submissive and worthless feeling. Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate.
And don't forget, montagneux, employees treating employees like crap. I have no respect for someone at my firm that starts working for less than I did. And that wasn't a lot."
I've been licensed for about six months now. I'm pretty sure my generation and younger is SCREWED thanks to the schools having subverted the profitability of the profession.
dsc_arch, i'd rather have my thumbs broken then work at your firm. christ.
^ that was a bit harsh, sorry. i take it back. =(
Redo: "Then the AIA does nothing to ensure we are in demand once we graduate."
Oh please ... I've read a lot of AIA-bashing on this forum, but that's about the most nonsensical post yet.
Methinks you should be looking more to your school "to ensure that you are in demand" than the AIA. The AIA didn't train you, nor - I suspect - has the AIA ever received a dime of dues money from you.
The expectations of the AIA around here have become so boundless as to be irrational. It simply cannot be the solution to everybody's personal problem, nor does it try to be.
You want a villain to blame for the joblessness in this profession, look no further than George Bush and his Republican cronies who wrecked the economy during eight irresponsibly disastrous years of governance. John McCain can ridicule BIOB all he wants, but - to my way of thinking - this still is Bush's recession.
dsc_arch:
I think it's legal... As you said, you can have an unpaid intern, just be sure to meet these criteria:
1. - "The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
2. - The training is for the benefit of the trainee;
3. - The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
4. - The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
5. - The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and
6. - The employer and the trainee understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.">>
the point being, not to take advantage of unpaid labor to *make money* for yourself... If you are not paying them, they cannot be billable anyway and cannot be doing project work...
re: training... i think the problem some firms relying on unpaid labor face is a vicious cycle... a work culture breeds more of the same... if those firms had a culture for mentorship, of actually promoting the growth of employees and sought to build an enduring practice without the high turnover, things would be different...
if you can show an intern how to do something, they could in turn show the next intern, and so on and so on... that is the benefit of having a culture which seeks to help individuals grow, rather than simply looking short term to expend them like a resource and make a profit... it eventually turns to autopilot and takes on a life and growth of its own...
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Of course, this assumes you can create an organization that *retains* that employee... your company needs to have a good work culture where employees *want* to stay (and this relates IMHO to the kinds of people you hire in the first place, the kind of work you seek to do, and the work environment you create)... suddenly you are developing powerful enterprise... your company has growth potential and each intern employee can in turn teach other interns to fish based on your example... This is not just making a good work environment, it is actually a more sustainable business strategy... Retaining talent, and that talent helps build on what has come before... IMHO, good business organizations, the best companies to work for are built out of talented people and a work culture that retains talented people for the long term... People organizations...
here is a thought:
what about *pro-bono project work* at firms? what if firms did *free design work* for clients as a form of charity, and employed *free studnet labor* to do that work? Use the pro-bono work as a means of giving interns experience, teaching them, but also building some portfolio for the office... And using these opportunity to mine the talent pool on new graduates to find the talent... You contribute to non-profits, etc. you give the fresh graduates say 6 months of experience as a standard, and at which point you can offer them a job if you need them.
How's that? Would that be legal?
the benefit that the firm woulr get from that pro-bono work would be significant... which is the legal question, but i'm sure that the intern would benefit at least as much as the office for building up their own portfolio and resume, so it seems to me a fair trade... (especially given that in order to do the pro-bono work, the firm is donating the lead designer's time, overhead, training of the interns, etc. to the project)...
Great idea bRink....That may work, but the only question is, who pays your bills? The office space. The lights. Insurance. Maybe you daddy can open a firm in my neighborhood and give me spending money and a cool car to take my girlfriend out with on the weekends. That would be swell!
The way I see it. If you rely on free labor then you bid the job too low.....Get outta business and make room. Its supply and demand. It pisses me off knowing that the holding the "slow" sign on one of my projects is getting paid more and has better benefits than me.
Right... That is what pro bono means... The firm donates overhead expenses... Not saying this is intended as a direct profit generating model, but training potential employees while building relationships in the community, mining young talent for ideas, building a portfolio of community work that is good PR and develops a culture of mentorship has a long run return that is good for business... Invest some of that lights and electricity bill in your community with some positive long term return on investment... Seems worthwhile to me...
After looking through the entire thread, it's comforting to know that, generally speaking, the consensus is that interns (at least in the architecture field) should be compensated for work. bRink brings up a good point that firms should foster a mentorship w/ its junior staff. In the past architecture has always been a mentor-apprentice relationship, and there are important aspects to that dynamic which should be incorporated into modern practice.
DSC_Arch: I failed to look through the entire thread before responding, and only after did I realize that you actually are paying your interns. I got a little bit thrown-off by your previous comment (and didn't realize that you were making a general hypothetical statement).
bRink: I really do appreciate your comments on this discussion; you bring a lot of insightful ideas to the table.
I hope firms learn from whatever ideas are being generated from this discussion. As you may all know, I am a junior level staff, and most of my friends in the architecture field have all been compensated for their work, whether it be big or small firms. However, there have been a few who have been working at firms for FREE, uncompensated for their efforts. One guy I graduated w/ has been working for free at a very reputable firm for two years! Unlike him ( he comes from money) most of us can't support ourselves on free labor. And most importantly, younger architects need the mentorship from senior staff; I think there is a lack of mentorship, evident through a survey which states that most junior architects stay at a job on an average of only one year before moving on to the next firm. I actually have issues w/ this type of job hopping between internships.. What do you all think?
No one should work for free. Not even firms.
We charge a design consultation fee when new clients call and ask us to meet on site.
Mentoring is a very important thing. Even after employment I still mentor two of our former staff.
both worked for us for over three years and one is only one exam away from his license. the cool thing about mentorship is that it is a two way street.
I am gaining a lot of information about a type of practice we no longer pursue - public work, and i talk to him about how to not become pigeonholed, how to expand his exposure to upper management and most importantly - keep employed.
As an aside, i base a lot of our two year stats on him and after he left he has become the most valued employee at the three firms he has gone to. Since he came to us fresh out of school, he left us to experience other firms. While it was sad to see him go, he needed to spread his wings.
For the other former intern that we mentor, we are assisting in her class project of analyzing our marketing plan as a case study. She is pursuing her March/MBA.
Just want add something regarding *employee retention*... the mentorship retains talent... And by this, I don't just mean short term. If your firm hires interns and invests time training them, mining them for ideas, they may still leave, maybe you kept them only for say half a year or whatever... There are hugely successful firms out there Ive seen that have ongoing *rolling* internships... A fixed duration, where talented students and young graduates continually cycle through the office, gain invaluable experience while there, actually are paid, contribute fresh ideas and energy, but then go on to other jobs... While on the one hand it may seem as though your firm is training people only to ship them off to other firms, what in reality happens is, you benefit from that ongoing fresh energy, contribute to the profession as a whole and *build long term relationships* with those interns... Over time, your mentees/interns are everywhere throughout the architecture firm community, talented indiviuals who are accumulating experience from all of the other diverse firms in your relatively small, tight local architecture community, and they *all carry that positive experience and reputation as they grow their careers, and many of them, even if they leave in the short run, would be happy to come back to you as a much more experienced employee in the future, after having gained valuable experience elsewhere... In other words, treating your interns right, building a solid reputation of mentorship actually makes you more competitive in th market for talented labor of experienced employees in the long run and is good business practice... A strong reputation as a great place to work means you will actually attract and retain the best talent, not just the best young people...
Conversely, not compensating interns, or having a reputation for not treating interns well, can damage your reputation in th labor market and an abused intern is *guaranteed* not to return, and may carry that negative reputation to their future careers and community... It pays to be fair in a sustained business... 2 cents...
In otherwords maintaining those relationships with mentees/interns means they may be a potentially valuable resource when you need good people in the future... Even if they have a job and cannot return, the architecture communities are small, they will know good people and a referral goes a long way when seeking talent pool...
I think what I'm trying to get at is, trust and relationships matter in this business... Integrity matters, so it pays to mentor or compensate employees and contribute to the growth of the profession and community... The cash flow might not be obvious but there are intangible long run benefits...
Fair and good employers keep the best people because they develop good work cultures, comradery, and employee loyalty... And reputations for being great places to work...
dsc_arch:
I agree with your argument and I can understand how it can be fair to hire uncompensated interns. I'm also glad you do pay your interns.
okay:
Your blog totally made my day.
bRink:
I completely agree with you on the matter of mentorship and your take on this situation is very refreshing. (Thanks for your post in my 'where are you now?' thread btw.)
I am a recent graduate and currently an intern for a small design firm. I receive a stipend that covers my commute and a little extra for food. In my short time there, I have been thoroughly involved in the design process. I have produced numerous study models and drawings; many of which have been used for review by the clients. I understand this profession can require long hours, and I am willing to dedicate the time it takes. However, I also have a part-time job to help keep me afloat and I am afraid I can't be there whenever the firm needs me. Like the article said, there's always someone willing to work for free. That and the fact that I know experience is worth more in the end, is what motivates me to stay.
My question(s):
*Has what I've done given the firm an immediate advantage?
*Does getting a stipend count as compensation? (Worked out hourly, it is nowhere near minimum wage.)
*Can the firm "expect" me to stay long hours or come in on weekends, despite not paying me?
As a new grad, I honestly don't know any better. I am willing to do whatever it takes to gain experience and learn, but it's starting to get difficult financially, physically, and mentally.
Sorry for the emotional rant, but Archinect users understand my situation better than my parents lol.
pdigi: i think the issue with the stipend is... yes its compensation but it's a lump sum and you aren't getting benefits... i think it's better than nothing, and it's good work experience, but think of it as a foot in the door... learn what you can, and then move onto something better imho... as an intern you aren't getting benefits so i think you should really be getting wage + wage and a half for overtime...
if you are getting a stipend only, treat this as a temporary gig while you look for work elsewhere... imho
volunteer vs unpaid internship.
If I want to voluntary at a soup kitchen or assist a company with the layout of an elaborate float for the Rose Parade, then technically I should be getting paid for my services. But I don’t. I’m volunteering. Certain business force you to sign a contract that states if someone gets injured, then the company is not responsible or something of that nature. What if certain firms follow that same principle? Meaning have the intern or “volunteer” sign a document that gives away their rights to the company. Wouldn’t that be a loop hole in the system? Granted that the firm will try to put the volunteer in a safe environment meaning I wouldn’t want that person in the model shop or running errands outside the office. But still. Would that work too? I’m not taking positions here but just wondered all the things that I volunteered in the past that benefited the company but buy law, I should have gotten paid.
Even though as an intern my goal was to learn and gain the experience I needed to become a professional, I still did work for the companies that I worked for and got paid for that work, even though it may not have been much. I did encounter a few job openings several years ago that were unpaid internships, but since I didn't live there, the only way I could have worked at those places would have been if they helped with housing and living expenses.
How about this archinect job post from today. Assuming the word "intern" is not a typo, this is real chutzpa.
JZA+D is seeking Intern Architects with three to six years experience, a strong design portfolio, and an March, BArch, or equivalent. This is a perfect opportunity for a motivated, responsible, talented self-starter interested in working on a wide range of commercial, residential, and institutional projects across the country. You will be involved in all aspects of a project from schematics through construction.
A successful candidate must:
* Be an excellent designer who is comfortable with collaboration with other team members.
* Have excellent visual, verbal and written communication skills.
* Be proficient in AutoCAD.
The following skills sets are beneficial:
* Strong graphic and rendering skills.
* Viz/3D Studio.
* Photoshop.
* Ability to manage the internal project team, external consultants, and client relationships.
* A broad knowledge of materials, systems and details.
* Familiarity with sustainable design concepts and the LEED rating system.
* Familiarity with residential and institutional projects.
Poche,
I might be missing something in the job posting, but I don't think that the phrase "Intern Architects" necessarily implies that the position is unpaid. A lot of firms refer to unlicensed employees who are fairly new to the profession or student who are working in their offices as Intern Architects or Interns. In most cases, these positions are paid, either salaried or hourly. Now if the job posting said "unpaid intern," then I think that you would be on to something.....
We use the AIA nomenclature.
We call anyone who is not licensed an intern, unless they have given up the license track (typically at about year 5 out of school).; then we are looking to call them either Project Managers or Job Captains.
dsc_arch;
I have found in our firm that interns are highly profitable. Yes, they have lots and lots to learn, and we teach them what they need to move towards registration. They get a lot out of the relationship, including a decent salary. They save more experienced architects lots of time- so much that we can spend some time 'wasted' teaching them, and still be ahead. We still make profit on them. If your firm cannot, there is something wrong with your firm.
For example, why are you surprised someone needs to be taught to use a fax machine? It not like every home has one sitting around. It takes about 1 minute for a smart intern to learn this. Big deal. And by the way, who uses a fax machine anyway? We send and receive faxes digitally from our computers and copy machines.
Archie,
I never said that interns can not be profitable.
My point was that at $10.00 per hour, the opportunity cost / investment for the firm to train a intern fresh out of undergraduate school with no experience is about $6,000.
An employer needs to take that into consideration before hiring.
BTW I enjoy training interns. Their optimism and fresh perspective give us all a lift. Even better, all of the stories I have bored the older staff with are new to them :)
dsc_arch :)
what planet do you live on? do you pay your interns $12.50 /hour?
Scandalous, how dare interns demand pay - they should be paying at least $6000 for the unmatched experience they will gain from your firm (tell us are you peter eisenman , come on you can tell us) not to mention the free use of your toilets and access to your fascinating stories about sprinklers.
dsc_arch,
i just looked at your website. Sorry, you're not Peter Eisenman.
So what do you think an intern fresh out of undergraduate school with no office experience make?
What did you make at that level? Were you paid time and one half? Were you given an opportunity to be entrepreneurial?
Tell us your experience?
BTW until Illinois changed the law requiring a masters degree, many of the interns we trained decided not to go to graduate school. They didn't need to. They were confidant in their abilities to take and pass the ARE.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.