It seems like most internships are not so much a "free trial" for the internee, but an extended, interactive interview and test of skills, personality, and attitude. They exist so that firms don't get stuck with inept workers.
There are also significant costs associated with interns (e.g. training, relocation) which are depreciated if the intern gets hired. Having an intern program like he describes would definitely see an increase in those costs, which makes it a disincentive for firms to have such a program.
That said, I'd love to have the opportunity to intern anywhere at any stage in my life.
I thought internships are just cheap labor for the companies. At least in Europe some people do nothing but internships for years, because companies won't hire anybody for real.
Yeah, at the last place I worked in Italy, my boss brought in a guy who was nice, and a hard worker, but not paid a dime. Stupid boss didn't even buy him lunch on his last day (I did out of a sense of decency). Eventually he hired him on as a 'temporary worker', which is how small firms in Italy get around the rigid labor laws.
Basically, it's just another example of how the rigid labor laws take from some and give to others.
And the intern working for peanuts if anything is a better deal for him/her? I'd say the risks incurred by both sides are equal and that is to say, they are very little.
The idea of companies getting free labor isn't neccessarily true, at least not for more meaningful jobs where the lead in time from hiring to productivity is longer (hence the desire for low turnover).
However, I believe what this article is suggesting that if the system were to change so internships as "free trial[s]" were the norm companies would likely have better hires in the long term.
Since markets with more liquidity adjust more rapidly, allowing people to move around more and allowing companies to better hire for culture fit (which may be hard to determine in a series of interviews) would ultimately result in a happier (and more efficient) labor market. Interesting idea.
This article focuses on the receptor side (company employing for a trial) and glosses over the donor side (organisation that loses/offers the person for trial). Universities aren't affected by students taking internships over summer breaks, and are hardly affected by students inserting internships during semesters. However candidates at later stages of life are likely to either have an employer (who is likely to incur disruption and have little incentive for allowing extended leave), or be unemployed (which makes them less attractive for receptors).
Your response assumes that the system operates alongside the current employment system. If every company operated that way, sure there would be disruption - but if you imagine a fluid system, no one would be disruting their 'current' position because every break can be made cleanly. Think out the box about what you've said as opposed to with the lense of how the current system works.
Also if you consider the long term evolutionary impact: as people have the flexibility to try out companies a) candidates will be more experienced as they will have received training from different companies b) candidates will know exactly what roles suit them c) companies will only be populated with people who want to be there hence leading to greater productivity.
Overhall the current system. As myyoung8 said - how many people want this but can't have it. This is the sign of a broken system.
There are also significant costs associated with interns (e.g. training, relocation) which are depreciated if the intern gets hired. Having an intern program like he describes would definitely see an increase in those costs, which makes it a disincentive for firms to have such a program.
That said, I'd love to have the opportunity to intern anywhere at any stage in my life.