P: Students should be permitted to accept unpaid Co-op positions

The University of Waterloo is renowned for many things, especially its stellar co-operative education program. It provides students with the opportunity to learn about different career paths, provides both technical and soft-skills that will help differentiate themselves from their peers, and, of course, a salary to help pay for their education. This last point is not one to be taken lightly, as it is certainly an attraction for students to come to Waterloo; after all, graduating with heavy debt is an extremely crippling burden. There are times, however, when jobs become available which provide all the benefits of co-op minus the financial compensation. Does this really invalidate the co-op experience? Surely undergraduates should consider prospects of education, skill-building and opening doors, even when an employer is unable to pay them. This is not to say employers should have free license to take advantage of skilled, hard-working individuals, but rather that when conditions necessitate volunteerism it should be permissible. What are these conditions? CECS clearly outlines under what circumstances a co-op term can be unpaid, criteria designed to ensure that students are not being cheated and paid opportunities are not being lost. Unpaid co-op jobs are permitted when the work is for humanitarian, NGO, or charitable organizations; when for clinical, medical and research settings where it is not the practice to pay students in co-op or intern positions; when the jobs are in international locations and not paying students is the prevailing norm; if the company is financially struggling or a new venture the student pay be reimbursed by other forms of equity; and if the student is undertaking an entrepreneurial venture.

It is fairly clear why doing charitable work should be allowed to go unpaid. CECS clearly states that if a co-op student is to receive a credit for unpaid work with a humanitarian effort it must be secular, have predefined arrangements with UW and no other student must be getting paid for doing the same work as the unpaid co-op student. If a student has a genuine interest in doing meaningful, relevant work for an organization such as Engineers Without Borders, it is the decision of the co-op student to do it. A non-student would never be chastised for donating their time to a worthy cause, why should an undergraduate? To call such a term exploitive or unfair would be pure cynicism.

In situations where unpaid co-ops are working in clinical, medical and research settings where paying students is not the norm, there are rules in place to make sure the student knows exactly what he or she is getting into. The organization must have a formal agreement or relationship with UW, the employer must inform the student exactly what the work hours and accountabilities are, and no paid and unpaid co-ops may work side-by-side. Similar rules are in place for international locations in which paying students is not the cultural norm. Here, CECS clarifies that multinational companies cannot pay students in some locations but not others, regardless of local practises. These might seem questionable, but the rules prevent potential paid positions from being lost, only unpaid opportunities given. Some examples of such co-ops are with prestigious American universities. To expect American universities to not pay their own undergraduate researchers but to pay students from another school – from another country, no less – is absurd. Forbidding jobs such as these would only limit students’ options.

If an employer is a new venture, start-up, or financially struggling, traditional remuneration may be substituted if the company is in its first work term with UW and the alternative compensation is equity, substantive living and travel allowances (50% or more of student’s transportation and accommodation expenses) or stipends that account for at least half of a minimum wage salary. This allowance is only approved once and provides employers a chance to see exactly what UW co-op has to offer. Furthermore, it helps students to work in an environment in which they would get a lot of invaluable experience. It does not allow for employers to systemically take advantage of students for labour and, as such, is not creating a path for employers to cheat students.

Finally, students who are entrepreneurs may pursue their own ventures under UW programs (for example VeloCity). For obvious reasons, they would not be receiving pay from any employer, but surely this exception is perfectly understandable, as UW should strive to foster such spirits. These students may hire other co-ops to work for them under the guidelines mentioned in the previous paragraph.

In situations in which students are being taken advantage of, where employers are simply looking for cheap labour, unpaid co-op is unacceptable. However, the UW has put in place a rigid set of rules to ensure that, when employers do not pay co-ops, the students are not being cheated and potential paying jobs are not being lost. Fears some people may have about unpaid co-op inciting other employers to not pay students are unfounded. The only employers that can offer unpaid positions are employers that would not be able to pay students. Employers also know that when they offer more money, they can attract more candidates to find the student best suited for their needs. When lack of pay is due to cultural norms, UW can apply pressure, but it is naive to expect international employers to easily go against their customs. This year, MIT is offering students $2000 compensation for their work, which shows that after international employers see exactly how valuable UW students are, they start to consider pay so that they can attract even brighter talents. Unpaid co-ops provide a stepping stone to a wider range of opportunities in the future. When employers see international experience, work with or as a start-up, or work with organizations such as EWB, they will surely be impressed and more attracted to these students. It is true that unpaid co-op is not a viable option for students for whom finances are more of an issue, but it would be ludicrous to simply take away chance in the name of fairness. It does not provide the less economically fortunate with more; it just takes away great opportunities from other UW students. Egalitarianism should be sought by helping to give more chances to those with less, not senselessly taking away chances. The fact is if a student believes that the long-term benefits of taking an unpaid co-op are sufficient for them, they should have the option to do that work.