From Hustle to Harm: Fixing Exploitative Work Norms

Suppose you crack a promising “internship” at a fast-growing startup straight out of college, you celebrate first and then discover the fine print. The role requires full-time hours and real operational work but comes with one stark omission: No stipend! “It’s exposure,” your manager says. This is when you realize a deeper problem now breathing down the neck of freshers and young talent everywhere, that is the normalization of unpaid, precarious and opaque work that blurs learning with exploitation. Recent signals have made that issue tangible. Media coverage of viral social posts and recruiter adverts, calling for unpaid candidates (even from top business schools) has reignited debate about internship norms in India.

When entry-level roles are replaced by unpaid “projects,” organisations get cheap labour, while young entrants trade formal training and decent compensation for resume lines. For individuals, particularly those from modest backgrounds, the cost is existential: lost income, delayed career progression, and learning that happens without structured mentorship or legal protection.

Globally, the contours of exploitation are similar but play out differently. Large platform companies and warehouse operators have faced scrutiny for demanding relentless productivity from low-paid workers; investigations into warehouse conditions and platform labour practices have prompted legislative and reputational fallout in several jurisdictions. In India, the debate centres on two fronts: one, internships that fall outside statutory protections, and secondly, gig or platform work that tests the boundaries of employment law.

The law offers partial shields, only if you know where to look. Apprentices who are formally engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, receive structured training, mandatory stipends, and certain welfare protections; this is a clear, enforceable pathway for vocational learning. But most “interns” are neither formal apprentices nor employees; they fall into a grey zone where minimum wage laws and social protections typically do not apply. That legislative gap is a core reason why unpaid internships persist.

On the gig front, policy makers have begun to respond. The Code on Social Security, 2020 recognises gig and platform workers for the first time in India’s labour-code reforms and envisages social-security schemes, yet implementation has been slow and contested. Courts and state legislatures are actively litigating and legislating the contours of protections and welfare for platform workers; several states have also proposed or enacted bills to register and support gig workers. These moves signal momentum but also highlight that protections remain partial and uneven across states and sectors.

Real incidents make the stakes clear. In India, viral posts and news reports have highlighted unpaid interns denied even emergency leave, recruiters advertising unpaid roles to IIM graduates, and widespread complaints about “trial tasks” that effectively harvest free labour. Abroad, high-profile investigations into warehouse safety and alleged forced-like conditions at logistics hubs have forced firms into costly reviews and regulatory probes. Each episode produces direct consequences: increased scrutiny for employers, higher compliance costs, and in some cases, litigation or penalties; for young workers, the emotional and financial toll is immediate and long-lasting.

So, what can protect freshers and young talent? Practically, three levers matter.

First, legal clarity: classifying apprentices correctly under the Apprentices Act and extending minimum wage and social-security coverage to genuine work, even if labelled “internship,” would reduce arbitrariness.

Second, enforcement and transparency: publicly advertised internships with clear stipend, duration, learning outcomes and grievance mechanisms help level the playing field.

Third, institutional responses: colleges, placement cells and student unions must treat internship offers as part of formal hiring, vetting terms, insisting on written agreements, and supporting students financially or through stipends for needy candidates.

For organisations, the calculus is shifting. Ethical hiring and clear training pathways are becoming signals of a company’s brand and long-term hire-ability. Firms that treat early-career hires as investment, paying them fairly, providing mentorship and absorbing them into role pipelines, tend to gain loyal talent and avoid reputational risks. For individuals, the new wisdom is strategic: evaluate offers not only for “exposure” but for measurable learning, mentorship, and the legal footing of the role.

Looking ahead, the future of work for freshers will be defined less by where the first job is and more by how entry-level work is structured. If regulators, educational institutions and employers converge on clearer definitions, enforceable protections and transparent practices, the next generation may trade exploitation for apprenticeship. If not, the first rung of many career ladders will remain precarious, affordable only to those with fallback support. For young talent, the imperative is clear: demand clarity, insist on rights, and push for systems that make learning pay, not work for free