Hacker News Reader

Comment by nik736 | Hacker News Reader

What's the point of this article? There is no real problem I can see. I made an apprenticeship in Germany and for most jobs you have to work 3 years to get it done. 3 years is plenty of time to make money out of the apprentice, even if he/she is underperforming. Most apprenticeships only pay around 500-800 bucks a month, so even if you have a bad apprentice you can still let him/her do unthankful jobs and he is worth it.

Also, the apprentice is teached on the job which is a huge benefit, since it's a real environment. Every day you learn things and how they are done in the real world.

View on HN

This. The article presents a false dichotomy that the apprentice stays or it's not worth teaching them.

Most apprenticeships allow the apprentice to do lower tier work and work their way up which still allows for the apprentice to produce value. Combine this with a lower pay and there's no loss to the company if done right.

It works like that in the tech industry all the time starting at desktop support or even office clerk and working their way up.

The problem is...no one is willing to be a mentor or train anymore for whatever reason.

> I made an apprenticeship in Germany and for most jobs you have to work 3 years to get it done. 3 years is plenty of time to make money out of the apprentice, even if he/she is underperforming.

Paul Sellers, who is a craftsman for fifty years already, disagrees that it's plenty of time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O0Q9wJPkBw (the question starts at 12:55, and two important and relevant points are at 16:10 and at 18:00).

To sum up, an apprentice not only underperforms initially, but also lowers their master's effectiveness. It takes quite long time for an apprentice to pick up enough trade to be of any use without dragging down the master, and this is as true for woodwork as for programming or systems/networks administration. It's only fair that the apprentice serves somewhat longer than it takes to just learn the craft.

Though I agree that for IT apprenticeship is probably the most sensible way to train staff.

Paying that little is generally illegal in the USA. At minimum wage, a worker working 37.5 hours a week will earn $1087 a month. If they're underperforming that price, it doesn't make sense to hire them.

I'm not sure about the USA, but here in Australia apprentices pay rates are different from the adult minimum wage rate.

The current national minimum wage in Australia is $17.70 per hour[1], where as the 1st year apprentices in our metal fabircation workshop are on something like $12 an hour, the minimum is $10.31 for a first year in our trade. If the apprentice is over 21 they rates are different again. Apprentice pay rates increase each year.

Edit: as a sibiling comment mentioned, apprentices in Australia spend part of their work-year in school. This can either be weekly, or more typically in one or two week blocks.

Also, I should add: at least half of the 1st year apprentices I've worked with are useless for about the first six months, they're a massive time sink if they're not doing something completely repetative like cutting a thousand pieces of steel the same length, and then they'll still find a way fuck that up if you don't keep a close eye on them.

1. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g...

Yes, that's the thing. Total compensation for apprentices (for most employees really) is their pay, plus the experience gained, which can be considerable.

But US wage law very rarely makes any exceptions for apprentices like this, so it's rarely worthwhile to bring them on unless they already have some training.

Unfortunately, much of the legislative consensus in the US is that minimum wages do not have any effect on employment levels, even of the young and inexperienced. Many municipalities and states are in the process of raising their minimum wages (for all ages) to $20 AUD.

Can we just call them interns? I've known many people who got paid nothing while in an internship, so paying them $800/mo shouldn't be a problem.

Non-paying internships require that the company receives no benefit from the intern. You can't have an intern do something useful and not pay them. They are an employee if they are doing something useful to your business

The problem is that, generally by law, you can either pay them $0, or minimum wage, but not in-between. This creates a gap in the market, and generally skews internships towards people who can afford to make $0 for an extended period.

> The problem is that, generally by law, you can either pay them $0, or minimum wage, but not in-between.

I don't think that's true; if wage and hour laws apply, you must pay minimum wage ($0 is not an option). If the relationship isn't covered by wage and hour laws, you can pay them negative amounts (charge for training), $0, or pay a positive amount above or below the minimum wage (though in the latter case it will have to be framed as something other than pay for work, such as a stipend of some kind.)

That would be in a logically consistent world. We are not in that world.

The main rules are here, for unpaid internships: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf

So unpaid ($0) internships are permitted for certain restricted circumstances. But if you fall outside this category, you jump right up to 'employee', and have to be paid the minimum wage. Basically, once you start paying, you have to pay all the way. (Now, there is a subminimum scale of 75% of the minimum wage, but it's only available for high school enrolees above 16 years of age, for vocational training, and is granted at the discretion of the Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm)

Actually, what I said is consistent with your link: where wage and hour laws apply, you must pay at least minimum wage. Where they don't, you can charge for the service of training, provide it at no charge, or provide a stipend (which on a hourly basis may be less than the equivalent of minimum wage) along with it.

Hmm...I do not see in those links where a sub-minimum stipend is allowed except in the case of high school vocational training. Can you quote it? (Criteria #6 appears to indicate no wages permitted.)

Theres a distinction between stipends and wages, and while I can find lots of third party sites whose general character and other information suggests general reliability referencing the option to pay a stipend to trainee interns (while also warning of the need to assure they aren't structured as wages), I cant find an authoritative DoL source articulating a standard or test (or giving examples) distinguishing them.

Thanks for looking. I've never heard of it happening, but all sort of arrangements happen in the grey areas of the law. I've been stipended before as an intern, but under the understanding that my hourly "wage" would not drop below the minimum.

Any kind of pay break would be abused to no end by employers.

Not to mention that one still needs to pay bills and live while in the apprenticeship, and minimum wage already doesn't cover that. So you'd be in a situation where only those who already have money would be able to afford to do it, much like unpaid internships. This leaves lower income people worse off than they were.

What I'm saying is that, if you insist that monetary compensation for a particular job must be no less than a certain amount, then all other benefits (insurance, training, experience) will be limited by that.

A job that does not confer many added skills or valuable experience may therefore be available for that wage, but one where much of the compensation is training may not be available at that wage price.

It's not a case of "apprentices making more money" vs. "apprentices making less money". It's a case of "apprentices making less money" vs. "apprentices not hired at all."

At the same time, business has proven time and again that they cannot be trusted with things like this. So some other way needs to emerge.

The last thing the US needs is another way to pay people even less.

We have minimum wage as well and they are simply excluded from that. Problem, where? You pay a shitload of money to study, while you actually get paid doing your apprenticeship. It's a win-win.

Apprentices in Germany spend part of their work week in school. The €500-800 aren't really for 37.5 hour weeks.

Apprentices are however exempted from the minimum wage.

Germany has a minimum wage, too, and apprenticeships are exempt :-)

Extra incentive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com