Reply #24: Are you the "unpaid intern" that sued to get paid for 18 days of work

[kristopher]

because you didn't get hired full time?

If this is a sample of your work, I'm on the side of their personnel dept.


The first hurdle with your post was convincing myself that it was worth wading through. It is long on effort but you begin with too much; perhaps you could lay out in a few short sentences a summary of just what you think the problem is. Without knowing that, the rest of the post is going to be pretty daunting for most people.

And I have to tell you that after reading it I just don't see much of an issue. I followed the first 7 links and the only thing I found *out of the ordinary* was that someone who AGREED to work as an UNPAID INTERN for 18 days SUED for wages when they were not hired full time - apparently in the belief that it is profitable for a company to meet their low level labor needs by cycling through the massive rolls of the unemployed in 3 week cycles.

It seems to not have penetrated that the reason companies (of all stripes) use the intern method for evaluating potential new hires isn't the cost savings in labor, but the cost savings in being able to identify unsuitable candidates that otherwise make it through the screening process. The lawsuit itself and the strange perception behind it is a good indicator of why that person might have been viewed as an unsuitable full time employee.

Other than that the only thing I learned is that this is a consortium of chinese solar panel manufacturers and thaat they intend to build SIX factories (each probably costing 1/2-1 billion dollars) HERE and hire Americans to build solar panels that will be installed by Americans on American homes and businesses.

What I don't see is where they have "conspired to brand" anything improperly. All other talk of that nature looks equally suspect.

The one area of legitimate concern I noted was the claim that Centron engaged in dumping; a violation of WTO agreements. Although the support for that claim is weak, it is legitimate for the affected industries to scrutinize the situation carefully. However even in this single oasis of reason in an otherwise totally chaotic presentation, you have wandered off the reservation of reality into tinfoil hat territory.

If there is dumping then US manufacturers will be able to make their complaint to the WTO and receive a fair hearing where the evidence will be fairly examined. If the allegation is true, they will be charged a tariff to offset any unfair advantage that might be uncovered. That in itself has pretty well put an end to the practice of dumping since it is seldom able to be done profitably.

What the allegation isn't is evidence of "predatory" practices that violate the idea of the stimulus. The arrangement this consortium is modeled after seems to be one worked out with Japanese car manufacturers in the 80s, only weighted more in favor of the US. That arrangement was considered a very fair balance between the rights of foreign companies to do business here, and protections for our domestic workforce. If the Japanese carmakers had gone as far as this company had, everyone would have been ecstatic.