Slashdot Mirror
Online community volunteers under investigation?
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... "
> The reason is that AOL guides are compensated with free service.
No, this is why Slashdot COULD be affected:
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a person must be compensated for time spent at job-related activities that benefit the employer, regardless of how the job is classified. There is a difference between volunteering for a charitable cause and volunteering to perform work that is critical to a company's business
I think Slashdot qualifies more as a business than as a charitable cause... Maybe I don't understand Slashdot correctly, tho.
-Zak
Does AOL call the free service compensation? It sounds like a resource provided to enable the volunteers to do their thing. If I volunteer to ushure at a college football game, my ticket isn't compensation (I don't have to income pay tax on it...); it is provided so that I can complete my volunteer duties.
People doing things to help other people because they want to and not because they're being paid! Commies! Fascists! They are undermining what makes this country great! Long live selfishness, materialism, and greed!
I think it also makes a difference if the operation is profit oriented or not.
Hm... I volunteer for the science center and they give me free admission and gift shop discounts, so I'm being "compensated", but the FTC doesn't seem to have a problem with this. (However, the science center is a nonprofit, and the rules would be different, right?)
You got it right, it is about compensation.
If these people are bartering work for services, the IRS will want its cut, you can bet your bippie on that.
I guess that this is just more proof that some people will kick up a fuss about anything.
I seem to remember reading that Linus T. (Could that be Mr T!!) has received a few mails at transmeta accusing him of taking American jobs too! What a world we live in...
I wonder if Origin will think twice about their counselor program. From what I read in the article, the same deal applies. Counselors on UO are unpaid volunteer players that do much the same job (with less powers) as the paid Game Masters.
They are in the process of giving counselors free access to the game (dropping the monthly charge), but that's only $9.95. In addition, they're required now to work 3 2-hour shifts a week, report to their supervisor, etc. The agreement even says that when the counselor is logged on, they're acting as a representative of Origin.
Seems to me that if the lawsuit goes through with AOL, Origin may be in some hot water too. Any comments?
Exactly where is the logic in demanding for a permanent AOL account? While volunteering -- free account. After quitting -- free account? Dream on! I would say the free account they got while they were volunteers is plenty of compensation. What more do they want, a pension? Geez, some people are almost as greedy as entire corporations! Someone should just smack them.
I agree. It seems complainers are debating the definition of the word 'volunteer'. I wonder, however, if AOL just changes the status of the users account, or if they require the user to get a new account altogether. Personally, I have an attachment to my virtual identity. (despite posting as AC) ...but I'd hate to loose it, especially if I worked to establish a sort of notoriety.
I could see some logic in this action for people who are volunteering for some commercial service who is going to make money from what they do, but for something like /. or Linux, where there is no direct money-making (i.e. neither /. nor the Linux kernel are strictly commercial enterprises) it probably doesn't matter.
That's not really the point though, is it. As I was described in the atricle, most of these people aren't looking for compensation. What's at issue is the fact that the law prohibits companies from using volunteer labor in this way. Now perhaps the law is wrong, but currently, commercial concerns cannot use volunteer labor in this way.
That's not really the point though, is it. As it was described in the atricle, most of these people aren't looking for compensation. What's at issue is the fact that the law prohibits companies from using volunteer labor in this way. Now perhaps the law is wrong, but currently, commercial concerns cannot use volunteer labor in this way.
Absolutely. We're debating the concept behind Fair Labor. In fact, I like your response but... Again, I think it's the term 'volunteer' that's up for debate, and not a question of AOL's success. If the conditions aren't acceptable, wouldn't there be a lack of volunteers? This would force AOL to change their terms. Given that some companies pay for Virtual Community builders, I also assume that there are others who don't (not just non-profit).
Nolo press has a great searchable legal encyclopedia at www.nolo.com I searched the act the description is fairly long so here's a link I have this weird feeling i screwed up the link but the url is http://www.nolo.com/Chunkemp/flsa.html
That's the point. If they are getting compensated, then that compensation must meet the minimum wage requirements of the United States of America, which it does not. If they were receiving no compensation at all, there would be no problem.
I don't wanna sound too judgemental, ;) but have any of you ``nerds'' ever volunteered for anything? Perhaps there are some debian maintainers here, but I doubt many considering how lame slashdot has become...
Anyway, the legal status of volunteering is *completely* different from employment. Your `rational' interpretation of volunteering as employment in which one is paid $0 neither meets with the law nor the reality of it.
Now, whether AOL's idea of volunteering is really volunteering at all (I take it `volunteers' get free service, which sounds like compensation to me) is certainly a topic open for debate. However, the law does *not* forbid the use of volunteers, unpaid interns, etc. in commercial settings, so quit whining about it.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
...that you're a moderator. Consider yourself lucky if he doesn't zap your moderator privs...
:p
Hrmm, perhaps you should moderate your own comment before he sees it.
- RF (dfelker@cnu.edu)
Wrong again. ".org" has nothing to do with whether an entity is for-profit or not-for-profit.
.org registrations. If they tried it would be a mess, because the dividing lines between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are not all that clear, and vary by *state* (within the US) as well as by country. For example, is a political action committee (PAC) a for-profit or not-for-profit organization? In tax terms, it's neither, unless it has incorporated (in which case it must elect to be a for-profit corporation or a not-for-profit). PACs do pay taxes (for example, on employee salaries), but those are the same for both for-profit and not-for-profit employers. They get neither the responsibilities nor the benefits of those other forms. So again, is a PAC a .com or an .org? It's not clear, even if you wanted to make a rule.
Again, I'm no lawyer, but I have been an officer, board member and/or employee of not-for-profit organizations for 20 years and I know something about the rules in this area.
You can't just believe what "you have heard" about these things. A profit is not simply "excess of revenues over expenses," it is a defined legal term and has tax and operational consequences. A not-for-profit organization can make money, but it's not returned to shareholders. A for-profit can lose money -- hell, the net is bursting with IPOs and IPO wannabes who will never make a red cent of profit -- but unlike you may have heard, as long as the intention of the organization *is* to make money (and not, say, to be a tax shelter), the IRS will allow it to operate.
NSI and other domain registrars don't enforce any guidelines on
-------
...as far as I can tell, volunteers KNEW the benefits, and could bail at any time. They also knew that they'd not get cash. Trying to say the deserve paid now seems one step from insane. Using this logic ("Ok, I volunteer, but I'll sue to get money later"), the Red Cross, nearly every soup kitchen, church, mission, and school, not to mention free software project is in trouble. I've got no love of AOL, but the fact is, when you volunteer for something, you've got no right to later say try to get cash from it. Especially when there's a binding agreement - as was the case for AOL supervisors. AOL's in the clear on this one.
Back when AOL and other online services charged by the hour, there was some advantage to being a moderator or guide or sysop or whatever. When all the services started charging flat fees, there was no more advantage. Realize that AOL *required* 4 hours per week from their "volunteers" in exchange for a free account.
/. moderator (although I never really asked to be one), and while I don't get paid, Rob has never asked me to do any specific work quota in order to keep my status, whatever it really is.
/. or the many good things that have come out of FSF. And last I looked, neither /. nor FSF had gone public and become darlings of Wall Street.
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
SlashNET IRC - irc.slashnet.org
So think of all the work people did submitting CD listings for CDDB.....
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.....
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.
--
--
=8^
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.
--
--
=8^
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.
--
--
=8^
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
?
yeah this kinda stuff doesnt affect non-profit/not-for-profit orgs (even tho there are ad banners, i assume they are used for paying for bandwidth and upkeep etc). so anyone that helped out on /. for free is in it for their ego, not $$, and you might as well be working for the local homeless shelter or what have you
I do think this AOL thing is silly, but keep in mind that there's an important difference here: the AOL folks entered into a formal agreement with AOL, and were required to spend a certain amount of time performing certain tasks in exchange for value (free accounts).
/usr/include/std/disclaimer
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.
I could be wrong, but I thought Slashdot and BSI were for profit origizations. Rob et al are trying to make a living out of this thing. Yahoo is providing a free service to the community, but they are definitly for profit.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
is against the volunteers. They're the ones who should be screaming the loudest. The FTC is threatening the volunteer's right to donate his or her services according to an understanding, willingly entered, with another "entity" corporate or otherwise. This violates the volunteer's property rights, because an individual more than any other belonging, owns his or her own time.
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?
[-- Trust the Monkey --]
Interesting discussion. In spite of a clear majority favoring the 'if they don't like it they should quit' line, I think there's a recognition here that this 'investigation' highlights some interesting ambiguities about the intersection of 'online community' (including open-source) and commerce. I don't know what the answer is -- I think we're in new territory.
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.
I just had to get that off my chest.
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
I suspect that /. volunteers are not affected by this. The reason is that AOL guides are compensated with free service. This means that they are doing compensated work, not volunteer work. /. moderators are only compensated by the fact that they know they're helping /. stay a viable community. They don't get free services, or other extra priveleges.
ERROR: Null
Is ./ making any money ? ...
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)
none Yet.
This reminds me of a situation that a co-worker of mine got into several years ago.
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.
If you are, you have cause to be worried.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I think Slashdot qualifies more as a business than as a charitable cause...
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.
Slashdot is a registered trademark of BSI, Inc.
.org==.com==.net == I hope no one is left that believes that the Internic or anyone imposes any difference on them anymore -- it's been over a year since the Internic dropped their text telling people that .ORG is for non-profit organizations, .NET is for infrastructure, etc
:)
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 basically asked what their position was (only a tiny bit rudely) and they (mostly alan007) were terse and useless. Upon further questions, I was kicked and banned. I don't think that AOL will mis thoem overmuch.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
...getting duly compensated? As the article states, many of the people involved were using AOL at a time when there were (rather high) per hour charges. A "free" account actually translates into a decent second job. Weren't prices something like $5/hour or more? I'm afraid that I want to side with AOL on this count. I feel dirty admitting that...
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
It would be a shame if the ruling bodes against AOL and is subsequently applied to software companies using volunteers for beta testing. I personally enjoy seeing applications before they are done and being one of the few to do so. I wonder if this could lengthen product delivery times and reduce quality as companies hindered in their use of volunteers, use fewer but expensive professionals. On the other hand, I wonder if all consumers could sue Microsoft for beta testing all the software they put out. Darn buggy things... We've all been beta testing for Microsoft for years and pay for the privilege! Hehe...
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
As I recall, about a year ago when AOL went to flat rate (and got super slashdotted by demand)they yanked a whole bunch of volunteers freebie accounts, apparently just to be cheap.
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.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The account really shouldn't be considered "compensation". It's a necessary tool for any volunteer to have (if you don't have an account to access the service then you can't volunteer). AOL was providing them with an account free, rather than charging people to volunteer (which would be absurd). They *were* volunteering in the charity sense. If they later got pissed off and decided they want to get paid for it, too bad. They were volunteers, not paid employees, and they knew that from the outset. If they don't like it, they don't have to volunteer anymore. And if they paid for the account, like everyone else, they could keep it.
Well, certainly the accounts are capable of doing more than just "volunteer activities", and may be used beyond the time allocated for volunteering. And so I'd have to agree that the accounts have the same value as every other AOL account. But is this because AOL was trying to barter the account for labor, or because it was simply more efficient to do that than create a separate type of account where usage would be tracked and non-volunteer services would be restricted? I tend to think it was the latter, though having that extra value was probably useful in persuading some of the moderators to volunteer.
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.
Regardless of wether AOL is a profit making entity and similarly regardless of what the law is, I do not understand what these people think they are playing at.
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 ?
Gads. This just seems like the flip side of Big Brother's attempt to turn "volunteer" work into being mandatory to receive a driver's license, high school diploma, etc. When Humpty Dumpty gets to redefine words at his whim... Just another inch down that slippery slope. It's only your rights; suck it!
Fuck Slashdot
A decision against AOL could set a precedent for the online industry that might force companies to rethink the way they use volunteers, Rubin said, adding, "If the industry in fact was kept operating because of volunteer workers, it may have to reconfigure."
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
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
"Did you know that so called 'volunteers' don't even get paid?!" -- Homer Simpson
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...
There is a difference between volunteering for a charitable cause and volunteering to perform work that is critical to a company's business
/. qualifying as a business. I just don't think Rob could get in trouble for letting people volunteer to moderate the comments.
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~
Hmmm..
:-)
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~
From Rob's page
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 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
~ Leilah
And in this country, that sucker has a lawyer. When AOL switched to flat-rate billing and the value of the free account dropped to $21.95/month: why didn't the volunteers quit en masse? Either they're idiots, or they're motivated by something other than money. Either way the Department of Labor should not help them.
I can apply the same logic: people who work for $2 an hour agreed to that wage, and are free to quit. If it is ok to work for nothing, why can't I work for almost nothing?
Since the earliest days of computing and online services, companies such as AOL have used volunteer help. I recall when Compuserve was the place to be online. The chat and forums were completely manned by volunteers. And the pay was always free access time. This is nothing new in the industry. While I personally have no love for AOL, I hope to see them win in this instance. The volunteers have stated that they were committed to only 4 hours per week, plus paperwork (another hour or two?). Most of us put that amount of time in per day without any kind of recompense. This will just make it harder for us to have a say in how our online communities will be run/setup/whathaveyou.
First, they are talking about an investigation, which is standard procedure when a complaint has been filed.
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Rob, have you considered going non-profit? Hey, even national geographic is non-profit! Check it out for yourself.
-JL
Sig Return: 204 No Content
The FTC is investigating volunteers?
What will this do to Clinton/Gore's "volunteer to pay off your college" initiative?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Between AOL's model and Open Source development is this:
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.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
The clincher here is the "agreement." Sounds like all the hard work of the employees with none of the pay, and not only that you have to act as a corporate mouthpiece too.
No thank you...
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.
If you think that you are working to hard for a volunteer position, just unvolunteer. They say it's not worth the 21.95, then stop volunteering, lose the free account and pay for the account. I don't see how AOL was holding a gun to thier head.
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
This sig is the express property of someone.
...As the Article points out, AOL is not the Red Cross, soup kitchen, church, mission, or school. It is also not a free software project or a free web site. It is a for-profit operation that otherwise charges people for access unless you agree to work for them.
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.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
OK, so maybe AOL violated labour law - but if it did, the law is an ass, m'lud. If these fools wanted paid work, what's wrong with getting a job?
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.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
. . . to all you non-Americans out there. I know many expressed disbelief when the victims' families sued Hollywood, etc. in the "Doom Kills Kids" article. At least THAT one had a serious crime at the root of it. THIS, on the other hand, is just plain stupid, with absolutely zero justification. The American legal system is a crock of shite.
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.
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
Ok.. The deaths was a bad thing, but the lawsuit is total bs, the speculation of him having the skills of a high level military sniper from just playing doom is plan bs.. Learning how to use a key board and firing a rifle are two tottally diffrent things. Firing a rifle is much easier than play a DM. But it boils down to the level of the IQ of these people. They are out for a quick buck.. I don't like AOL for using, but it's great for the person that doesn't know much about setting up their pc and all that. W/ these people giving up their time, it keeps their cost down. Imagine if they payed each of them $10 how much their service would cost? $50/month? $100/month?
I give them credit for keeping their costs down!
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
You can't just say that they're sick and ignore them. AOL is a profit-making entity - that's it's sole purpose in life, just like any other corporation. Also, just because the volunteers enjoy doing what their doing doesn't exempt AOL from the laws. Given this, I can see where they probably have a case. AOL might have to start treating them according to the laws for part-time help.
/. can only be non-profits.
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.
But if what you said is true then Linus must be paid for anybody using linux in business. Technically it helped employers.
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).
Well, normally, I just stay back, but this could potentially have an impact on things that we hold near and dear - OpenSource (or whatever the PC moniker is for today).
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
If you want some returns for what you do on slashdot...just post a really intelligent comment...and then throw in a plug for your web site at the end. While this is completely silly....it could get you a buck or two in ad dollars...and it doesnt require rob to do anything, so its good.
Al Gore is an alien, I have proof.
His "volunteer to pay off your college" initiative will provide a steady stream of slaves...err..workers to complete his alien domination plans.
"Is ./ making any money ? ..."
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
Although I'm on the side of AOL on this one, I think the thing that makes it different for Slashdot is that AOL expected a level of service from their moderators: 4 hours a week plus paperwork time. The penalty clause: loss of the free account.
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.
That's what I was thinking until I read the article. These people where not volunteering in the charity sense, they were exchanging their labor for services, ie. the free account. It's essentially bartering. But the value of the account has decreased since AOL went to flat rate pricing, and for many people the "job" required more time than AOL lead them to believe. Yes, the easy solution is for them to drop AOL or pay for the account, but look at this way: would you like it if your employer changed the value of your paycheck, lied to you about the requirements of the job, and could fire you for complaining?
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.
Your reasoning could be correct, depending on a few criteria: are the accounts capable of doing anything other than the volunteer activities, and may the account be used beyond the time allocated for volunteer activities? If both of these are yes, than the account has the same value as every other AOL account, and should be considered a service, and therefore is bartered for the volunteer's labor.
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.
Think about it; one of the biggest examples of volunteering is in a for-profit environment: hospitals. Those candy-stripers do not get paid. Unfortunately, I do not know much about their duties; maybe someone else can elaborate, please? I do know about volunteering in two other for-profit environments: an animal hospital and the local DA's office. Allow me to elaborate on this.
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.
I think the main difference between AOL and Slashdot is profit. AOL exists to make a profit. In my understanding (which could be wrong), Slashdot is not out there to make money, but rather provide a free service to the internet community. I think that kinda goes along with the whole .org thing as well...
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
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.
Just because people are doing free work for a company which profits off of their efforts does not mean that those people are not adaquately compensated, but compensation can take other forms. Obviously, they get a free account. At one time that might have been worth more as the article states, but since they set a flat rate, the value of that account, and therefore the material compensation is significantly less.
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
Sorry about the possible empty comment above - didn't notice which button had focus when I hit enter. Anyhow, I don't normally like anything AOL does - but this is one of those cases where there seems to be some true BS going on. I perused observers.net before posting here(Gotta be fair, all) and the complaints I read are pretty cheap. "I didn't like x, or what x did, so i quit". Well, there you go. I think these people misunderstand the use of the word "volunteer". Yes, they got some compensation. When I volunteered for the food bank, someone bought us all lunch. I spent four hours more there then I planned. Now, because of those four hours, and my compensatory lunch, does this mean that I deserve payment for that time? I don't think so.
I don't think volunteering for a for-profit company is the problem so much as the compensation. The /. volunteers aren't getting something that the rest of us pay for as compensation for their services, therefore they truly are volunteering. In the AOL scenario, the folks were given access in exchange for their work that the mere peons must shell out bucks for. This is really not any different from AOL sending them a $21.95 widget as payment. Check out this thread.
Ya know...I am under the belief that if you committ to volunteer...you can pull out any time. Also, if you are volunteering...there is no "you have to do so much work." My neighbor did that for AOL and they sent him enough work to be busyt for like 8-10 hrs a week....he said he did 30% of it at most and still got the free access. I guess he'd be the perfect person for defense of AOL. I think its the incompetent that get suckered into doing more work than they need to and bitch about it.
Just my thoughts.
#1. Gov. says using volunteers is bad
#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.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Exactly, those guys are not one step from insane, they are insane. AOL should sue them when this case is over for damages in legal fee. They probably don't have they money, but that will take what little they have and show them.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Okay, I am just joking, this is insane, this case should not even make it to court, if I was a judge and this case was brought to my attention, I do throw those dumbarses in jail for a few days for wasting everyones time. This stuff poses no threat to slashdot, irc, and thousands of projects that have volunteers.
:), from now till further notice,talk to my attorney.
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
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
As you say, the clincher is "agreement." They _agreed_ to do that. I agree, No Thank You too, but then, I wouldn't do it. You don't have a right to work for them. If they establish stupid rules, don't do their volunteer work.
The DoL has employers post posters listing most of their rights. Except one. The Beck decision established that a union member can get refunds for that portion of union dues used for campaign contributions to candidates and parties, and not for collective bargaining. Since Clinton depends on union allies, one of his first acts when he came into office was to prevent any posters or other means of notifying workers of their Beck rights to go out. In addition, his DoL has acted in a politically motivated manner repeatedly. Complaints about corrupt unions have not gone forward at all. Companies which donated to his campaign have not been investigated.
I don't think anyone should be able to force you to spend your money. I don't think an employer should be able to, and I don't think a union should be able to, especially in those states where you have to join the union to continue to hold your job.
is that if the money comes from a union that you belong to, or from the company you work for out of your paycheck (yes, I know there are companies that force employees to contribute, and that's blantantly wrong as well) it actually comes out of your pay, and your pay affects how much they give. Plus you have much less choice when it comes to the job you're in. It's just not as bad to me as the other, because not only do you have a choice, but their giving doesn't affect the price of goods you buy (economics-- would they reduce the price just because they were lobbying less, or would they charge the same because you were still willing to pay it). Thus you don't get a refund, because their contributions didn't raise the price of what you bought, it only decreased the profits. When an employer or a union forces you to contribute, it actually reduces your take-home pay.
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.
is between a stockholder and corporate contributions, which _do_ affect the stockholder's money. FWIW, I feel that stockholders should also be able to get refunds on profits used for contributions which they don't approve of.
"What will this do to Clinton/Gore's 'volunteer
:)
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.
One topic associated with this AOL labor dispute is the use of beta testers by companies to test software. Beta testers are often not compensated further than being the first ones to see a new application but companies depend on them heavily to find application bugs.
"4)I have not partied with Andy Dick" -- Matt, Salon.com 11/23/99 "I Anakin"
IANAL, but I have worked in non-profits before and people do get paid for working for them, so that doesn't exempt /. What differentiates AOL from /. is that AOL expects to turn a profit after paying its operating expenses, which include employee compensation and benes. The fact that /. is a '.org' domain means that IS a non-profit (doesn't it?) which would mean that it could use volunteers.
Especially Slashdot, since it has that nice little ".org" after it's name. This already declares that Slashdot is not a business out to make oodles of profit. I think that clause that mentioned volunteers doing work necessary for company productivity (sorry, paraphrasing) should be re-worded "necessary for company PROFIT". I think this is the main distinction between this AOL case and IRC or Slashdot. The latter aren't really out to make bucks off their sense of community, while AOL never fails to capitalize on it.