Mike Rehmus
December 20th, 2003, 09:09 AM
I have always held the opinion that using an Intern on a shoot (I have a videography business) is a mistake for two reasons:
1. They have no insurance coverage
2. I am not protected by my liability insurance if they screw up.
I have, in the past, always paid at least minimum wage through a temporary employment agency. So they cost me $10.50 per hour after insurance and other fees plus their salaries are paid.
Now moving to the end of 2003 and the new California Workmens Compensation expenses start to bite.
The minimum wage through the agency is now more like $13.00 per hour and every other wage level has gone up too.
I pay somewhat skilled help $15.00 per hour which now works out to $22.50 instead of $18.50.
I cannot treat them like contractors because they work at my schedule, where I tell them to work, and they use my equipment.
Are Interns a safe bet or does one bet their company every time they participate in a project?
1. They have no insurance coverage
2. I am not protected by my liability insurance if they screw up.
I have, in the past, always paid at least minimum wage through a temporary employment agency. So they cost me $10.50 per hour after insurance and other fees plus their salaries are paid.
Now moving to the end of 2003 and the new California Workmens Compensation expenses start to bite.
The minimum wage through the agency is now more like $13.00 per hour and every other wage level has gone up too.
I pay somewhat skilled help $15.00 per hour which now works out to $22.50 instead of $18.50.
I cannot treat them like contractors because they work at my schedule, where I tell them to work, and they use my equipment.
Are Interns a safe bet or does one bet their company every time they participate in a project?