Online community volunteers under investigation? 96
NeoTron writes "An interesting story about AOL's "volunteers", and
how some people are getting the Labor Department to investigate whether using volunteer labor by AOL is violating the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
With
coverage like this I'm just wondering if/how this could affect Slashdot and other online communities that use volunteers... "
Woah... (Score:1)
AOL once "paid" their volunteers (Score:1)
I'm a
Come to think of it, I've done a little volunteer work for FSF, too, and in return I get open source software. But no one says I *must* do any of that volunteer work in order to enjoy either
Major differences.
--Robin Miller
Cheap Computing columnist
Also.. (Score:1)
SlashNET IRC - irc.slashnet.org
Cddb? (Score:1)
If they start charging or trying to advertise with access to the database, according to this thing they'd have to provide everyone who ever submitted something with some kind of reimbursement.
Or something.....
This is not the bazaar (Score:1)
Schools, churches, charities, etc., have lots of volunteers. Often these volunteers receive some sort of non-monetary compensation.
US Presidents have encouraged volunteerism (remember Bush's thousand points of light).
Even if a stupid judge (or jury) ruled that "volunteers" must be paid, this would be quickly overruled by Congress.
"Volunteer" is this case is a misnomer. AOL isn't some non-profit organization; these "volunteers" weren't performing some "thousand points of light" community service. Considering the amount of compensation they were getting in the pre-flat rate days, this was a second job, using barter instead of cash as the currency. With the advent of the flat rate, these employees' compensation probably dropped faster and sharper than an overhand curve. I don't know the legal merits of that part of the complaint, but it's a mistake to equate these disgruntled folks with people helping out at a church bake sale.
--
Why I'm critical of you (Score:1)
Gee, more potshots at unions. What a surprise. Why don't I get a refund from ADM for its contributions to the Dole campaigns (past and present)? Some free Harvest Burgers would be nice. Will I get a refund from my bank for their contributions? How about Microsoft? Can I get some beer-style free software from the other SPA members? NewsCorp (maybe some free newspapers or a free month of Fox Sports World)? Will I get a cable-bill refund from Time Warner? Will my lawyer give me a discount based on their campaign contributions? Believe me, I've only scratched the surface; I can type until my fingers bleed and still only scratch the surface.
Corporations give tons and tons more money to politicians than labor unions do. And it shows, doesn't it? Doesn't it? Or have you not been paying attention?
All the Beck decision shows me is how politicized and tainted the judicial branch can sometimes be. It also shows how biased people like you are.
--
The difference (Score:1)
People have the right to spend my money. My tax dollars get spent on depleted-uranium weapons; I find that to be horrid, but that's the price of admission in this country.
The cost of doing business includes campaign contributions. It is passed on to us, but maybe due to the immense size of these entities (compared to unions), we don't notice it. But this nonsense started out essentially with a troll -- some conservative group wanted to stick it to labor unions, and found a conservative union member (IIRC) to launch the suit; it's a hatchet job. If the practice of supporting political parties (and one in particular, despite its utter lameness these days) were really egregious and unpopular, there'd be a groundswell for support to remove the union leadership -- there wouldn't have been a need for any lawsuits. My very conservative father probably didn't like it when his public-sector union gave to Democrats, but he was mature enough to know that the party looked after issues that were important to him and his employees, at least in those days.
The reason I went ballistic was because of the framing of your original post. I've already mentioned what I think of it vis-à-vis unions. I voted for Clinton twice. I also knew he was an SOB long before I voted for him. But you make him look like the epicenter of corruption in this matter. I don't much like defending him, but he was only doing what he learned from his predecessors -- if you don't like a piece of legislation, starve it to death or kill it by fiat. This is what was done by Reagan and Bush with the EPA, OSHA, and EEOC; you can't enforce regulations all that effectively if you don't have the budget or will to do it.
We won't begin to root out political corruption until we all realize that it's a bipartisan phenomenon, and that politicians aren't the only people in the equation.
Unions, corrupt or not, have as much clout with politicians as a Little League team (of course, there's many regional exceptions). Meanwhile, corporations give far more money and usually get their money's worth -- we've now had over fifty years of legislation and inaction designed to erode the political and economic viability of unions and their members. Slade Gorton rants on behalf of Bill Gates not because he loves his dual-Xeon NT box, but because Bill paid good money for him to rant; unions rarely have that perk these days. They can't get legislators to care about anti-scab bills; they can't exhort them to have the cojones to come up with a decent minimum wage hike. To pick on unions like you did is like kicking a three-legged puppy.
I'm sipping my caffeinated, carbonated beverage knowing full well that the high-fructose corn syrup is paying for the phone bill at Liddy Dole's Watergate offices.
--
/. and volunteers (Score:2)
Slashdot volunteers don't need to fill out paperwork or provide a minimum number of hours of work. The work they do benefits the community. It is more of a side effect that it benefits slashdot. He could have left all the chaos alone.
If Rob proceeds where his says he will, with less restrictions on who can be a moderater, moderating becomes part of the service. The line blurs. How do you tell whether it is job-related or volunteer work.
Besides aren't these comments ours? This one mine, yours belongs to you. We are a community moderating our own discussions. Rob merely provides the forum and topics. Moderation is just another form of participation in the community. And it would suck if some one told me how I can and can't participate in a community of my choosing.
If you continue to follow their logic then isn't all of our comments and discussions a value added to slashdot. I don't think I should be compensated for being allowed to post to slashdot forums.
Later,
Xamot
/. folks don't have "agreements"! (Score:1)
Slashdot's a completely different ball of wax. Nobody enters into a formal agreement with Rob (much less in exchange for any value). I suppose one might argue that moderation counts as value, but that's a stretch. If moderators were required to spend a certain amount of time reading Slashdot, and in return received through Slashdot discounts on computers, that might be a different issue.
People writing free software would seem to be in a similar position: except for people such as Alan Cox who receive compensation in exchange for working on Linux (and he's formally employed by Red Hat, so there's no fuzzy issue here) and employees of the Free Software Foundation (likewise, they're formally employed), few if any people who write free software receive compensation in exchange for their services. While they may receive benefits (such as better employment prospects due to reputations won), they're not receiving compensation from the "owner" of the project. In other words, people who write Gimp plugins are not given compensation by the Gimp crew in exchange for providing a certain amount of their time.
(Although I did have an email conversation from someone who claimed to be an attorney who was very upset that authors of free software are not paid and who believes that Red Hat is taking unfair advantage of everyone who contributes to Linux. I was unable to convince him that free software authors are truly volunteering, and my comparisons with both volunteer and pro bono work fell on deaf ears. But he did not claim that there was any violation of labor laws.)
#include
#line 1
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't watch them on TV.
/. and volunteers (Score:1)
The real crime here (Score:1)
The message here is that we are not smart enough to determine proper compensation for our time and that we must have "Big Brother" save us from our silly hobbies.
I didn't even volunteer to pay the salary of the FTC investigators, but I have to do that in two days or risk fines and imprisonment. Who's the slave?
products built with paid labor and volunteers... (Score:1)
Both in terms of community and open source, people have a strong motivation to participate in things that they care about. But in some cases, companies are able to exploit that to build proprietary content, network effects, etc. Compare to IRC or newsgroups, for example. What if those _didn't_ exist as non-proprietary alternatives? What if you felt that the AOL community was the one that really mattered?
There's a grey area here, I think. If we could just ignore AOL and other for-profit communities, that would be one thing. But I don't think that's realistic. Their quality is often better than free alternatives for the precise reason that they can afford to pay *some* of their workers, but still reap the volunteerism of others. What are the obligations of these companies toward the people who's labor (and not just casual participation) fills out the product?
No answers here, though I'd love to see more responses.
Arrrggghh!!! (Score:1)
I just had to get that off my chest.
/. and volunteers (Score:2)
Money -- This is where the problem lies. (Score:1)
NO end of the Question
Aol volunters are helping AOL to deliver a better service than without them - that is the point IMHO where the problem lies.
That is if you consider that point being a problem: I personnaly don't (I don't like AOL because I feel they are the one responsible for what happened to usenet a while back with all those me too jsut making noises in the groups). Too bad that kind of problem from providers can't be attacked just because there is no law.
ISP should be forced by law to give a copy of the netiquette ( I know there no absolute netiquette review nor any file that explains every use and usage on the Net : that would be a nice feature)
This isn't surprising... (Score:1)
He was an ex-pat working in the States with a green-card, but his girlfriend was in the States
with him and didn't have a green-card. She was getting kinda bored (when he was at work) so she
decided to try to volunteer to work at a gift shop for no pay (so that she wouldn't actually be
employed), no free-bees, in fact no compensation at all.
It turned out it was impossible for her to volunteer her time to work at this store.
I thought this was ridiculous at the time, but now that I look back, this is exactly what the problem was.
Are you making money off us? (Score:1)
If you are, you have cause to be worried.
--
Its not work, its fun! (Score:1)
Slashdot is not work, its one of those free things in life that are fun. People learn from the exchange of information here. Its a free service that otherwise would not exist through coorporate funding due to conflicts. Outlawing volunteer services would outlaw a free lifestyle. To outlaw what I could do for free would spark a civil war as I would see it.
I get paid more than twice the average family income, but if I am restricted from volunteering at clubs, online services, etc., I'm going to be unhappy.
If there are unemployed AOL volunteers, they are pathetic if they are not also actively seeking employment while spending unusual amounts of time online.
/. is business (Score:1)
as reported by the US Patent and Trademark Office. So we know that Block Stackers International is a corporation. Non-profit or for-profit can be found out pretty easily by checking public records, but that's not the point.
I have not read the article (screw the NY Times and their registration) but if it as people say it is it does seriously jeopardize volunteer operations WHO do not have a lawyer go over every agreement and possibly even ensure written affidavits from their volunteer.
BTW,
The only difference is the perceived domain value and the public's tendency to dot com everything.. but that's a whole another thread
I just talked to one of them on IRC... (Score:1)
But aren't they... (Score:1)
Beta Testers Beware.. (Score:1)
Rough math (Score:1)
4 hours a week and $21.95 a month works out to around a buck and a quarter an hour, but somehow AOL thinks they're the ones doing the volunteers a favor. Go figure.
It actually is that simple (Score:1)
It actually is that simple, but probably not (Score:2)
Consider this, though. Suppose you volunteer at a local church barbeque. In my experience, the church usually lets the volunteers who make the event possible have a free lunch at the event. Should we then say that the church bartered for the volunteers' labor, and when some of the volunteers get tired of it should they go to the Department of Labor and complain? Suppose that after a few years of the barbeque, the church reduces the price of all-you-can-eat tickets. Yet the volunteers still get the ability to eat all they can for free as a benefit of volunteering. Has the benefit to the volunteers really decreased (as the disgruntled AOL volunteers seem to believe)? After all, they are receiving the same service; it is just that the cost of the service to non-volunteers has decreased. Granted, AOL is not your local church; but the spirit of volunteering for the good of the community is the same, I think.
As for how AOL "sold" the moderator idea to people, I'd imagine it was something inbetween your two choices. Getting free AOL was probably a help, but I think many of the volunteers were members of those communities already and felt they could help by being a moderator. Much like the church analogy, they volunteered in large part because they felt it would benefit their community, and the free lunch was an added benefit. How much of each aspect influenced a volunteer probably depended in large part upon that person's history and personality. So did some people volunteer just for the account? Quite possibly. Did some volunteer just for the sake of enhancing their community, and gaining the respect of their peers? That's also quite possible.
I think what's happening now is that the people who joined up simply for the free account have become tired of doing it, and want to get paid for their efforts. But communities work by people volunteering time and effort towards a common cause. There are sufficient numbers of volunteers who are willing to donate their time to help, so AOL doesn't need or want the people who are just in it for themselves. It's better to have people running the forums who actually care about the community than people in it just for some economic benefit. Plus, the article said there were some 10,000 volunteers. Were AOL forced to pay that many additional people (even part-time) the costs of the service would skyrocket, which also would be bad for the communities on AOL. And the majority of the 10,000 volunteers seem to agree, since you don't see any complaints except from a small but vocal minority.
This is silly (Score:1)
They signed up as volunteers to help to run and online community. This is extremely common - most people do it for fun. As a perk, and to help them in that, they got a free AOL account. Their work for AOL was not their main means of support, their primary role in life, or their career.
Therefore (regardless of the law) their is no sense of 'natural justice' in their asking to be recognised as employees - they seems to just be in this for what they can get out of it. The question that glares out at me is - if they hated it so much, why did they volunteer ? so they could sue AOL ?
Is my answer mandatory or voluntary? (Score:1)
Might affect geocities, xoom et al. (Score:1)
This directly concerns companies like Geocities who USE their members in exchange for services (free webpages), in fact their whole business model depends on them. Since we have same fact of doing something in exchange of some service or goods this constitutes work. I think Dept of Immigration would fully back this statement.
Of course these volunteers won't get any money -- since they agreed to work for free or at best get minimal pay level (though it will be impossible to find out how much everyone worked, of course for some strange(!) reason AOL didn't keep accounts).
AOL in turn will lost money, not much, their business is still ISP, they will return their money. But those risky enough to buy Inet stocks -- be ware! One precendent like this may render all your shares to worthless pieces of paper. Ooops, you won't even have nicely printed paper -- they in electronic form nowadays. What a scam.
AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com [investigatio.com]
relevant quote... (Score:1)
Misdirected apologies (Score:1)
This is what happens when the administrative state is allowed to grow out of control. But, as was mentioned in an earlier post, you have to admit that this policy is consistent with the existence of a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc...
/. and volunteers (Score:1)
Well, I wouldn't say that Moderation is critical to Slashdot's business.
I think it would still work without moderation, it just wouldn't be quite as nice.
But I do agree with you about
I don't know, maybe there are other areas people volunteer in slashdot.
Maybe submitting stories? Well, that wouldn't be critical either, because Rob could find his own stories, so slashdot would still work without that.
Maybe in just submitting comments? Uh.. no. I wouldn't go that far.
In any case, I could still be wrong... if so, let me know.
~enucite~
Wow. (Score:1)
That's something that I didn't even think about.
IMO, if this thing does happen with AOL then there is a chance that Open Source projects could be forced to compensate "volunteers".
Although, it may be a different enough situation that it is ok for people to volunteer...
Or maybe this was all just some evil plot by Micro$oft to take out the Open Source software community.
They approach a few of those AOL volunteers, say, "Here's $1M, wanna file a lawsuit for us?" and the volunteers agree.
When the case is over and AOL loses, M$ just waves a little more money in the air to bring attention to all the Open Source programmers who are "volunteering" but benifitting who they are volunteering for, so they must be compensated.
But I could just be paranoid.
~enucite~
/. and money... (Score:1)
From megaer beginings it grew to be quite a popular net hotspot. We've won lots of awards and we serve up hundreds of thousands of pages each day. My time is now fully consumed with running this beast. To make that a reality, myself, and a few friends created a company called BlockStackers Inc. Slashdot is the first real product from our company, but Everything- our distributed database and AdFu, our banner ad server are both coming into their own as entertaining projects. Now if they make money or not, that remains to be seen.
~enucite~
They AREN'T suing, They AREN'T asking for $$! (Score:2)
They have requested an INVESTIGATION. There is an enormous difference between the two. It was explicitly stated that the former volunteers were not seeking compensation or back wages or anything. They are simply requesting the Labor Dept. check out whether this is a Fair Labor practice. I would tend to think that it is not, but that's up to them. Now, the Labor Dept. may decide that these people aren't volunteers - in which case they can require AOL to pay back wages for all of their volunteers. Thus the "explicit demands" line - the volunteers aren't asking for money, but they may end up receiving it anyway.
Slashdot might not be a not-for-profit, but unless Rob's getting a heck of a lot more money off of this than I think, he's not in any danger. Slashdot is more of a public service than a business, really. AOL is using these thousands of volunteers to do things that every other company pays people for. There is a problem with that.
Leilah
Sucker born ever minute (Score:1)
How is this different than minimum wage laws? (Score:1)
Yes, But... (Score:1)
Don't be too critical of the DoL (Score:1)
Second, many American businesses try to scam their employees by abusing or ignoring the labor laws. A complaint to the DoL or state labor agency is often the only way to get justice.
Employers will misclassify workers as exempt to avoid paying overtime. They will call them contractors or volunteers to avoid compliance with wage/hour laws.
CatBert isn't just a comic strip character. His relatives work in many HR departments.
Go non-profit 501(c)(3)... (Score:1)
-JL
Al Gore (Score:1)
What will this do to Clinton/Gore's "volunteer to pay off your college" initiative?
The difference I see... (Score:2)
AOL holds these ppl's accounts over their heads -- they can't simply cease to volunteer and keep the same "screen name" (is that the correct term? I don't do AOL) that they have given out to everyone and his brother, the way I understand it... so they either change their entire identity (a pain in the !#$ to all of us who have moved and lost addresses, etc.) or keep doing it, right?
Open Source is a business model that has been in place in this country for years, under another name: Amish Barn-Raisings. Barns are certainly critical to the business of an Amish farmer, BUT the compensation involved is, in fact along the lines of "and one day I will ask you to do me a favor...". Similarly, I'll code up a couple routines for your browser, and then later you can code up a couple routines for my scanner-driver...
Never mind the compensation associated with the right to use a better product because you, like others, contributed to its development!?!!
Also, remember, nobody develops FOR Red Hat because Red Hat doesnt retain ownership of the product... They are simply facilitating development in return for the right to distribute nonexclusively a better piece of software.
And beta-testers certainly get compensated -- they get early access to the "latest and greatest" package... it's work-for-trade just like any other non-negotiable compensations.
Plus, there are exceptions to the FLSA, even in the for-profit arena... unpaid internships are a form of volunteer work (in return for experience) too... how many hospitals could remain operating as effectively without candy stripers?
So whether AOL can prevail or not, I wouldn't take this case as any sort of a "broader threat" to the sorts of volunteerism we actually care about.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
In this case, they SHOULD be in hot water. (Score:1)
No thank you...
Not the same thing (Score:1)
AOL set work hours, conducted training, and defined the methods by which the "volunteers" were to do their jobs (including internal company paperwork). The observers were given payment in the form of valuable AOL accounts.
In other words, this is something that would set off alarms in the minds of most lawyers (of which profession I am most assuredly not a member), as well as the IRS and FTC. AOL observers are a very different beast than /. contributors, MiningCo guides, Linux developers, Habitat for Humanity homebuilders, and the like. In fact, as far as I can tell, they seem more like front-line tech support than "community leaders."
The argument that all employers and employees have the right to freely contract regardless of the terms -- so-called "Lochnerian free-contract theory" -- has been largely discredited since that Supreme Court decision. When an employer takes on an employee, he assumes certain duties (payroll taxes, minimum wages, family and sick leave, liabilities for negligence, etc.) that cannot be waived by an instrument between employee and employer. By setting minimum standards, employers are prevented from exploiting workers by way of coercive contracts.
I do agree that AOL observers are in an ethical sense hardly the same thing as migrant farm workers or even Microsoft temps. In fact, I don't believe that AOL acted to knowingly deny benefits to employees. Nonetheless, if AOL availed itself of the services of part-time employees, it cannot simply ask them to waive their rights under employment laws.
Are these people sick? (Score:3)
I love the line:
When asked for compensation, AOL rejected, and removed the free account.
NO KIDDING They noticed someone who volunteered for a job, then said "Hey, why don't you pay me for all the time I spent on this".
You know what, I think I'm going back to my 4H leader and insist he pay me for the time I spent cleaning up the show rooms and barns. Not to mention the Red Cross for the times I donated time to a phone marathon.
And no, there IS NO Difference, if You volunteer for something, you are makeing a verbal contract that you are not going to ask for compensation. You want to ask them to HIRE YOU, that's different.
-- Keith Moore
Yes, But... (Score:2)
Since Slashdot does not charge for access to it's web site, or any other "user fee" whatsoever, there's little parallel. Nor is the Free Software project in any danger, unless they are anywhere near making a profit (yeah, right).
Comparing Slashdot and other free and volunteer ventures to what AOL does for money is not a fair comparison, and I'm sure that none of these ventures are in any trouble.
A dangerous trend (Score:1)
A very dangerous trend - letting the law tell you what to think. Fortunately, the day when the web will hollow out governments and let us start building a truly open world of glorious open source anarchy is near.
My apologies . . . (Score:1)
There's something about the word "volunteer" that makes me strongly suspect no one can make you do it against your will. Oh! It must be the definition! Yes, that must be it!
If I had to guess (which I don't, but I will), I would say these people realized that they were spending too much time in their volunteer efforts, but didn't want to give up their free accounts. That brings up a definition to another word: cheap. (well, once AOL switched to a flat rate)
If I were the judge of this case (should it somehow make it to court), I'd paraphrase Bloom County and say, "Bailiff, kick these nuts in the butt." Then I'd throw them all out. I really don't think Slashdot or IRC need to worry too much about this one.
If it turns out they do need to worry, then it is truly a sad, sad world we live in.
--
Regardless of how sick they are, it impacts /. (Score:1)
With this interpretation, it would appear that places like
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so that's only IMHO. Still, it is vital for us to follow the case to its outcome, because it will likely set a precedent. Heck, I can see where this might go all the way to the supreme court.
/. and volunteers (Score:1)
Now I don't think its true because either your definition is wrong (I don't really know), or there is a loophole to allow for things like waiving of personal IP rights (the GPL).
Things that make you go hmmmm... (Score:5)
Think about it: If the Labour department says that AOL must compensate volunteers for work that Aids their business, or performs some business function, what does that do for the non Netscape/AOL Mozilla developers? I don't think that projects like Linux would be affected in any significant way, because there is no company, but any project that has corporate sponsorship and support might be impacted by a negative verdict in this case.
It is sad to see that people are always out to ruin something that I think that we all treasure here... The online community, doing things for "The big picture", and helping to improve and extend the technology that makes the Internet work. I, for one, hope that the Labour department decides to keep out of this, and decide that Internet related volunteering is "out of scope".
Just my $0.02
McAlister
we are rewarded really.... (Score:1)
Al Gore is an alien (Score:1)
His "volunteer to pay off your college" initiative will provide a steady stream of slaves...err..workers to complete his alien domination plans.
money (Score:1)
NO end of the Question
Umm... to my knowledge, slashdot is now a for-profit website. It might not be much profit as they'll probly tell you, but it is money. Thus, this article is relevant as it is basically the same principle involved. However, the slashdot volunteers do it because they want to (no free account)... i doubt any of them care too much that their volunteer service pays Rob's rent.
How much does slashdot make exactly?
CG
Regardless of how sick they are, it impacts /. (Score:1)
IIRC, it's not like Slashdot moderation is an obligation. More of a "calling" =) If Rob started making the moderators sign contracts obligating them to do a minimum level of "work", *then* it would make a difference.
I figure 'volunteering' is actually offering and agreeing to provide a service... rather than just doing it.
If I submit a few URLs to a search engine, I'm not agreeing to carry on doing that. Since most search engines are commercial, my adding URLs increases their business value (usually). However, as it's not an obligation, I haven't volunteered or obligated myself to carry on doing it for time immemorial. If I *had* made that kind of commitment, I might have grounds (albeit shaky) to demand compensation.
It's not that simple (Score:1)
I think the real lession here is don't trust commercial interests when they say they want to build "communities", especially when the requirements for community include unpaid labor for those commercial interests. They'll leave the community high and dry when it's inconvienent or not profitable, and the members' investment into the community will gone.
It actually is that simple, but probably not (Score:1)
Really though, how did AOL sell this to people? Was it like "Adminstrate an online community!" (how fun!), or was it more like "Get free AOL for becomming one of our moderators!". The latter definately sounds more like an economic trade of services.
Compensation is the problem-causer (Score:2)
My younger brother volunteered for 2.5 years at a local animal hospital (he works there now as a vet tech getting money for college). The vetinarian that hired him made a couple of things clear: the vet could only request a certain number of hours of work, but my brother could work more (up to the legal limit, since he was 15 and in school), and the vet could request and duties of him, although my brother could refuse to perform it, at which time the vet could not take an reconciliatory action toward him. As a volunteer, my brother actually got to do more, since the age labor laws do not apply to volunteers as long as they have parental permission. The minute my brother was hired though, he was unable to perform some of the tests and other activities he was doing do to the exact labor law that AOL is being sued over. I am assuming (although I might jumping too far here) that the vet checked out the labor laws; my brother approached him about it, then, after a discussion, the vet said it would be one month before he could start. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that this was to check out the labor laws.
My brother's friend volunteered in the local DA's office one summer, and performed such duties as paper-fetcher and -runner, wrote letters, typed up briefs, and several other duties I am not able to recall at this moment.
The point is that both of them work with NO compensation: no free account, no free cat/dog washes, no free legal services, etc. What might, if anything, cause AOL a problem is that they did compensate for the services, which can be construed as payment. If so, then, by law, they have pay minimum wage. This is for the judge to decide, though; just remember that, as long as NO compensation is given, then it really won't matter if you are for-profit or not.
-G.
/. and volunteers (Score:1)
Lawsuit is a loser (Score:1)
Schools, churches, charities, etc., have lots of volunteers. Often these volunteers receive some sort of non-monetary compensation.
US Presidents have encouraged volunteerism (remember Bush's thousand points of light).
Even if a stupid judge (or jury) ruled that "volunteers" must be paid, this would be quickly overruled by Congress.
There are many forms of compensation (Score:1)
HOWEVER, I will frequently do free work for companies. Granted, I don't do it for corporations, but for small businesses who have a computer related emergency and call me for the first time in a panic, I'll help them out, fix their problem, and if it doesn't take me too long, I'll usually not charge them for the visit, only request they call me in the future if they need any other work done and to pass my card out to
others they know.
That free work will pay off for me in the future, even though there is no immidiate compensation. AOL may or may not recognize longtime volunteers as potential employees, but the position does offer experience, it gives you another line on your resume, and it DOES give you a sense of leadership in a community. These things may not have material value at the time you perform the work, but they can potentially pay off later.
But in the end, if you don't feel like you're being adaquately compensated for the services you render, you reserve the right to cease those services at any time, no questions asked, and nobody will stop you.
-Restil
restil@alignment.net
Huh? Volunteering = Pay? (Score:1)
Charging for svc-- This is where the problem lies. (Score:1)
This is stupid (Score:1)
Just my thoughts.
How the snake slithers? (Score:1)
#2. Gov. says if you get a job you lose your welfare effective immediately instead of within 6 months or until you get up on your own two feet
#3. The world at large is too dense to understand the difference between volunteering for graduation (involuntary volunteering) and working for something you believe in (personal volunteerism)
if I were an activist as opposed to being active and accomplishing something, I might suggest a practice of vigilante volunteerism. Whatever that is?
you know, I knew it was going to get uglier in the last feww decades for this miserable planet, but this is way too much. Misrepresentation by newspapers aside, this is nasty.
#4.
Woah... (Score:1)
Slashdot to be sued by me! (Score:1)
A volunteer is one who offers service of his own free will. AOL never forced them into, when you volunteer, and you get tired of it. You quit, you don't even f#king dare ask for money. If you were doing a darn good job volunteering, they will hire you, if they have lots of people volunteering, you are not worth crap, and are not ask for $$$.
It doesn't matter if these insane folks spent 50 hours a day, the fact is that they used their own free will. So many lawsuits, wtf is going? AOL should sue those losers for legal damages when this is over.
I should sue any software company which i have voluntary turned in a bug report, or patches. I should sue the City for the voluntary community services that I did. Hell, I am going to sue Slashdot too
In this case, they SHOULD be in hot water. (Score:1)
Why I'm critical of the DoL (Score:1)
Fairness (Score:1)
The difference (Score:1)
All I'm considering is whether someone has a right to spend your money. Money taken out of your paycheck by a company forcing you to contribute or by a union does affect you. Money spent by a corporation you patronize does not cost you anything, since their prices wouldn't be any lower if they didn't do the lobbying.
The true similarity (Score:1)
Al Gore (Score:1)
to pay off your college' initiative?"
Nothing. Everybody knows the Feds only rev up
the chainsaws when the Head Fed wants somebody
or something converted to hamburger. (Cf. Waco,
Ruby Ridge, and the 700 "raw" FBI files that
"somehow" wound up in the White House...)
On a more serious level, I doubt that this is
going to affect community freenets and things
like Slashdot...unless you're making a fast buck
off this, Rob.
Beta Testers Beware (Score:1)
/. and volunteers (Score:1)
Doubtful most of the 'Net will be hurt... (Score:1)