HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Federal Judge Announces W...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:50 AM

 

Federal Judge Announces Wageless Job Opening, Calls Working for Free a 'Moral Commitment'

Traditionally, the most prestigious job a law school graduate can get straight out of school is a federal judicial clerkship. Holders of these one-year positions are usually much sought-after by big law firms and other desirable employers, and the competition among law students for federal clerkships is ferocious...

In response, the government has created an online application site for judicial clerks... William Martinez, a federal judge in Denver, is currently using the site to solicit applications for a standard year-long clerkship in his chambers.

While the requirements for the job look quite ordinary...the position’s salary is not. More precisely, this job features a salary of zero: “This position is a gratuitous service appointment,” the posting announces, while going on to make clear that the successful candidate will waive any claim to salary, benefits or any other compensation, and that he or she can be fired at any time, for any reason, or no reason, during the course of the year-long appointment.

The zero-salary job is merely the logical extension of what has been called “the internship rip-off,” which allows employers to exploit unpaid labor under the guise of educational training... The federal government gives Judge Martinez the money to pay the salaries of two clerks, but he has decided he would like a third one, so he’ll just hire another clerk, and pay that person nothing at all...

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not, in general, allow employers to not pay their employees. Now the government is full of clever lawyers, who are busy trying to construct ever-larger loopholes in the FLSA, by for instance arguing that the requirement that employees be paid doesn’t apply to people who “volunteer” to work for a public employer...

Before becoming a federal judge, William Martinez was a lawyer for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/federal-judge-announces-wageless-job-opening-calls-working-free-moral-commitment?page=0%2C1

110 replies, 10458 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal Judge Announces Wageless Job Opening, Calls Working for Free a 'Moral Commitment' (Original post)
HiPointDem Nov 2012 OP
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #1
msanthrope Nov 2012 #6
dogknob Nov 2012 #7
msanthrope Nov 2012 #8
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #12
msanthrope Nov 2012 #17
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #64
Michigan Alum Nov 2012 #25
msanthrope Nov 2012 #44
Sanity Claws Nov 2012 #35
msanthrope Nov 2012 #40
jberryhill Nov 2012 #59
dogknob Nov 2012 #39
msanthrope Nov 2012 #45
dogknob Nov 2012 #50
msanthrope Nov 2012 #55
dogknob Nov 2012 #66
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #84
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #105
white_wolf Nov 2012 #67
msanthrope Nov 2012 #68
white_wolf Nov 2012 #69
msanthrope Nov 2012 #70
wellst0nev0ter Nov 2012 #77
liberal N proud Nov 2012 #76
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #101
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #107
msanthrope Nov 2012 #108
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #109
msanthrope Nov 2012 #110
treestar Nov 2012 #79
ZM90 Nov 2012 #2
msanthrope Nov 2012 #9
msanthrope Nov 2012 #3
marybourg Nov 2012 #30
Sirveri Nov 2012 #83
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #85
Sirveri Nov 2012 #86
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #102
Sirveri Nov 2012 #103
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #104
Volaris Nov 2012 #4
msanthrope Nov 2012 #5
Volaris Nov 2012 #74
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #10
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #11
msanthrope Nov 2012 #15
valerief Nov 2012 #20
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #22
msanthrope Nov 2012 #48
msanthrope Nov 2012 #23
Orrex Nov 2012 #26
msanthrope Nov 2012 #41
forestpath Nov 2012 #47
msanthrope Nov 2012 #13
Orrex Nov 2012 #28
msanthrope Nov 2012 #31
Orrex Nov 2012 #38
msanthrope Nov 2012 #42
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #91
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #92
TomClash Nov 2012 #14
msanthrope Nov 2012 #16
TomClash Nov 2012 #24
msanthrope Nov 2012 #29
TomClash Nov 2012 #36
msanthrope Nov 2012 #43
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #18
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #32
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #72
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #75
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #87
eridani Nov 2012 #89
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #94
LineLineReply I
John2 Nov 2012 #34
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #73
valerief Nov 2012 #19
msanthrope Nov 2012 #27
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #33
msanthrope Nov 2012 #49
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #57
Chan790 Nov 2012 #82
Fumesucker Nov 2012 #95
intaglio Nov 2012 #21
union_maid Nov 2012 #37
Occulus Nov 2012 #51
msanthrope Nov 2012 #58
msanthrope Nov 2012 #52
forestpath Nov 2012 #46
msanthrope Nov 2012 #53
forestpath Nov 2012 #65
Brickbat Nov 2012 #54
msanthrope Nov 2012 #56
jberryhill Nov 2012 #60
msanthrope Nov 2012 #62
eridani Nov 2012 #90
treestar Nov 2012 #80
msanthrope Nov 2012 #61
kooljerk666 Nov 2012 #71
99Forever Nov 2012 #63
Jumping John Nov 2012 #78
union_maid Nov 2012 #81
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #88
union_maid Nov 2012 #96
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #100
union_maid Nov 2012 #98
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #99
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #93
union_maid Nov 2012 #97
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #106

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:57 AM

1. This asshole is an Obama appointee.

Really, Barack?...Really? THIS guy?

And even with these views on the wage and hour laws, 37 pugs voted AGAINST confirming him(according to the Wikipedia entry). Were they hoping for somebody who'd put the unpaid clerks in ankle chains?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:54 AM

6. Actually, this is a great thing.....

First of all, speaking as an attorney, I would have done this in a heartbeat. A heartbeat.

Budgetary constraints limit federal judges to maybe 1 or 2 clerks. And that limits the number of federal clerkships to a handful--and most of those positions go to elite grads of the top 25. More positions means more chances for those of us who went to the next 25 and beyond.

This budgetary constraint does not help my profession. This does not help the criminal defendant whose appeal is waiting for a clerk to look at it. This does not help plaintiffs who are looking for a timely resolution to their claims--think of the years and years it takes to sue a corporation.

This isn't a pool of workers who aren't capable of recognizing the bargain they are striking. Faux outrage aside from a law professor, I can tell you most of my graduating class would have been happy to apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:57 AM

7. ...and WalMart has the lowest prices... and "that's just the way things are..."

Whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:08 AM

8. Are you comparing Ivy League law school grads with Walmart workers? Oh, please---

Baby lawyers who haven't passed a bar yet getting experience that will put them at the top of their job market the next year simply are not the same as exploited "associates" at Walmart.

Frankly, I think you denigrate the plight of the latter in your comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:46 AM

12. I did a year internship

At the International Rescue Committee for free, and that was just to get a minor (non profit management). Did an extra nine month just because it was so awesome. I agree that more opportunities for a position like that are epic. Some things are more valuable than money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:18 AM

17. Did you feel coerced? Or did you think you benefited from the choices you made?

I think it was the latter, no?

It's true that not everyone will have the opportunity to do this, but I think it's a possible benefit for more people, and for the body politic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:07 PM

64. No coercion at all

The benefits are immeasurable. I made important contacts and I really grew as a person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:57 AM

25. We are required to do two for my grad program. I'm glad to get the experience and we get hired.

If they like us, that is. I also got great refernces from them which enabled me to get a job. It looks like I could also get hired by my last placement once I have my degree. However, being a student who is strapped for cash and doing all that driving is a bit of a hardship. I think they should pay a bit of a stipend, or for transportation and meals. Students are usually poor and most of us have loans! I also have to pay for the privilege of interning (it is considered a "class" and I get 3 credit hours).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Michigan Alum (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:03 AM

44. I did two internships, too. I was lucky to have a supportive spouse. Had I not, I would

have had to rely on loans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:35 AM

35. They're graduating with over $100K in debt

In other years, when student loans were not such a burden, that kind of position may have been considered something to jump at. However, I really don't see how students overburdened by debt would be able to take such an internship. It is something that only a recent graduate who can live off mommy and daddy another year could do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sanity Claws (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:49 AM

40. Not all of them, and the loans are held in abeyance. You have to fill out the paperwork, but

there you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sanity Claws (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:47 AM

59. They don't have to pay it in this position

That's also true of any number of public service legal positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:06 AM

39. I was comparing them to WalMart SHOPPERS.

The appearance of The Brass Ring takes many forms, whether it looks like the latest Street Zombie Device or a career move that requires support from Mommy and Daddy others don't have access to... or the fact that Lowe's had exactly what I was looking for yesterday.

People (myself included in the third example) will always come up with a good, solid reason why they qualify for an exception to whatever progressive ideals they might have. This is why progressive movements are so easy to undermine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:05 AM

45. That's a comparison that makes less sense.

It's a progressive ideal to save lawyers from working for free? Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:19 AM

50. You are either not understanding or avoiding the point.

That's OK. You got the gig and the guy who didn't have the financial support for "pay to play" gets to cut plea bargains for poor brown people instead of overturn Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:37 AM

55. Excuse me???? That is some racist, horrible shit right there!!!! You are speaking to a

criminal defense attorney who has worked on behalf of people of color, and I don't consider them 'lesser' clients than the Citizen's United parties.

I chose to work cutting "plea bargains for poor brown people" because I wanted to, because there was a need for my work, and because I am a goddam good lawyer.

How insulting to my clients, that you consider them the lesser choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:47 PM

66. Ah. Racism. The great debate ender.

You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

You have found your out, however. Pat yourself wherever you wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogknob (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:44 PM

84. Um, you were the one who brought race into it

 

You would have not been so obvious (or desperate sounding) if you had used socio-economic status instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:28 PM

105. Come to New York to meet thousands of unemployed...

and impoverished lawyers. No big deal, actually.

People should be paid for work. Doesn't matter how many are lining up desperately to do it for free.

Oh, and your snobbery is kind of obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:15 PM

67. Speaking as someone who is planning on starting law school in about two years...

I'm with you. I would take this job in a heartbeat. It would open up so many doors. Normally I'm strongly opposed to unpaid internships, because they are often abused by employers. However, in this case I'm 99% sure it would be well worth losing a year's salary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:29 PM

68. Where are you planning on going? Yeah, opportunities like this are rare. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #68)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:33 PM

69. There are few schools I'm looking at seriously.

I'm in TN right now so UT is one of them as is Vanderbilt if my LSAT scores are good enough. I really would like to live in New York though so I'm also looking at a few schools up there. Fordham, NYU, and Cornell being my top ones. Depending on my LSAT score, I'm also looking at a few in the top 14 such as Georgetown. I won't be going until the fall of 2014, so I have plenty of time to decide. If you have any advice, though, I'd love to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #69)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:50 PM

70. Think of what you want to do afterwards before you pick a law school.

Do you want to work in goverment? What type of law do you want to practice? Trial work? Criminal defense? Take at look at the second and third year, as opposed the first year--what internships and opportunities are available? Will you be doing law? Or will you still be sitting in a classroom just learning it?

Go for the law school that is ranked the best in what you want to do. I declined Penn because I wanted a school that did trial practice better and had more hands-on opportunities. Also, I needed the flexibility of a night program--so I went to Temple, and I got to work for the philly defender, and the federal public defender. Some people wouldn't do that, fearing employment prospects, but I had no problem getting a job. Don't think for a second that you need to go to the top 25.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #67)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:12 PM

77. But You Have To Admit, It's A Financial Barrier

The thought that these clerkships no longer go to the most qualified or most talented but also to those who are most able to afford it? That shouldn't sit well with anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:07 PM

76. Working for free makes it difficult for cash strapped students to get these lucrative positions

Unpaid internetships, wageless positions, whatever you want to call them, they are impossible for those who graduate with student loans pending and rely on income to survive.

What it does is limit those positions to the privileged. Exclusion is the name of the game, don't do the wageless inturnship, don't get the job.

My daughter spent 5 years and is working at Walmart because she could not and we could not afford a year of both the cost of living and the loans.

This is criminal, in the way they work people without pay and immoral how the excluded some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:56 AM

101. Not being paid = not being, you know, HIRED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:48 PM

107. As a third-year law student, I vehemently disagree

It's outrageous how many people are trying to take advantage of the shitty legal market to exploit recent grads.

Maybe this "opportunity" is great for a law student who has a nice fat trust fund, but why should that person get an advantage in his career over the rest of us, who have worked equally hard but had to borrow money to finance our education and thus can't afford to take this "wonderful opportunity" to work for free.

Nobody who has been through college and graduate school should have to spend a year working without compensation while the interest on their loans continues to grow in order to launch their career.

I don't know about your graduating class, but I know that I would take a job that didn't require a law degree but paid before I would consider working for free after graduation. Even though I probably have enough in savings to get by in a low cost of living city for a year, I wouldn't do it, because it goes against my strong belief in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #107)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:15 AM

108. Let's be honest here....do you have the chops to make

a federal clerkship? Would this affect your hiring exactly where? and how?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #108)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:10 AM

109. I got some interviews for federal district court

But didn't end up getting the clerkship. I'm not the best interviewer and I was a little nervous.

I have an offer for a fellowship, so I plan to do that and then reapply for clerkships.

So I guess I "have the chops" for a clerkship in terms of grades/recs, but wasn't quite good enough to get the offer.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #109)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:35 PM

110. How much does the fellowship pay? Would you seriously turn down the offer

of the internship? What if your federal judge made it plain that if you were satisfactory, you were on the short-list for the clerkship next year?

Should we do away with your fellowship, because not all of your 3rd-year class can afford its terms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:21 PM

79. How is any human being supposed to be able to predict

everything another human being will do?

Geez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:59 AM

2. This guy is representative of what the GOP wants to do to America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZM90 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:10 AM

9. No, he's not. The GOP doesn't want more federal clerkships. They want a slowed judiciary,

one where it takes years and years to sue a corporation; one where it takes years to have a criminal appeal heard while defendants languish.

Federal dockets are increasing, not decreasing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:41 AM

3. As an attorney, I don't have a problem with this, and neither will the majority of my profession.

Federal clerkship for a year, unpaid? There will be hundreds of applicants for each position because they know they will be at the top of job market at the end of the clerkship.

I don't see what's wrong with this---a clerkship gives you experience you can't learn in law school, and won't learn in a firm. It's worth more than the meager pay. I mean, no one becomes a clerk for the pay or the bennies.

I think the author of this article knows his claim of illegality is bullshit---


Without getting into a thicket of legal technicalities, I’ll just note that, after studying both the relevant statute and its implementing administrative regulations, I believe this argument violates both the letter and the spirit of the FLSA.


Yeah, buddy, if you had a case, you'd state it with specificity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:13 AM

30. Well one thing that's wrong with

this is that students who don't have parents who can afford to support them through still ANOTHER year will be at yet one more disadvantage. When I was a federal employee many years ago such volunteer work was not legal, because of the potential for favoritism. I guess the law was changed by somebody or maybe this federal judge is unaware of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:55 PM

83. If they're doing the work then they need to be paid for it. Period.

Working for free debases the labor of all those around them. Yes we get that people want these jobs to get connections, but refusing to pay them any wage just makes it a rich kids club. People need to eat.

Expanding the clerks numbers is an issue of getting them funding and priorities, this is not an acceptable work around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #83)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:47 PM

85. Does that apply to all volunteer work

 

Or just a select few of your choosing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #85)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:09 PM

86. Typically yes, with very few exceptions.

If there is work to be done then people need to be compensated for their labor.

I don't object to pay in trade however.

Working for free in a soup kitchen is typically a good thing, however it is ultimately an obvious failure of our economic system that said soup kitchen exists in the first place. If the resources were put in place to actually pay the volunteers at those kitchens then you could simply give those jobs to the homeless and hungry to supplement their income and actually help lift them out of poverty.

By making this an unpaid internship the Justice has created a good ole boys club where the rich are able to get all the connections and good jobs and the poor stay poor. This isn't his fault, I suspect his heart is in the right place and he has a desire to actually get work done to help out his case load and the entire judicial system, that fault I toss at the feet of the GOP that refuses to give him the resources he needs to adequately do his job. After all, we need another boat to shell foreigners with.

When a person performs work for nothing then they have a negative impact on everyone elses wages. Soon there will be calls to eliminate pay for the 2 clerks that ARE being paid, after all, they've managed to do it unpaid, so why not cut another cost, the rich need another tax break after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #86)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 09:36 AM

102. OK, so I'll be sure

 

to call the volunteer organization that helps pick up litter and restore trails at our local park that they are doing a bad thing and that I am changing my plans and not bringing my kids to help this weekend.

And I'll call the Honor Society, ROTC program, and Honors classes at the local schools to demand they remove the volunteer hours for kids and that having the NHS and Wrestling team help vendors (usually older folks) setup and carrying things too/from their vehicles last weekend was also wrong.



Yes, I disagree with you. Fostering an ideal of helping others without personal gain to yourself is a GOOD thing. We'd better get rid of charities too while we're at it. Can't have people donating stuff without being properly compensated....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #102)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:04 PM

103. Yes, paying people to do work when at 8% unemployment is a GOOD thing

The entire point of government is that we're organized enough to get it done ourselves. Why the hell should you have to be responsible for picking up litter and restoring trails, why aren't we properly funding the park service to do it?

ROTC doesn't count, they are being compensated with college costs in exchange for a future enlistment.

This is more aimed at companies abusing the concept of internships than at actual charity organisations. That said, if we'd actually tax the rich and empower the government to fix problems, we wouldn't need a lot of those charities in the first place. So yeah it has to do with proper compensation, people NEED to be compensated in order to keep a roof over their heads, and at 8% unemployment we need all the PAID work we can get. The most egregious violators are once again the titans of industry who have decided to make everyone an unpaid intern and then dump them once they have to pay them. That said, why can't we have good park service jobs (it's because the rich don't want to pay any taxes of course). Why should a starving homeless person have to go to a church shelter and be lectured about God in order to get a hot meal, we could easily do it ourselves as a government project, oh but I forgot the rich don't want to pay for anything.

At the moment all you're doing is putting a band aid on the problem, which is great since we can't currently actually fix the problem. But at the end of the day, those jobs that are being done should be paid jobs because there is enough wealth to pay for them. If this was 100 years ago, then labor as a form of taxation is acceptable, but those times are past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sirveri (Reply #103)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 04:47 PM

104. Yep, just as paying someone to put a bathroom in my basement

 

is a good thing. But I can't afford it so I'm doing it myself. It's either that or it doesn't get done.

First, I'm not responsible for picking up litter and restoring trails. I'm choosing to do it. If there are people willing to do it for free, why would we have taxpayers foot the bill to do it. Can't that money be put to better use?

If we weren't running a huge deficit and had a huge debt, you might have a point. But since any increases in taxes won't even cover the deficit, I'd rather see those increases in taxes (which we do need) go toward paying towards what we are already spending before blowing it on something that citizens of the community choose to do for free. Getting the rich to pay for our current spending is a big enough challenge. Signing up for things on top of that which good citizens (who care about their community and environment--and who want to meet new people) will do for free, seems ridiculous.

Heck, even the socialist ideal (no, I'm not a Socialist) advocates people contributing to society where they can.

And who are you to judge what is OK to volunteer for? If the volunteer gets something out of it (which is almost always the case or they would not volunteer), good for them.


And how much do you plan to pay someone to hike around and pick up garbage? Doesn't sounds like that would be a high paying job you are creating.

And for the record, I meant JROTC but not all ROTC cadets are on scholarship. And they are working toward a commission, not an enlistment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:41 AM

4. Is it possible he's just trying to con Uncle Sam for covering the cost of this

third Law Clerk that he needs ONLY because his ego demands it? (Or, maybe, he really DOES need a third clerk in his ofice, and this is his way of saying so? Sometimes, the best way to get something done on your behalf is after all, to "Make a Scene"...

Just syaing...If I'm wrong and he really IS this much of a dick, I'm ok with that (the me being wrong part, that is. If he's just that much of an asshole, fire him and be done with it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:45 AM

5. Every federal judge needs a third or fourth law clerk. But why is he wrong to offer an unpaid

internship?

Do you think the applicants are being taken advantage of? Do you think them incapable of recognizing the bargain they are striking?

Think about it this way---they forgo about 45k for one year to come into a job market with a starting asking salary of 125k plus. They get experience they would not get working in a firm. Where is the downside?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:39 PM

74. Since I was not aware of the numbers involved,

I will thank you for making me less stupid today.

I love how Math makes everything better...

How do we NOT have a Bill-Clinton-related Math smiley???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:24 AM

10. For shame! Very specifically, one of the government institutions

that benefits the rich disproportionately is our system of courts.

Want to collect a bill? Take the debtor to court.

Want to declare bankruptcy on that company you bought in a leveraged buy-out? Take the company to Bankruptcy Court?

Want to sue a competitor for copyright or patent infringement? Go to court?

Want to divorce your wife? Go to court (and if you are rich, settling your financial disputes will take a lot of court time).

Want to protect your home, your car, your business, etc. from theft, from burglary? The police and the courts will help you with that.

Yet this Federal judge wants law school students and graduates who have either have a ton of student loans or are in moral debt to their parents, to work for free FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR? This judge is going to miss out on some of the best potential applicants -- the students who come from lower middle class families and can't afford to work for a year without pay.

The entire internship system should be abolished. It is just ridiculous. Slavery by another name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:31 AM

11. Only trust funders can do it. why stop with free work; maybe 'apprentices' should

 

Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:44 AM - Edit history (1)

pay an indenture for the privilege like they used to, as well as working for free (though the master used to at least feed them gruel & let them sleep in the workshop).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:04 AM

15. Since you find trust-funders objectionable, then why not have them work for free?

What's it to you if trust-funders wish to perform arduous work for the government for free?

As a poster above noted, some things are more valuable than money. Well-trained lawyers with federal experience benefit the body politic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:21 AM

20. People who aren't trust funders have no shot at the job. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:40 AM

22. Especially the lowly Walmart workers who shouldn't even be lumped together with these people... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:10 AM

48. Walmart "associates" and baby lawyers shouldn't be lumped together because the former have much less

opportunity to better their position after a year of employment. It's insulting to the Walmart employees to compare what they face to what a baby lawyer is facing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:42 AM

23. That's simply not true. Your hiring isn't dependent on your finances, but on your

talent. Further, plenty of families and spouses have the ability to support such an internship, outside of the loans available.

Not everyone can afford this, but the idea that only trust-funders can afford this is as silly as thinking that only trust-funders can go to Harvard and have the luxury of no job and Law Review. Have you met our President?

The opportunity is open to all--that some do not have the means to enjoy it doesn't mean you shut it down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:59 AM

26. It may be that one's finances don't factor into one's employability

But I don't know a lot of people who can blow off a year's salary. How are the interns expected to support themselves during this time? I would think that the demands of the uncompensated clerk's job preclude other employment, at least the kind of employment necessary to pay the bills.

Hell, the Church of Scientology pays its volunteers a better wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:53 AM

41. I don't disagree that they should be paid, but if Congress isn't going to up the number of clerks

available through budgetary contraints, then why not try this? Why not employ those who can do this through either personal wealth, family support, or a caring spouse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:07 AM

47. Exactly!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:55 AM

13. Your student loans go into abeyance if you are on an internship..all you have to do is file the

paperwork.

Yes, only certain students can do this, but then again, only certain students can afford to work for 45k, which is the starting salary for clerkships. And at the end of the year, you are at the top of the job market.

More clerks means a faster docket, which is beneficial to all, rich or poor--particularly poor criminal clients on appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:01 AM

28. In my life I have met no one who would turn down a starting salary of $45K

Who are these high-ticket souls you describe? And why would they work for nothing, if $45,000 per annum is insufficient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:21 AM

31. I think you misunderstand me. There are people who can't afford to take the 45k clerkship--

do we do away with that? No. Those persons make their own choices about the legal employment they wish to pursue. Are there people who can't afford the internship? Of course, but unless we are going to do away with all governmental internships, can you give me a reason why lawyers should be specially protected?


"High-ticket souls?" Hardly. I wouldn't work for 45k for the billables most firms want from from a first-year. My skills are worth more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:49 AM

38. Clarify, please

If there are people who can't afford to take the 45K clerkship, how are they going to afford to take the zero-K clerkship?


Regarding the other for-free governmental internships, I do frankly believe that most are an anachronism ill-suited to our times.


And what difference does it make what your precious skills are worth? If you wouldn't work for $45K, would you work for free? If so, then your argument about your own work-value makes no sense. And if you would not, then what exactly are you arguing for?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:58 AM

42. Certainly---

You have people who can't afford to take the 45k clerkship. They don't take the job, but we don't stop offering it, do we?

You have people who can't afford the internship. They don't take the job, we should not stop offering it either. Why?

Because the available pool of people who will take either job it still there, and still eager to learn and reap the later benefits.

You seem to think we should offer it to no one, because some cannot take the job due to circumstance. Why should this internship be protected in that manner, when other government internships aren't? Why all the care about highly-privileged lawyers? Methinks the OP has fallen for the article-writer's schtick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:31 AM

91. But when you place your loans in abeyance, interest accrues.

Right now the interest rates are not so high, but in the past, they have been very, very high -- 7 1/2% and even more.

This internship business should be illegal. No one should work for nothing at a job that is worth doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:34 AM

92. Technical question from an interested layperson: what work do clerks do

 

exactly and how does that work help speed up the docket(s)? Are the clerks functioning like glorified paralegals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:59 AM

14. This probably doesn't violate the FLSA

"Interns" in law and medicine are exempt from being hourly employees by DOL regulation.

But the author is right. They should not be exempt, any more than "interns" in any other job. It's free labor and the bogus argument made for new lawyers and "experience" gained can be made for many other jobs, like teaching, computer programmer/developer or construction worker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:11 AM

16. But--they aren't 'new lawyers.' Most of them are law students, graduated, who have not yet taken

a bar. They know the bargain they are making, and YES, they truly are getting training that they would not get in YEARS in a firm. And they get the top of the job market at the end. They aren't going into this blind.

You have student teaching for a reason. You have union apprenticeship for a reason. Judical clerkships are a benefit becuase they move dockets, and train lawyers well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:43 AM

24. Federal clerkships are two years

Almost all start just after they take the bar exam. Almost all get admitted just after they start their clerkship.

Union apprentices are usually paid at least minimum wage. Student teachers get credit, though I think that is a ripoff too, since they often have to pay for those credits. Some student teachers get paid.

All these arguments you make would also apply if the unpaid clerk were a woman and the paid clerks were men. Indeed, why pay any law clerks at all, if they will get such great experience? This practice is now cropping up at law firms and in other professions and the same arguments are being made with equal fervor. Experience for free labor. It is the modern version of indentured servitude.

If you were the unpaid intern how would you live without money? Can you see how some people from families with modest means would be eliminated from consideration?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:05 AM

29. The article clearly states it is a one-year internship. The clerkships are still paid, and they do

not have to be two years--some aren't.

I'm not arguing that everyone can afford this. They can't. But I see no reason why lawyers should get special protection--governmental internships occur in nearly every agency. Why should we be up in arms over a new one????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:41 AM

36. It is true that lawyers should not get special treatment

You're absolutely right. That is exactly my point. They get special treatment by DOL regulation and should not.

There shouldn't be internships. It is nothing more than a ruse to avoid paying the minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:01 AM

43. No government internships??? Do you know how many people that would affect in the PHS and NIH

and CDC alone?

No--I agree they should be paid a stipend, but with Congress holding the purse strings, they aren't going to get one soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:19 AM

18. If other clerks for federal judges are paid, then ALL

should be paid. It's as simple as that. Otherwise there is clearly unequal treatment of similarly-situated federal employees in the judiciary. It's not just a question of whether people would be "willing" to accept such a position and yes, some might be, desperate as they are to have this experience on their resumes. If Judge Martinez really wants to be able to hire more clerks, he should either 1) be working to get ALL federal clerkship monies increased or 2) divide the allotment he has (ex. 45k) into equal shares for as many clerks as he would like to have.

The second appears quite "if-fy" to me, but at least each of his clerks would be treated equally. But I think that "solution" would still fail as being unequal treatment in comparison to others clerking for other federal judges.

Yes, I know of unpaid clerkships that people accept in the hope of making contacts and getting a future job somewhere. But these positions are generally working with non-profits or in the for-profit private sector, not for the federal government.

Here's the judge's Wiki write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Mart%C3%ADnez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:23 AM

32. Clearly this is an idea that can help cut the cost of government and hence taxes

Make *all* positions with the federal government unpaid for the first year, if you can't do a year full time with no income then you just don't want the position enough.

It's really just an extension of using people's credit score as part of the hiring process, if you have been responsible enough to have good enough credit to live a year with no pay then you're.. err.. golden.

And undeniably it would help keep the riff-raff out of government.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:43 PM

72. You do realize that I believe that this "judge" is deficient in his study of the law.

Or at least the law applicable to federal clerkships. If this is an example of his legal reasoning, I would most sincerely hope that he is never allowed anywhere near a case of importance!

Federal clerkships are paid positions. That's just the way it is. Apart from considerations of federal law and fairness, there are all sorts of liability issues involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_clerk#Federal_clerkships

http://www.ehow.com/list_6869164_federal-clerk-salary-scale-benefits.html

http://www.judicialclerkships.com/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #72)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:57 PM

75. msanthrope seems to be of the opinion that there are many unpaid official federal positions

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion really but I'm intrigued by the idea of winnowing out those who are truly serious about government service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #75)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:23 AM

87. This is the only

unpaid federal position that I've ever heard about. And at one time I worked for the federal government.

You're right, it is intriguing.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:55 AM

89. Let's start with Congress!

Get elected; serve your first year without salary or bennies! Think of the valuable experience!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #89)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:30 AM

94. You should put that up as an OP

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:31 AM

34. I

 

agree with your position. He is a Federal judge and not working as a private enterprise. His own salary is from Federal compensation. If it was a private enterprise, then I can see where he can get away with this. Whatever work his clerk does for him, benefits the judge as a federal employee. And this guy specialized in Civil Rights Laws.He is taking advantage of Law students. Maybe he got this position, because of politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:56 PM

73. IMO, he should be firmly and swiftly smacked down. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:20 AM

19. So you have to come from a family that has enough money to support you in order

to get this job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:59 AM

27. Are all governmental internships to be done away with, or do you only wish to protect

lawyers?

That's a curious position to take, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:30 AM

33. I think many of us are unaware that there are a lot of unpaid government workers

It's news to me that there are a lot of people with official government positions who are not receiving a paycheck.

And some of us who are becoming aware are seeing the potential for significant budget cuts in federal agencies along with the lower taxes that implies should this practice become more widespread, or even universal throughout the government.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:13 AM

49. You were unaware of government internships? Really? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:46 AM

57. Hey, I already told you I'm insufficiently cynical

Here I was making the assumption that government would give interns a meager stipend, didn't realize the lucky sperm club had that locked up too.

Should have known better, my bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:17 PM

82. There are a lot of unpaid government titled interns.

I know because I live in DC, went to college and two post-baccalaureate non-graduate certificates here and was such an intern.

In fact, of Politics, Political Science and Political Theory (These are different majors and no, don't ask the difference.) graduates from the major DC universities, only slightly-less go on to such internships (low-or-no-pay) than go on to further education and both pools substantially outnumber the pool of graduates that immediately go on to F/T paid employment in a related occupation. That's true regardless of the economy...and the ones that do go on to work immediately are typically the low-achievers and the silver-spoon kids. (Going on to vastly different careers unfortunately.)

Why am I a candidate for Executive Directorship openings at the age of 32 for prestigious national NPOs? It's because I spent the year after I graduated working for free for Uncle Sam to combat inner-city poverty followed by 2 years of AmeriCorps for a national literacy NPO for $9900/year.

Would I do it again, knowing that I was going to spend three years living on cat-food, scroungings from work-events and the meager paycheck of my weekend bartending? Living on friend's couches because I couldn't afford rent? Not getting a dime from my parents?

F**k yes. I am the best at what I do on account of trial-by-adversity and opportunities to learn from superstars. I've never done it for the money. I've done it because I am driven to change the world. I've done it because it was the fastest way to a position where I could change the world.

I wish we paid people looking to make a difference well instead, but I can certainly understand why a lot of law school grads would be clamoring to do the job for $0...even if it meant living on couches and eating cat-food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #82)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:07 AM

95. You do realize I was mostly being sardonic in the post to which you replied?

There are many ways of making a difference, you have chosen one path, I hope that you won't think yourself superior to those who have chosen some other path when you reach the exalted position of Executive Director of an NPO.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:36 AM

21. Sounds like the old system of Pupillage in the British Bar

Barristers used to work unpaid for a year (or more if the "pupillage certificates" were not signed) to qualify. Now the Bar Council insists on a minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:29 AM

37. It's hard to understand

why so many are just dismissing what msanthrope has to say. She seems to know whereof she speaks. It's one thing to argue against the system of internships and it's another to bascially call this judge a poopy-head for offering what many are going to consider a prize, given the current system that we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:21 AM

51. A very great many of us can't even see the comment.

For a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:47 AM

58. Oh, Occulus...let's have a reality check here.....

When people log out to read my comments, or read or discuss them on another website, they aren't ignoring me, are they?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:30 AM

52. Lemme explain---I am one of those horrible Democrats who spent Election Day working as an attorney

for President Obama's campaign.

But I am not a 'real' progressive because I spent Election Day working for the Obama campaign.

Real Progressives post articles from misogynistic, libertarian law professors that bash Obama appointees.

I warn that Paul Campos' critique on women in law school, and the comments he permits on his site, are extreme--

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/11/gender-dynamics-of-law-graduate.html


But this is the dude the OP saw fit to post about......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:07 AM

46. I think this is outrageous and that NOBODY would be defending it if he was a BUSH appointee.

 

Yeah, I'm just SURE that it'll work out GREAT to have THREE interns - two of them paid, one of them not. What great office morale!

This board rightly rails against slave labor wages but when it's a DEMOCRAT doing it, many people are justifying it and comparing it to the British system....

What a bunch of crap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:31 AM

53. I would have been fine with a Bush appointee suggesting it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #53)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:42 PM

65. Employees deserve to be paid fairly for their work. And an intern is an EMPLOYEE...

 

NOT a volunteer, no matter how you try to spin it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:34 AM

54. Wait -- so he's going to pay two, but not the third?

WTF? Working for free is stupid, but working for free while two other people in the same office are getting paid to do the same job is beyond stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:43 AM

56. Yep--and you will have hundreds of applicants for each internship, because that moves you

to the top of the pile in the job market, regardless if you try to get a government paid position or if you go to a firm. A clerkship is usually two years, this only encumbers one year--most likely 11 months.

If it's stupid, then let newly-minted law grads be stupid, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:51 AM

60. So everyone who volunteered for the Obama campaign is "stupid"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:07 PM

62. I guess I was stupid to work as a lawyer for free for the campaign!!!!

I should have demanded wages to protect votes!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:00 AM

90. Betting you had other employment income to live on

Lots of people with jobs can do volunteer work, but they don't do it without some source of income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #54)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

80. I agree. I would find it very un-motivating

And it could come out and therefore be of no help in future employment - they won't see this clerk the same as the paid ones, so as an opportunity it's not the equivalent.

Only law graduates who come from wealth could do it, and they'd have connections anyway.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:53 AM

61. Why are you posting a misogynist law prof who likes to complain about the % of women

in law school????

I warn all posters---the blog post written by Campos is disgusting enough, but the comments he allows about women on his personal blog are just nasty.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/11/gender-dynamics-of-law-graduate.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:20 PM

71. Wow you did a great job explaining wages/experience benefits 1/2 dozen times...

 

and people still do not get it.

If ya work 1 year free & make $125k next year you make $62.5k a year.

If ya work for $45k a year for 1 year & do not get a great job you may make less than $22.5k a year & it is still harder to find a job.


The caseload moving faster helps everyone, I get it!


The guy is not responsible for being a chauffeur or caddy or maid, he helps everyone especially him self.

Hey I get it, IT IS IN THE ARITHMETIC.


Thanks for the time & effort to help people & safeguard our elections.

I used to drink with a Fed public defender at Dirty Franks in Philly, he used to tell great stories of justice or lack of & was a real nice guy.

Once again, thanks for your efforts & time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:21 PM

63. Fucking 1%ers and their shysters...

... making sure nobody outside "the right people" gain access to their private club.



I wish there was a Hell for them to burn in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:19 PM

78. Interns working in congressional offices work for $0.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:28 PM

81. I really think this is a non-controversy

I work for a non-profit organization. I work in an administrative capacity and am not directly involved with casework but I do know how we operate and that we are not there to exploit anyone. We have interns. Both law graduates and social workers intern with us regularly and from time to time for as long as a year. We are usually approached by educational institutions to provide these internships as they need to provide placement in same to their students. When there are openings, we encourage applications from interns and hire them if possible. That is not always what they have in mind. Our jobs, including attorneys, are not very highly paid, but those who are interested in public interest often wind up as permanent employees. Others find the experience essential in finding permanent employment. I would imagine that employers in these fields expect an applicant to have successfully completed one or more internships. Offering one as a federal clerk is just not being a bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:30 AM

88. It's a non-controversy in the private sector.

The public sector - at least at the federal level and for the DOJ to boot - is something quite different.

For the federal government, unpaid labor is simply not the done thing.

And yes, he is being a bad guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #88)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:16 AM

96. But that's just not true

The federal government does have unpaid internships throughout many departments. There are also, sometimes, grants from outside sources to be had, to pay stipends, which work much like scholarships. I really don't know where people are getting the idea that this something new or even wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:47 AM

100. It is true with respect to a federal judicial clerkship.

And that is the point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #88)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:05 AM

98. Federal internships site

Making The Difference lists paid and unpaid internships in the federal government. It's not something new or all that different. Offering an unpaid clerkship of this kind might be new. That, I don't know, but it's simply untrue that "for the federal government unpaid labor is simply not the done thing."
"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #98)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:46 AM

99. Federal judicial clerkships are paid positions.

They are paid positions so that the DOJ can entice the "best and brightest." Those who are successful candidates for federal judicial clerkships usually are stellar enough to be snapped up by the private sector at a top salary already even without the year or so of clerkship experience.

While it is most often the case that they are recent law school graduates, some are actually bar-credentialed and may even have had a couple years of practice under their belt meaning that they are full-fledged lawyers in every way. In fact, most - if not all - federal judicial clerkship offers are contingent on the candidate's passing the bar. Whether actual legal experience is also required often depends on the judge/justice. Sure, some candidates might choose to forego the immediate gratification of sky-high law firm salaries - as a public service - which usually does help them later on but they were often already the first choice of many top law firms. But this kind of job without pay at all (remember law students have already either paid for/borrowed $$$ for at least seven years of higher education) is simply ridiculous.

While it is true that there are some types of unpaid internships in the USG (e.g. Senate/Congressional internships/some in various Cabinet Departments), they do not have the same kinds of work expectations and nowhere near the same educational requirements. A federal judicial clerkship is not now and should never become an unpaid position.

The main point is that in the USG where similar positions are paid, you can't create unpaid positions for those doing exactly the same things and with the same qualifications as the persons who are being paid. If we can't agree on that, then DU and what it stands for seem to be lost on some here. I am really surprised.

It's also just not true that a judicial clerkship is akin to an "apprenticeship" as has been argued here. Judges and Justices live in rareified atmospheres where they literally believe that they are kings/queens. Clerks are usually the ones researching and writing their judge's/justice's opinions for the most part, i.e., they are actually helping to set legal precedent for the rest of us. Yes, the judge/justice might make modifications or tweak, etc. because it's their name on the opinion in the final analysis. But it's usually the clerk whose done the yeoman's work. So let's have people who are at least able to get their basic bills paid so that they actually have time to think about what they're doing/writing.

What is more akin to an "apprenticeship" in the legal profession is actually clerking before graduation from law school with a small general practice law firm, legal aid or a non-profit legal clinic where one actually has to deal with real problems of real people, what it means to file suits/other pleading documents in different kinds of state and federal jurisdictions, i.e., where they do have hands-on on the spot learning. Those I know about are still paid, although often little more than a pittance.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:46 AM

93. Why doesn't this judge make a moral commitment

to use some of his large salary as a judge to at least provide a food stipend for these clerks? And why does he have to make it "I can fire you anytime...but you HAVE to stay for a year"? Is it really fair to set up a situation where these kids might have to pass up paying work that might not be offered again?

The way Martinez has set this up, only rich law school grads can take the position-why would he want to create something that's THAT economic elitist?

Yes, judges need more clerks...but making clerks be slaves isn't an answer to that. It's just as wrong as the unpaid "internship" positions in corporate culture.

It's bullshit for this judge to act as if he has the RIGHT to exploit law school grads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #93)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 06:19 AM

97. Firstly, you don't know that

Some grads can get grants for expenses. Some families are willing to support a law graduate through an internship as an extension of education. Granted, that would not be a poor family, but some middle class families do just that. Some candidates may be married with a working spouse. Martinez didn't invent internships. I am amazed at the reactions here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #97)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:38 PM

106. Martinez didn't invent internships, but he's introducing the idea to the public sector...

a place where they can't ever be appropriate. The public sector is supposed to be a situation in which nobody EVER gets exploited.

Martinez' proposal would mean that only law school grads who are upper middle class or higher could clerk for him. And there's the morality of the "two-tier" aspect of this: why should one of his clerks be paid when the other shouldn't?

It's not as though there's no alternative to what Martinez is trying to do here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread