At the time of this writing there is an international debate on the value and legality of unpaid internships. Notable news stories have raised skepticism about the common practice of not offering wages to interns. If an intern is receiving school credit for that work, should the employer also compensate that worker? If the worker produces work that the company can profit from, should the worker not earn a rightful wage for that work? Are companies taking advantage of free labor in a system that's failed to protect the worker?

Speeding ahead in my story to when I finally went back to school to study for my Master's fulfillment of my degree and of my graduation requirements was to complete an internship. I was old by this point. I had prior work experience and left a steady income to return to school, so I wasn't very eager to work for free. I didn't need the addition to my credentials, my resume was strong. I returned to school for a career change, but I didn't need the experience of working in an office, I needed exposure to employment opportunities in my new field. It was clear that the internship requirement was geared toward those who would be graduating without any practical experience. For them the internship would be valuable. For me it seemed like a nagging requirement without my potential for personal benefit.

I made the decision that I wouldn't work for free. I started searching for paid internships early in my first year of my Master's. I narrowed by location and by industry. Although I was studying in Berlin I wanted to be in DC because I was doing government work and I wanted to be near the excitement of the US federal government. I knew that anything in the government would be unpaid; I targeted consultancies, foundations, research institutes and think tanks. If I could make even a nominal salary I could cover the cost of living in DC and I could justify moving to a new city.

After months of interviewing I was awarded a three-month internship in the government relations department of an international consultancy. Much like my previous career in advertising, the consultancy was structured around client contracts. The work that I would do would vary based upon what particular clients sought government lobbyists, crisis management or communication planning work in the US. Most of the clients we worked for were foreign. Most were international companies looking to expand in the US. For these clients we provided strategy on how to market themselves to a US customer base. We acted as liaisons with the private company and American public representatives. When possible we put together caucuses or groupings of elected officials whose constituencies would benefit from these companies.

When describing this work to my Canadian friends I was often labelled a "lobbyist" - a hideously dirty word in Canadian politics. The present American system almost demands that companies cultivate government support (lobby) for their operations. Disclosure of information and payment is required by law and openly available to all who wish to view it. It's tedious to capture all of this work, but it's necessary to help prevent undue favours from representatives.

I was naive. I refused to apply for positions that were unpaid. I was disappointed and often resentful of the small salary I was earning. I thought I was contributing at a much higher level than what I was being paid to do. The unspoken but widely accepted goal, of course, was to do good work in the hope that you would be offered a full time position upon graduation. By the end of my first month I knew that I didn't want to work at the company full time. The work, when it came was interesting. I wasn't nearly busy enough (again, I had plenty of time to read every news article I cared to read on the internet.) I was getting closer to the work I wanted to be doing, but I didn't want to work for that company or any company. I wanted to work by myself for myself.

I complained, but I shouldn't have because compared to most I was very lucky.

In Europe, and within most of the international organizations, internships are strictly unpaid. They are highly coveted and quite demanding. The assumption being that having a UN/NATO/OECD-type listing on your CV is worth the cost of working for free in many expensive cities.

Work experience is invaluable. Internships are a great way to gain work experience. The problem arises when we assess who is filling these positions and what they're doing. It does a disservice to the intern to do errands unrelated to the real work they're seeking. Getting coffee or picking up laundry shouldn't be the task of the intern. The intern needs to learn how the organization functions, needs to contribute and receive feedback and needs to be conceived as a junior member of the team. If the intern isn't learning then he can work as a barista and get the same benefit. The pure privilege of updating a resume is not worth the cost of wasting time in a mindless internship. Small renumeration for this work is expected; if unpaid, the intern is a volunteer or worse: a servant.

The formal internship organization is new a new one. More often these positions are unpaid. What this has done is create a hierarchy of those who can afford to work for free and those who must take jobs in unrelated fields because they need to make a salary. Rather than provide experience for young people who need it, we've further deepened the schism between haves and those who have less. Those who can afford to dedicate months to unpaid work will take the prestigious internships. Those who can't afford to work for free for any extended period will be forced to take less prestigious internships, or none at all, opting to work in an unrelated field so that they can get paid. The economic divide becomes a social one. Opportunities are not equal when the less affluent must make career decisions based on salary.

Even if the work being tasked is that of a junior staffer, the experience of directly applicable work has immeasurable value to the student. This experience should not be limited to those who can afford it. The most talented are not always the ones with the most opportunities. However idealistic, we should work to create a system that does not discriminate opportunity.

When I was in high school we lived abroad and my dad, as one of the few english speaking business leaders, received many applications from the international students to work in his office as interns. He never once accepted an intern. He thought the process exploitative. Until he could offer them a fair wage he would not hire a student. Until they could prove that they could contribute he would not hire a student. His office was small and most of the work could be accomplished by the full time staff. I worked there sporadically when he needed data entry or administrative work. I never put it on my resume because it was a clear exchange: rudimentary work for basic pay. Like most of the others who applied to work for him, his was one of the only offices in which we could work because of our language restrictions and lack of work permits. He helped me to make a little money in the summers and I helped him with work that would be a money loser if he had assigned a full time employee to complete it.

An intern wants experience. An intern wants to learn by contributing. An intern deserves to be fairly compensated for that contribution. Historically, the rule of thumb meant that if the company/organization were to make a profit off work completed by an intern then that intern should be paid for the work. That measurement seems to have disappeared. Companies have tapped into our competitive culture. They know that every student is desperate for the one thing that will set him apart from his peers. If by having a notable company on his resume will do that, he'll likely sell his soul - or at least work for free. To prey upon that desire to better oneself is unethical and should be illegal.