Aug 232010
 

I am hardly a sought after photographer … I have fun making images, sure. But I don’t really expect my images to be stolen – even in the form of embedding my images in other web pages. Just on the off-chance, I went through my server logs to see what there was.

Much to my surprise, it is happening to me!! The following embed one or more of my images in their pages :-

Not exactly a huge list, but somewhat disconcerting.

Aug 212010
 

Or just morally corrupt and a contemptible exploitation of the enthusiasm of youth ?

What is an intern anyway ? Well as I understand it, an intern is a sort of trainee; somewhat analogous to an apprentice, but used in somewhat more high-faluting professions such as the medical profession, journalism, advertising, etc. An intern gains experience in a particular industry with the hope that sooner or later they will be employed as a “proper” whatever on a suitably high salary.

But what does an intern do ? Well if they’re unlucky they will be doing nothing but the dogsbody jobs :-

  • Making the tea and coffee.
  • Passing out documents at meetings.
  • Running down to the local shop to pick up lunch for the “boss”.
  • Picking up the bosses kids from school and keeping them entertained  until the end of the working day.

Most interns find a position with considerably more training value than this of course. But even in such a position, the intern could well pick up considerable experience just from being ‘around’. After all an intern is quite likely to be a recent graduate in the right area and probably knows quite a bit of theoretical knowledge.

Because of that training element, there are those who feel that the value of an intern’s position is sufficient that people should be grateful for the experience and should not expect to be paid. Bollocks.

First of all, whilst the intern gets some value from being in a training position, the company providing that position also gets value by adding some additional training to recent graduates because those who start in the profession will have sufficient experience to get up and running far quicker. Balancing these values quantitatively is difficult, so let us agree that the two values are equivalent.

Secondly, all those dogsbody jobs (getting the coffee, etc.) are not part of training. They are merely a way of keeping an intern busy and effectively freeing up those with high salaries from performing mundane tasks. Nothing wrong with it, but because it allows those doing ‘real’ work to make more effective use of their time, those interns are of value to the company.

Not a great deal of course, but still some value. Enough that it can be said that those interns are actually performing a real job which should be paid at least as much as the minimum wage.

Can’t afford to pay that minimum wage ? Let me tell the story of a job I once had which could effectively be called an interneship – I once had a summer job working with a software house running around doing a wide variety of different tasks. I was paid a pretty trivial amount – such an insignificant amount that when the software house was rapidly running out of money towards the end of the summer and beginning to let people go, they carried on paying me because my wages would not make any difference to whether the company survived or not.

If a company cannot afford to pay minimum wage to an intern, then it is probably in such a poor state that it is probably going out of business.

There is a more sinister aspect to unpaid interneships. It is a conscious or unconscious means to keep certain professions to those of a ‘suitable background’. To survive, an intern needs a place to sleep and enough money to buy some food occasionally. Without a salary, an intern has to turn to other resources to survive – a friendly Uncle with a flat in central London, handouts from relatives and friends. Not everyone has those resources, which effectively increases the barriers of entry to certain professions to those whose background is of more limited means.

Of course it is possible that some interns may be able to survive in these positions on handouts from the government – income support, or whatever the benefit is called – effectively meaning that those companies ’employing’ interns are sponging off the government.

Companies that make use of unpaid interns are in the same category of employer as those backstreet sweatshops that pay under the minimum wage. And should be condemned as much as possible. Perhaps ’employing’ unpaid interns is not illegal, but that is only because these companies are exploiting loopholes in the law; it doesn’t excuse them from the moral position.

Aug 172010
 

The government have announced that they plan to ban clamping cars who park illegally in the new year. The excuse is that “rogue” clampers are endemic to the industry and despite a number of attempts at cleaning up the industry, they survive. Of course anyone who has been clamped is celebrating.

But is it really a good thing?

We have heard on the news from clampers and victims of clamping, but we have not heard from anyone who employs clampers to protect their property. And it is not always evil people who see a money-making opportunity. Sometimes there are good reasons to protect against illegal parking.

Many people perhaps do not realise just how aggravating and potentially dangerous illegal parking can be. Taking an extreme at the low end where clamping currently is not employed (but should be!), my flat is in a block which has a small narrow courtyard behind the building which is open to the road.

There are admittedly no notices up to indicate that parking is illegal, but you would have to be really dumb not to realise that it is private property. Parking there not only means that the council frequently finds it difficult to collect the rubbish, but the area is supposed to be kept clear as it is a fire exit and access for fire engines in the event of a fire. People parking there put the resident’s lives at risk.

Do they care ? Don’t make me laugh. On almost every day, there will be two or three cars parked there.

Jul 312010
 

Today we hear that Ian Huntley is to claim compensation for the lack of care that allowed another inmate to slash his throat in an attempt on his life.

No problem. Just pay out.

Then seize the money under the proceeds of crime act – after all he wouldn’t be in prison if he hadn’t committed the Soham Murders, and the other inmate wouldn’t have slashed his throat if he hadn’t been a notorious murderer.

But the prison authorities should be hauled onto the carpet to query why this attack on him happened. He may be a notorious murderer, but he is entitled to protection from other inmates no matter how bad his crimes were.

Jul 102010
 

This blog entry is going to have a rather unfortunate number of the words “opinion” and “apparently”, getting in the way of the prose. Normal people realise that when I say that X is a scum-sucking, arse-licking slimy snake, I don’t really mean it literally and that it is an opinion. Abnormal people on the other hand are likely to see an opportunity to silence a critic. In my opinion the tobacco industry is inclined to keep hunting packs of rabid attack lawyers ready to pull to pieces the most trivial critic, so it is wise to be a little cautious.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the tobacco industry was just another industry – perhaps a little hick in my opinion as it merely added a bit of value to an agricultural product by rolling up leaves in cigarette papers in a ready to smoke form. But people did not assign tobacco company executives to the same category as corrupt politicians, child molesters and serial killers.

Somewhere along the way it changed as the health risks of smoking gradually become known – with the tobacco industry apparently fighting every step of the way. At some point every tobacco executive woke up to realise he was going into work to help his company kill zillions of people with their product. And apparently the instant reaction from every single tobacco company was to fight the truth.

It must have been easy to deny the truth in the beginning where it was the opinion of one established industry against the opinion of a few wacko medical researchers. Fair enough. Who is going to give up a good income because some odd-ball begins to suspect that smoking tobacco may not be healthy.

But when the evidence began to pile up, wasn’t there one tobacco executive who sat back and said “Hey! This is wrong” ? Nope. I mean sure there was Jeffrey Wigand but he was not so much a tobacco executive as a researcher (who became an executive) who worked in the tobacco industry. And in that case we are talking about the 1990s which is far later than when the tobacco companies first knew that they were selling poison.

So it seems that every tobacco executive since the 1950s has felt that his (or her) income and the safety of the company they worked for was more important than the fact that they were in my opinion going out of their way to kill their customers.

Is there something specially corrupt about tobacco executives ? Well, we can probably guess that they were not necessarily the brightest sparks in the box – how much intelligence does it take to sell drugs to a drug addict ? But they were probably no more morally corrupt than any other company executive.

Which brings us to the question, should we really entrust power to the kind of people who become company executives ?