Slashdot Mirror


LinkedIn Busted In Wage Theft Investigation

fiannaFailMan (702447) writes that LinkedIn was just fined for the all too common practice of requiring workers to work off the clock Following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, LinkedIn has agreed to pay over $3 million in overtime back wages and $2.5 million in liquidated damages to 359 former and current employees working at company branches in four states. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires companies to have record-keeping systems in place to record overtime hours worked and to ensure that employees are paid for those hours, requirements that the company was not meeting.

1 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Salaried Employees Get This All The Time by James-NSC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some companies skirt this rule simply by paying "hourly" employees a salary above $23,600 (per FLSA) then work them 80+ hours a week and call it good. More and more employees, regardless of actual job duties are being paid a salary so they are then "exempt" from any overtime pay, even those that would traditionally qualify under the FLSA & I see this more and more often in the IT sector. If you look at the Computer Employee Exemption - you can make pretty much any IT job fit the bill if you phrase it correctly.

    Workers are left with little recourse because:

    • They've been exempt at every job they've ever had, so they no know different
    • Many - even some of the learned ones - do not know how the FLSA applies to them in this situation
    • Everyone around them is expected to work overtime w/out compensation, so it's not unusual.
    • Regardless of what job duties they will be doing up to and, frankly, especially those including "non-exempt" duties they are told by management that they are doing "exempt" duties
    • They have little real recourse, even if they know they are "non-exempt", unless other co-workers join them in a complaint. Co-workers who are unlikely to do so as:
      • There is little perceived gain and significant risk
      • It is expensive to the point of being cost-prohibitive in order to make a successful claim
      • Any employee who were to be successful would likely find repercussions pertaining to employ-ability later down the road. While not legal to do so above the board, it happens nevertheless (just look at all the wage-fixing and collusion in the valley - you actually think they'll hire someone again, or promote them over a co-worker who didn't sue?)

    At the end of the day, LinkedIn is far from an anomaly, it is standard business practice - unless there is a top to bottom review by some third party (I don't know if there is even an entity that would be suited for this sort of endeavor), this practice will continue unabated. We will work more and continue to be paid less than what we earn.