One-off stuff is fine, that's called volunteering.
One-off? I've been a volunteer with one organization for twenty four years. Another one for ten or eleven. I don't think "one-off" has anything to do with being a volunteer, it has more to do with being paid for what you're doing. It doesn't even mean doing something that they'd have to hire someone to do otherwise, since they'd have to hire someone to do what I'm volunteering to do if a volunteer didn't do it.
And I'll add in, the one college internship I had was unpaid, and the organization certainly would have had to hire people to do what the college interns did if we weren't there. It wasn't even "one-off", it was a regular, ongoing program.
It used to be regular advice to people trying to break into the field (software, computer hardware, system management, etc.) to offer to work for free so they could see you had what they needed to hire. We used to tell people to do exactly what is now being claimed to be illegal.
Interns are generally required to complete a certain time period of work to qualify for course credits; they are also bound by employment laws and if terminating the internship early must comply like any other employee in the state where their internship is. For AT-WILL employment they could walk away at any time, but forfeit the course credit; for non-AT-WILL employment, they have to give notice as required by the law.
These are contractual matters that the intern agreed to prior to starting the program. Before he was required by his school to take an internship, they told him that "taking in internship is part of the program". Don't go there if you don't accept the program. Unlike slavery or indentured servitude, there is no requirement to go to that school or agree to that program.
If you're a paid intern doing a paid job, why wouldn't you be subject to notice requirements? If you're not an employee, you aren't.
If you're taking an unpaid internship as part of the degree requirement, then why should it matter if you're required as part of the program to do menial things that someone who is in that position would normally do, too? You're getting the degree credit. You agreed to work for free.
After it's all done and over with, it's really dishonest to sue for wages when YOU agreed you didn't get any. "Protect me from myself" is not the mantra in a free society, it's the cry of the Nanny State subject.
Given that the only part of it that says "X people don't count as employees" specifies that the business must be a non-profit,
That is not a given, in fact, that is incorrect. That sentence quoting SCOTUS says nothing about "non-profit."
It is the NEXT sentence that says that "In administering the FLSA, the Department of Labor follows this judicial guidance in the case of individuals serving as unpaid volunteers in various community services." Again, no mention of non-profit, only "community services", and then it says only where DL follows this guidance, not that it does not apply to for-profit.
it seems like the 'suffer or permit to work' clause would apply at a for-profit, and you would in fact be an employee, and thereby prohibited from being a 'volunteer'.
The statement from SCOTUS about this is directly opposite. Just being "suffer[ed] or permit[ted] to to work" does not make one an employee.
That cite begins by restating SCOTUS in that just doing work there doesn't make one an employee. Points 3 and 4 make the system a loss for the employer and "trainee" since the employer cannot get productive work out of the intern and the intern cannot do anything that an employee would do. Why bother doing this? But then, this would not be the first time the executive branch did something that SCOTUS said wasn't right.
But the situation described does not seem to fit the legal requirements for an unpaid position.
As a free person, I should be able to offer my labor to another for whatever compensation I find sufficient, and I should not then be able to retroactively sue that person for pay for doing something I agreed I would do for free. SCOTUS has said that the FLSA does not make me employee just because I "suffer to work" at a place, but the DL has decided to create guidelines that contradict that ruling. SCOTUS is right. DL is wrong. This judge is wrong because the judge should be following SCOTUS precedent.
Now in plain fact YOU didn't offer anyone a "free donut": the corporation did. This is a critical distinction.
Not really. Someone in the corporation made the decision, they made the offer.
This gives corporations--which offer internships--a vastly privileged position in the negotiations they undertake with potential employees, interns, etc.
Untrue. As a potential intern I am free to accept or decline any offer. The "Nanny State" does not give the company the right to force me to accept what they offer. As a corporation I cannot stuff unfrosted donuts down the throats of my employees, I can only offer them the option and let them decide.
you as the owner or agent of a corporation have the backing of the massive, coercive power of the State. Your employees do not.
Wow. You've identified yourself as a corporate owner that employees should stay away from, simply because you think you have the "massive coercive power of the State" behind you. "You vill eat that cheap donut, employee. Ve haf vays of making you eat..."
Show a little humanity and humility and decency, and remember that what the State giveth the People can damned well take away.
You're the one claiming massive coercive power given to you by some mythical State, and I'm the one who needs to learn humility? Yes, I guess you'd think that based on your Power And Leverage over Mortal Man. Perhaps you ought to notice that a large part of labor law deals with LIMITING what you, in your Massive Coercive Mode, can actually do to anyone. Perhaps an experiment is in order to help you identify your mistakes? Why don't you, as Corporate Overlord, try ordering your female employees (but only the pretty ones) to wear bikinis to work on Friday. That's a simple test of your power over them granted by the State, I think. If you can do that and not wind up with a NLRB complaint that sticks, more power to you. You've successfully cowed your female workers into thinking you have power that you really don't. My guess would be that you'd be found guilty of sexual harassment upon complaints of the pretty women, and discrimination from a complaint by the ugly ones, and fined a bit of money. But, until you try, and since you think you're that powerful, you have no reason not to, right? Pictures or it didn't happen.
With your level of ignorance I would think you might try to hide it a little.
Perhaps you ought to read what you cite before you come out looking like a moron multiple times. See, I can insult you just as well as you can insult me.
What you cited says, rather clearly, that EMPLOYEES cannot be volunteers where they work. It does not say that nobody can volunteer at a for-profit company.
Much like a contract to murder you for your ignorance would be illegal,
Now you're just demonstrating that you are an asshole with clear reading comprehension problems. A contract for murder would be illegal for very different reasons than your FLSA cite provides and you know it. (In fact, a contract for murder with just compensation would NOT be illegal under what you cited, but if you could comprehend what you read you'd know that, too.)
And had you read what I wrote, I've explicitly excluded the issue of contracting to do things that are illegal, compared to contracts that are illegal because of their compensation or lack thereof, which is what I am asking you to cite at some point, if you can.
so would this contract you are speaking of.
Still waiting for the cite that actually says this, Mr. Congeniality.
I've already pointed out how what you claim as support doesn't support your claims. If you want to be insulting and flame, be my guest. If you can show where it actually supports your claim, I assume you would have done so.
Nice try, but that cite doesn't support your claim. It says that:
Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.
As a volunteer, I am not an employee. If you read the second sentence of what you cite:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that volunteers are not employees under FLSA. As long as I'm not doing so with "express or implied compensation", I'm a volunteer. Clearly, it is not "implied compensation" for one to garner experience working in a field (such as the interns in this case), otherwise that would be their fairly agreed-to compensation for their internship and no back-pay would be granted.
Once I am an employee I may no longer "volunteer" my services to that employer. Of course not, I'm an employee, and I'm not able to volunteer anymore. There is always the implied threat in such a case of termination for not "volunteering", and thus FLSA does make that illegal. As I said, INvoluntary volunteerism is clearly illegal. That's not what you have to cite. Your statement deals with true volunteerism.
What you cite does not say that volunteers may not volunteer. Try again.
Volunteering at a for profit business is not generally speaking legal.
Citation required.
Free labor is illegal, for many reasons think a little.
Forced free labor is illegal for obvious reasons. Voluntary free labor should not be, think a little.
Without consideration a contract is not valid. There must be quid pro quo.
You've just given an opinion why a contract might not be valid, but that says nothing about the legality. I can work for someone without a contract. I can also agree to work for someone for non-monetary compensation.
But, and here's the important point, if I make a contract to work for someone for that non-monetary compensation, the courts should stay out of it, and certainly not grant back-pay for something I agreed to do for no money.
The end result is that 20 people get the frosted donuts, 20 more settle for plain because it's better than nothing
The critical part of the analogy, which is true real life, too, is that nobody forced those twenty people to take a donut, they wanted a donut and voluntarily took one. While it may be "better than none", none was still an option that they could have chosen. They wanted the benefits of the donut but weren't willing to accept the terms it came with. So they took the benefits and then sued to get what they felt they were owed.
If I brought twenty plain donuts into the office and people whined about them not being frosted, I'd tell them "you're getting them for free, either accept what they are or don't take one." If someone took a plain donut and carried it back to the donut shop, and then tried billing the expense of putting frosting on it to me, I'd fire them. I offered you a plain donut, you accepted a plain donut, that's the contract. Offer and acceptance. And that would probably be the last free donuts the office got.
Anything below $10/hour they would normally refuse. If it was a charity they might let it go that low.
So, in essence, a charity that wanted to use you to run their IT for them during your internship would have had to pay you, but they could have a true volunteer with professional experience doing the same thing for free. That's a contractual issue between you and your school, not a legal matter for the courts. If you had agreed to do the work for them for nothing, no court should rule in your favor if you come back after the work is done and demand payment.
In most societies it would have been illegal to have them working without pay.
That may be true. But in a free society, they would have been paid exactly what they contracted for before they started the internship. The rights of the two parties to the contract would have had some significance, and a court would not come in later and overturn an agreement between two free people who voluntarily entered an agreement for legal activities.
What to expect does not make that legal. The judge is correct.
Of course what to expect makes it legal. If I agree to work for you for free, and thus I expect no payment, that should be perfectly legal. I voluntarily agreed to do that. You agreed to the same. How is that illegal? Why should any sane person think it was illegal?
What this court has ruled is that I can go to a business and offer to work for free for a chance to show them I can do what they need done and maybe they'll hire me, or to learn something from them by doing. They can say "ok" or they can say "no". Suppose they say "yes, here, do this..." Then, after I've done work for them I can sue for back pay because they should have paid me. That's nuts. That's absolutely ridiculous. If you care to notice, that "work for free as an introduction to me" is something that is, or at least has been, suggested to people here who want to break into the software design field but who don't have formal schooling or a current resume. Collectively, we have told people to do exactly this 'free intern' thing.
If that company cannot have me do anything that they would normally pay someone to do then there is no advantage to them in having me there. In fact, I'm a liability since a paid employee would need to supervise me. Or any unpaid intern, for that matter. Any productive activity I perform they would have had to pay someone to do, thus I can do nothing productive. If I can do nothing productive, the value of the experience is worthless to me, too. Given the new "sue for back pay" option, no sane company would say "ok" anymore. Not only are they opening themselves up for an unexpected liability, they've lost the right to negotiate the pay for the work and a judge will decide for them.
Now, had there been coercion or force, or a breach of contract, then yes, courts should become involved. And, of course, you can't legally volunteer to do something illegal for someone else, but then, in this case we know the actions weren't illegal because the claim was they would have been legally performed by paid employees. I.e., if it is legal to pay someone to do work for you, it should be just as legal to let an unpaid volunteer or intern do it. (I note that many unions have negotiated contracts that prohibit volunteers doing their work, but that's a contractual issue and not a legal one.)
This case could have repercussions not only for all unpaid internships, but for all volunteer work. Every place I volunteer I've agreed to do work for no pay. I am doing things, in every case, that they'd have to pay someone to do if a volunteer didn't do it. I could make a fortune, now, by suing companies (and various branches of the government) for back pay. That, alone, should show how nuts this judge is.
Unfortunately, it is not the approach courts have taken to deciding questions of this kind. The courts have instead asked where the was customer when he made the purchase, and used this as the basis of deciding what laws apply to the sale.
Since you're talking about "questions of this kind", perhaps you ought to know what the courts had to rule on? From TFA:
He was arrested in June 2011 by U.S. agents when they lured him to a meeting in Saipan where he believed he was delivering 20 gigabytes of data to the representatives of U.S. businessmen. Saipan, an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and like the Atlantic island of Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S., giving American authorities jurisdiction.
The location of the seller: US soil. There was no extradition. The location of the buyer was also US soil, but the only question the courts have to rule on here is "guilty or not guilty", since the seller's location puts him clearly within US jurisdiction. You don't even have to argue about irrelevant drone strikes and hegemony.
Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us?
Why do you think the population density of areas that are the main producers of corn is so low? Think of how many people say "I'm moving to the country" and then you never hear from them again?
Don't panic. By the time it's turned into flakes it is mostly harmless.
A cellphone camera app isn't a replacement for an actual camera in the same way that a bicycle isn't a replacement for a car.
And yet I know many people who commute to work daily on their bicycles and are quite happy. As I said... IN THAT APPLICATION. That's the standard context when someone says "I replaced my camera with a cellphone".
Oh wait, we already have welfare recipients with dozens of free Obama phones, paid for by the few middle class people that pay taxes.
And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here).
In a few years, every grade and high school student in the US will have a tablet of some kind, thanks to the local taxpayers. It's the wave of the future. Think of the children.
"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com
I don't know what a '500px' is. Is it like a goat?
Most people don't need high resolution multi-megapixel cameras, they want something to snap a piccy of them and their buds at the bar having a good time as a memory aid. A camera phone can do that. It can replace a camera, in that application.
"NSA officials have repeatedly denied under oath to Congress that even producing an estimate of the number of Americans caught up in its surveillance is impossible. Leaked screenshots of an NSA application that does exactly that,...
They denied it was impossible, and they have a tool that does it. Where's the lie? Where's the source for this to see what the real claim is?
The closest source says that NSA has said it cannot tell "with certainty" who or where all the participants in a communications are. They have the IP address. They're admitting that the IP address doesn't identify the user, which is what we yell at **IAA when a story of them suing someone for megabucks based on identification via IP appears here.
The IP address doesn't tell you where they are at more than sometimes the city-level. Even with that, you don't know if the person is there or on the other side of the planet bouncing their communications through that address. I log in to my home from all over the world when I travel, so do you know where I am when I send mail from "home"? I use my work IMAP server for work email -- am I at my desk when I send an email through there from Brazil? No and no.
It's driven by the creationist idiots that think God created a perfect unchanging world so any suggestion of change is a spit in God's eye.
I know it's wrong to try to respond to flamebait, but you have it backwards. It's the people who think that the way the world is right this very minute is the way it is always supposed to be and we must do everything we can to keep it static that are the problem, and they aren't the religious nuts, they're the eco-nuts. They admit that they know about ice ages and the lush, tropical periods that the dinosaurs flourished in, but somehow today is perfect and no change, man-made OR natural, can be allowed to happen. Yes, it was different before, but it can no longer be different because we like it the way it is.
They're the ones bemoaning the extinction of species that no longer fit the climate or environment, and trying to build seawalls to stop the ocean from eroding that spit that developed a mere fifty years ago, but they've built their home on it and it must be preserved because it's "natural" and that's how it has "always been". The very people who hurl insults at "those religious nuts" for not accepting Evolution as the origin of life are the ones who try to stop true evolution and survival of the fittest from happening.
It's a pity they think their God is so limited.
Backwards again. Religious people know God isn't limited. It's the atheists who cannot fathom a God with powers they cannot personally understand or account for.
You don't see the religious right out protesting for carbon cap and trade or against energy users or producers. They know better. Change happens. It is Hope and Change doesn't.
These things are designed to protect innocent people -- reductions in them mean that more innocent people are going to jail,
They are designed to protect the PRIVACY of innocent people. That is, to keep the government from going on fishing expeditions and collecting data about people who are innocent.
If a violation of the fourth or fifth amendment means you go to jail, then you are not an innocent person by definition, and neither amendment is intended to protect you. The "protection" of the guilty in this case is a necessary side-effect of protecting the innocent.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
Your hat is still a bit snug. Worst case? Hardly. "Record all conversations between all US subscribers and anyone they call, as well as location and time, and provide that with subscriber names and addresses..." would be worse. "Secretly activate their camera and record video of them making the call..." would be a next step up.
"hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
With what? Making a phone call is not a crime. Five years ago? What's the statute of limitations on making a phone call in your universe? If the call was long distance, they've had this ability for decades. If they dump the data for the drug dealer, they'll see your call information. Have many people been arrested for making a phone call yet?
Now, that information may have been used to trigger an investigation of your contact with that drug dealer, but a simple phone call ("he advertised a bike on Craigslist...") is not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
One-off stuff is fine, that's called volunteering.
One-off? I've been a volunteer with one organization for twenty four years. Another one for ten or eleven. I don't think "one-off" has anything to do with being a volunteer, it has more to do with being paid for what you're doing. It doesn't even mean doing something that they'd have to hire someone to do otherwise, since they'd have to hire someone to do what I'm volunteering to do if a volunteer didn't do it.
And I'll add in, the one college internship I had was unpaid, and the organization certainly would have had to hire people to do what the college interns did if we weren't there. It wasn't even "one-off", it was a regular, ongoing program.
It used to be regular advice to people trying to break into the field (software, computer hardware, system management, etc.) to offer to work for free so they could see you had what they needed to hire. We used to tell people to do exactly what is now being claimed to be illegal.
Interns are generally required to complete a certain time period of work to qualify for course credits; they are also bound by employment laws and if terminating the internship early must comply like any other employee in the state where their internship is. For AT-WILL employment they could walk away at any time, but forfeit the course credit; for non-AT-WILL employment, they have to give notice as required by the law.
These are contractual matters that the intern agreed to prior to starting the program. Before he was required by his school to take an internship, they told him that "taking in internship is part of the program". Don't go there if you don't accept the program. Unlike slavery or indentured servitude, there is no requirement to go to that school or agree to that program.
If you're a paid intern doing a paid job, why wouldn't you be subject to notice requirements? If you're not an employee, you aren't.
If you're taking an unpaid internship as part of the degree requirement, then why should it matter if you're required as part of the program to do menial things that someone who is in that position would normally do, too? You're getting the degree credit. You agreed to work for free.
After it's all done and over with, it's really dishonest to sue for wages when YOU agreed you didn't get any. "Protect me from myself" is not the mantra in a free society, it's the cry of the Nanny State subject.
Given that the only part of it that says "X people don't count as employees" specifies that the business must be a non-profit,
That is not a given, in fact, that is incorrect. That sentence quoting SCOTUS says nothing about "non-profit."
It is the NEXT sentence that says that "In administering the FLSA, the Department of Labor follows this judicial guidance in the case of individuals serving as unpaid volunteers in various community services." Again, no mention of non-profit, only "community services", and then it says only where DL follows this guidance, not that it does not apply to for-profit.
it seems like the 'suffer or permit to work' clause would apply at a for-profit, and you would in fact be an employee, and thereby prohibited from being a 'volunteer'.
The statement from SCOTUS about this is directly opposite. Just being "suffer[ed] or permit[ted] to to work" does not make one an employee.
The kicker for this case, however, would appear to be items 3 and 4 at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/trainees.asp
That cite begins by restating SCOTUS in that just doing work there doesn't make one an employee. Points 3 and 4 make the system a loss for the employer and "trainee" since the employer cannot get productive work out of the intern and the intern cannot do anything that an employee would do. Why bother doing this? But then, this would not be the first time the executive branch did something that SCOTUS said wasn't right.
But the situation described does not seem to fit the legal requirements for an unpaid position.
As a free person, I should be able to offer my labor to another for whatever compensation I find sufficient, and I should not then be able to retroactively sue that person for pay for doing something I agreed I would do for free. SCOTUS has said that the FLSA does not make me employee just because I "suffer to work" at a place, but the DL has decided to create guidelines that contradict that ruling. SCOTUS is right. DL is wrong. This judge is wrong because the judge should be following SCOTUS precedent.
Now in plain fact YOU didn't offer anyone a "free donut": the corporation did. This is a critical distinction.
Not really. Someone in the corporation made the decision, they made the offer.
This gives corporations--which offer internships--a vastly privileged position in the negotiations they undertake with potential employees, interns, etc.
Untrue. As a potential intern I am free to accept or decline any offer. The "Nanny State" does not give the company the right to force me to accept what they offer. As a corporation I cannot stuff unfrosted donuts down the throats of my employees, I can only offer them the option and let them decide.
you as the owner or agent of a corporation have the backing of the massive, coercive power of the State. Your employees do not.
Wow. You've identified yourself as a corporate owner that employees should stay away from, simply because you think you have the "massive coercive power of the State" behind you. "You vill eat that cheap donut, employee. Ve haf vays of making you eat..."
Show a little humanity and humility and decency, and remember that what the State giveth the People can damned well take away.
You're the one claiming massive coercive power given to you by some mythical State, and I'm the one who needs to learn humility? Yes, I guess you'd think that based on your Power And Leverage over Mortal Man. Perhaps you ought to notice that a large part of labor law deals with LIMITING what you, in your Massive Coercive Mode, can actually do to anyone. Perhaps an experiment is in order to help you identify your mistakes? Why don't you, as Corporate Overlord, try ordering your female employees (but only the pretty ones) to wear bikinis to work on Friday. That's a simple test of your power over them granted by the State, I think. If you can do that and not wind up with a NLRB complaint that sticks, more power to you. You've successfully cowed your female workers into thinking you have power that you really don't. My guess would be that you'd be found guilty of sexual harassment upon complaints of the pretty women, and discrimination from a complaint by the ugly ones, and fined a bit of money. But, until you try, and since you think you're that powerful, you have no reason not to, right? Pictures or it didn't happen.
With your level of ignorance I would think you might try to hide it a little.
Perhaps you ought to read what you cite before you come out looking like a moron multiple times. See, I can insult you just as well as you can insult me.
What you cited says, rather clearly, that EMPLOYEES cannot be volunteers where they work. It does not say that nobody can volunteer at a for-profit company.
Much like a contract to murder you for your ignorance would be illegal,
Now you're just demonstrating that you are an asshole with clear reading comprehension problems. A contract for murder would be illegal for very different reasons than your FLSA cite provides and you know it. (In fact, a contract for murder with just compensation would NOT be illegal under what you cited, but if you could comprehend what you read you'd know that, too.)
And had you read what I wrote, I've explicitly excluded the issue of contracting to do things that are illegal, compared to contracts that are illegal because of their compensation or lack thereof, which is what I am asking you to cite at some point, if you can.
so would this contract you are speaking of.
Still waiting for the cite that actually says this, Mr. Congeniality.
I've already pointed out how what you claim as support doesn't support your claims. If you want to be insulting and flame, be my guest. If you can show where it actually supports your claim, I assume you would have done so.
Sure, for a charity. Volunteering at a for profit is not legal. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp
Nice try, but that cite doesn't support your claim. It says that:
Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.
As a volunteer, I am not an employee. If you read the second sentence of what you cite:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that volunteers are not employees under FLSA. As long as I'm not doing so with "express or implied compensation", I'm a volunteer. Clearly, it is not "implied compensation" for one to garner experience working in a field (such as the interns in this case), otherwise that would be their fairly agreed-to compensation for their internship and no back-pay would be granted.
Once I am an employee I may no longer "volunteer" my services to that employer. Of course not, I'm an employee, and I'm not able to volunteer anymore. There is always the implied threat in such a case of termination for not "volunteering", and thus FLSA does make that illegal. As I said, INvoluntary volunteerism is clearly illegal. That's not what you have to cite. Your statement deals with true volunteerism.
What you cite does not say that volunteers may not volunteer. Try again.
Volunteering at a for profit business is not generally speaking legal.
Citation required.
Free labor is illegal, for many reasons think a little.
Forced free labor is illegal for obvious reasons. Voluntary free labor should not be, think a little.
Without consideration a contract is not valid. There must be quid pro quo.
You've just given an opinion why a contract might not be valid, but that says nothing about the legality. I can work for someone without a contract. I can also agree to work for someone for non-monetary compensation.
But, and here's the important point, if I make a contract to work for someone for that non-monetary compensation, the courts should stay out of it, and certainly not grant back-pay for something I agreed to do for no money.
Volunteering at for profit businesses is generally speaking illegal.
Citation required. Contractually limited, perhaps. Legal? Why not?
The end result is that 20 people get the frosted donuts, 20 more settle for plain because it's better than nothing
The critical part of the analogy, which is true real life, too, is that nobody forced those twenty people to take a donut, they wanted a donut and voluntarily took one. While it may be "better than none", none was still an option that they could have chosen. They wanted the benefits of the donut but weren't willing to accept the terms it came with. So they took the benefits and then sued to get what they felt they were owed.
If I brought twenty plain donuts into the office and people whined about them not being frosted, I'd tell them "you're getting them for free, either accept what they are or don't take one." If someone took a plain donut and carried it back to the donut shop, and then tried billing the expense of putting frosting on it to me, I'd fire them. I offered you a plain donut, you accepted a plain donut, that's the contract. Offer and acceptance. And that would probably be the last free donuts the office got.
Anything below $10/hour they would normally refuse. If it was a charity they might let it go that low.
So, in essence, a charity that wanted to use you to run their IT for them during your internship would have had to pay you, but they could have a true volunteer with professional experience doing the same thing for free. That's a contractual issue between you and your school, not a legal matter for the courts. If you had agreed to do the work for them for nothing, no court should rule in your favor if you come back after the work is done and demand payment.
In most societies it would have been illegal to have them working without pay.
That may be true. But in a free society, they would have been paid exactly what they contracted for before they started the internship. The rights of the two parties to the contract would have had some significance, and a court would not come in later and overturn an agreement between two free people who voluntarily entered an agreement for legal activities.
What to expect does not make that legal. The judge is correct.
Of course what to expect makes it legal. If I agree to work for you for free, and thus I expect no payment, that should be perfectly legal. I voluntarily agreed to do that. You agreed to the same. How is that illegal? Why should any sane person think it was illegal?
What this court has ruled is that I can go to a business and offer to work for free for a chance to show them I can do what they need done and maybe they'll hire me, or to learn something from them by doing. They can say "ok" or they can say "no". Suppose they say "yes, here, do this..." Then, after I've done work for them I can sue for back pay because they should have paid me. That's nuts. That's absolutely ridiculous. If you care to notice, that "work for free as an introduction to me" is something that is, or at least has been, suggested to people here who want to break into the software design field but who don't have formal schooling or a current resume. Collectively, we have told people to do exactly this 'free intern' thing.
If that company cannot have me do anything that they would normally pay someone to do then there is no advantage to them in having me there. In fact, I'm a liability since a paid employee would need to supervise me. Or any unpaid intern, for that matter. Any productive activity I perform they would have had to pay someone to do, thus I can do nothing productive. If I can do nothing productive, the value of the experience is worthless to me, too. Given the new "sue for back pay" option, no sane company would say "ok" anymore. Not only are they opening themselves up for an unexpected liability, they've lost the right to negotiate the pay for the work and a judge will decide for them.
Now, had there been coercion or force, or a breach of contract, then yes, courts should become involved. And, of course, you can't legally volunteer to do something illegal for someone else, but then, in this case we know the actions weren't illegal because the claim was they would have been legally performed by paid employees. I.e., if it is legal to pay someone to do work for you, it should be just as legal to let an unpaid volunteer or intern do it. (I note that many unions have negotiated contracts that prohibit volunteers doing their work, but that's a contractual issue and not a legal one.)
This case could have repercussions not only for all unpaid internships, but for all volunteer work. Every place I volunteer I've agreed to do work for no pay. I am doing things, in every case, that they'd have to pay someone to do if a volunteer didn't do it. I could make a fortune, now, by suing companies (and various branches of the government) for back pay. That, alone, should show how nuts this judge is.
Unfortunately, it is not the approach courts have taken to deciding questions of this kind. The courts have instead asked where the was customer when he made the purchase, and used this as the basis of deciding what laws apply to the sale.
Since you're talking about "questions of this kind", perhaps you ought to know what the courts had to rule on? From TFA:
The location of the seller: US soil. There was no extradition. The location of the buyer was also US soil, but the only question the courts have to rule on here is "guilty or not guilty", since the seller's location puts him clearly within US jurisdiction. You don't even have to argue about irrelevant drone strikes and hegemony.
Right this moment, there are more ears of corn in use than there are people on the planet. Will we be eating them, or will they be eating us?
Why do you think the population density of areas that are the main producers of corn is so low? Think of how many people say "I'm moving to the country" and then you never hear from them again?
Don't panic. By the time it's turned into flakes it is mostly harmless.
A cellphone camera app isn't a replacement for an actual camera in the same way that a bicycle isn't a replacement for a car.
And yet I know many people who commute to work daily on their bicycles and are quite happy. As I said ... IN THAT APPLICATION. That's the standard context when someone says "I replaced my camera with a cellphone".
Oh wait, we already have welfare recipients with dozens of free Obama phones, paid for by the few middle class people that pay taxes.
And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here).
In a few years, every grade and high school student in the US will have a tablet of some kind, thanks to the local taxpayers. It's the wave of the future. Think of the children.
"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com
I don't know what a '500px' is. Is it like a goat?
Most people don't need high resolution multi-megapixel cameras, they want something to snap a piccy of them and their buds at the bar having a good time as a memory aid. A camera phone can do that. It can replace a camera, in that application.
"NSA officials have repeatedly denied under oath to Congress that even producing an estimate of the number of Americans caught up in its surveillance is impossible. Leaked screenshots of an NSA application that does exactly that, ...
They denied it was impossible, and they have a tool that does it. Where's the lie? Where's the source for this to see what the real claim is?
The closest source says that NSA has said it cannot tell "with certainty" who or where all the participants in a communications are. They have the IP address. They're admitting that the IP address doesn't identify the user, which is what we yell at **IAA when a story of them suing someone for megabucks based on identification via IP appears here.
The IP address doesn't tell you where they are at more than sometimes the city-level. Even with that, you don't know if the person is there or on the other side of the planet bouncing their communications through that address. I log in to my home from all over the world when I travel, so do you know where I am when I send mail from "home"? I use my work IMAP server for work email -- am I at my desk when I send an email through there from Brazil? No and no.
Not who, not where. What lie?
It's driven by the creationist idiots that think God created a perfect unchanging world so any suggestion of change is a spit in God's eye.
I know it's wrong to try to respond to flamebait, but you have it backwards. It's the people who think that the way the world is right this very minute is the way it is always supposed to be and we must do everything we can to keep it static that are the problem, and they aren't the religious nuts, they're the eco-nuts. They admit that they know about ice ages and the lush, tropical periods that the dinosaurs flourished in, but somehow today is perfect and no change, man-made OR natural, can be allowed to happen. Yes, it was different before, but it can no longer be different because we like it the way it is.
They're the ones bemoaning the extinction of species that no longer fit the climate or environment, and trying to build seawalls to stop the ocean from eroding that spit that developed a mere fifty years ago, but they've built their home on it and it must be preserved because it's "natural" and that's how it has "always been". The very people who hurl insults at "those religious nuts" for not accepting Evolution as the origin of life are the ones who try to stop true evolution and survival of the fittest from happening.
It's a pity they think their God is so limited.
Backwards again. Religious people know God isn't limited. It's the atheists who cannot fathom a God with powers they cannot personally understand or account for.
You don't see the religious right out protesting for carbon cap and trade or against energy users or producers. They know better. Change happens. It is Hope and Change doesn't.
Religion claiming it could doesn't make it so.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I was talking about the inability of science to do something, not religion's ability to do things.
But as Charles S. Peirce already observed, nothing can tell us for a fact it happened that way.
Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.
To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion),
Despite the common misconception, these are not mutually exclusive beliefs.
Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened.
Science can tells us how it might have happened, but cannot tell us for a fact that it did happen that way.
http://pharmalert.zoomshare.com/1.html
A fascinating description, but since it is wrong on a very simple point I have to doubt the whole thing.
They modify your shadow file so that it is unwritable (read only.) This stops you from being able to modify your root password, and all others.
The shadow file on one of my servers is, right now:
----------. 1 root root 1125 Jun 7 18:13 /etc/shadow
And I can change passwords just fine. Funny thing about setuid root programs, they can change permissions on anything.
These things are designed to protect innocent people -- reductions in them mean that more innocent people are going to jail,
They are designed to protect the PRIVACY of innocent people. That is, to keep the government from going on fishing expeditions and collecting data about people who are innocent.
If a violation of the fourth or fifth amendment means you go to jail, then you are not an innocent person by definition, and neither amendment is intended to protect you. The "protection" of the guilty in this case is a necessary side-effect of protecting the innocent.
It does not protect you in a court of law where you can be held in contempt if you refuse to answer a question.
In US courts, the defendant is not required to testify. If he chooses to, he has waived his right to remain silent.
As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
Your hat is still a bit snug. Worst case? Hardly. "Record all conversations between all US subscribers and anyone they call, as well as location and time, and provide that with subscriber names and addresses..." would be worse. "Secretly activate their camera and record video of them making the call..." would be a next step up.
"hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".
With what? Making a phone call is not a crime. Five years ago? What's the statute of limitations on making a phone call in your universe? If the call was long distance, they've had this ability for decades. If they dump the data for the drug dealer, they'll see your call information. Have many people been arrested for making a phone call yet?
Now, that information may have been used to trigger an investigation of your contact with that drug dealer, but a simple phone call ("he advertised a bike on Craigslist ...") is not illegal.