For example, creative jobs in NYC. There's tons of illegal, unpaid internships and tons of companies who don't want to pay. I know several animators working in the industry there and often it takes them 6 months after a project to get paid and frequently studios try not to pay. I know a couple of people who have worked in the industry for 6 or more years and never been able to get a paying job.
Imagine working in an industry pulling 60+ hour weeks for 6 years and never getting paid for your work...and that's after being saddled with 200k in loan debt from an art school. There are so many people in that area willing to work for free and are used to it that it's difficult to find long-term paying work.
There's a vast chasm of difference between "right to work" and "right to be paid for your work".
Just because it's "artsy" doesn't make it more okay.
Because after all, open source gives us software for "free". Much of this software would otherwise have to be written commercially, so one can make the case that people who write software for a living deserve to be protected from this open source nonsense.
It's highly probable that for-profit bootcamps using volunteers would be in violation of the long-existing law.
By working for free, they're lowering the wages of everyone else in the software development field. Who is robbing who exactly?
So really, any regulation has another side. It benefits one group of people, while robbing another group, which is less vocal and less identifiable and thus is less likely to be remembered in this case at all.
You're totally ignoring the most probable outcome - reductions in costs lead to higher dividends paid to shareholders. Consumers continue paying the same price.
Now, employer - union, maybe.
Even still, nobody's forcing them at gunpoint. Presumably they chose a an unpaid graphic design internship because they value the experience. They could have chosen to work elsewhere for pay. As long as they are not being forced, are not being deceived, and are choosing according to their own priorities, it's their decision.
This is incredibly naive. There are many good reasons for deregulation, but propagating arguments like this just gives libertarianism a bad name.
Your choice of word, mate, not mine. If you want to talk about entitlement, lead on.
Free labour will always out-compete paid labour, and the more free labour in the market, the lower wages get, so the point I raise is valid - they gain their experience at the overall expense of the rest of the developer community.
In general, usage of unpaid interns damages the social contract between employer and employee - fair wages for fair work. Look at what has happened in other industries where wages have been driven down - America's regional airline pilots are paid ludicrously low wages despite the rather important role they have, with flow-on effects that speculatively affect safety.
I have a feeling I've struck the libertarians of HN, in which case, this discussion is probably for naught.
If everyone picked up their friends and family from the airport, there would be no more business for those who make a living transporting people to and from the airport. Even if it came to that, should we enact laws to protect the businesses? I would argue no. Why? Because it is no one's business but mine and those I pick up.
I agree, except I would also add that companies shouldn't be allowed to conspire about wages. If they must compete, the ones that pay the most (or offer the most valuable experience) will get the best interns and all will be well.