Moderators should be paid? (and AOL may be SCREWED)

[Stark]

From an excellent article at Forbes.com



<< In his class action lawsuit with thousands of former and present volunteers as potential plaintiffs, Greenberg makes a simple argument: Existing labor laws, some more than 70 years old, also apply to New Economy companies. Those laws, he contends, make it illegal for volunteers to work for for-profit companies. &quot;AOL was taking the labor of a volunteer and selling it as a product,&quot; he says. &quot;That's enough of an analysis to say that the volunteers are covered by the minimum wage [law].&quot;

Furthermore, a three-month investigation by Forbes ASAP has found that AOL recognized it had a potential legal labor problem beginning several years ago and did little to rectify it.

For the past 10 years, AOL has used volunteers, as many as 16,000 annually, some as young as 12 years old. These volunteers have provided the very foundation of one of AOL's chief revenue producers-its online communities that attract eyeballs and keep people connected-a component that one former executive estimates to be worth as much as 30% of the company's annual revenue, which was $6.9 billion last year alone. Volunteers host chat rooms, discard offensive or inappropriate bulletin board postings, check postings for viruses, and otherwise act as AOL police to ensure that people adhere to the company's terms of service. In return, they are given free usage, which prior to 1996 amounted to the equivalent of hundreds, even thousands of dollars for some, but which amounts to $19.95 a month under current subscription rates.

Greenberg says that under federal labor guidelines, AOL volunteers should be paid at least minimum wage and should be paid in cash. If he is right, the economic implications are staggering. Using the most conservative figures, if America Online had been forced to pay these volunteers in cash, it would not have shown a profit until fiscal year 1999-seven years later than it actually did. In all, since 1992, it would have had to spend nearly $1 billion in wages, or $166 million (see table) in the recently concluded fiscal year, an analysis of AOL's own financial records shows. >>

 

[Entity]

If there are economic ramifications for AOL, that really pisses me off. :| People should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to volunteer for an organization, be it for-profit or non-profit.

I wonder if the mods have any take on this.

Rob

 

[saxman]

hmmmm....I hope aol gets screwed.

Our moderators work hard...I think they should be paid something. Maybe they get free hardware.

 

[Entity]

Sax,

Doesn't the fact that volunteering is a voluntary act have anything to do with it, though?

So if you ask a favor of me, and profit off of it, you are legally obligated to pay me? Especially when I agree to do it for free, fully knowing that you might profit?

I don't think so. While I do hate AOL, I would hate to see the legal ramifications of a decision based on this.

Rob

 

[Dameon]

so Internships are being made illegal too?

 

[saxman]

Thinking about the massive amounts of money aol has made....even the amounts of money anand has made, I would think it fair that moderators get paid. The reason is simple...the efforts of these mods are increasing the revenue for the company they work for.

 

[Entity]

Sax,

You still haven't answered my question about the voluntary nature of these jobs. I think it's wrong to go back and make payments retroactive, to deal with the fact that someone wants to get a piece of the pie now when they had nothing guaranteed beforehand. :|

Rob

 

[JellyBaby]

Down with AOHell! Seriously, those volunteers received as payment free online time. Though probably not agreed to in writing, the volunteers full-well expected NOT to be paid in $$$. It would be weird if AOL fell due to this class action suit.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

Saxman is right, IMHO. Even in a Retail/Non-profit company like the Cooperative I worked for in Arizona, we could not use volunteers in any way that produced sales for the company.

 

[Napalm381]

Entity- The term &quot;volunteer&quot; is used rather loosely in this context.


<< Greenberg argues that AOL, like Microsoft, has been heading for trouble for years. Simply put, he says AOL's use of volunteers for profit falls within the standards of what constitutes a worker deserving at least minimum wage. The evidence in the boxes on his floor, he says, shows that AOL volunteers have to follow rules and regulations, which, he contends, are &quot;conditions of their continued participation, including filling out certain paperwork after each shift, mandatory training classes, and a certain minimum hours a week.'' His clients were even required to fill out weekly time cards, he says, and in some cases were required to get a doctor's note to be excused for missing a shift.


Kelly Hallissey, one of Greenberg's plaintiffs who was a former volunteer guide and became a community leader in a chat room, says AOL managers instructed community leaders to encourage subscribers to explore other areas to keep them connected and to bulk up billable time under the company's hourly rate structure. &quot;We had a minimum of how many areas we had to promote in each shift,'' she says. &quot;To promote flowers, we'd insert into our chat rooms the message 'Send flowers to your honey-visit keyword flowers.' If we didn't promote four or five per shift, it was counted against us in our peer review.'' This example, Greenberg says, constitutes de facto employment. >>





<< During the trial, Greenberg will argue that AOL volunteers were not only treated like regular employees in that they were compensated, albeit meagerly, but also that their work added value to the company-one of the measurements that conforms to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in determining who is an employee. He intends to show that the volunteers had to file shift reports, were required to take a formal training program that lasted a minimum of 30 hours, were required to work a certain number of hours weekly, and, ultimately, that they were compensated in free hours. He will also call forth his plaintiffs, showing, among other things, that they were instructed, as if they were commissioned salespeople, to encourage members to explore other areas in order to bulk up billable hours.


&quot;AOL is in effect saying, 'Come work for us and we'll give you free online time,''' says Greenberg. &quot;When you have an economic arrangement where compensation is flowing between employer and employee, that compensation has to equal at least minimum wage. It has to be paid in cash and not in credit or products.&quot; >>


It appears that AOL enforced numerous rules and regulations upon these volunteers. Time shift cards? Doctors notes? Required hours? I don't know too many volunteer jobs that require all that.

I am no fan of litigation, but here it appears that AOL played pretty loose with labor laws.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

AOL knew what they were doing when taking volunteers and putting them in certain job situations. Even if the volunteers did not want any money, there still may be proof that AOL violated labor laws which may result in fines.

 

[Entity]

Hamburgerpimp,

That begs my other question; if you ask me to do you a favor, and I understand that I will not be compensated fo rit, should you be legally obligated to pay me?

What if a local computer shop owner, who you tend to patronize with your business, asks you to help move his shop to a different location, out of the kindness of your heart - but later in life, you realize that he profited from this move?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't think the government has the right to regulate what situations people can or cannot volunteer in. Case in point: I'm more than willing to help a local coffee shop that I frequent build a bar; I know that they will profit from this bar, and don't care. I like the owner, and will help free of charge. Should he be legally obligated to pay me?

Rob

 

[Entity]

Napalm381,

Good point. But I still must ask: if the volunteers were being treated like that, they had nothing to lose by leaving. Yet they stayed, and the choice was definitely theirs; they knew that they were volunteers, and were not being paid. They had no right to expect anything different.

If AOL had promised them &quot;future&quot; benefits, I could see this argument holding up. However, it is my understanding that the volunteers knew exactly what they were getting into.

Rob

 

[Napalm381]

Entity- the &quot;free of charge&quot; argument here is a moot point. As far as I can determine from the article, AOL &quot;volunteers&quot; NEVER worked free of charge. They worked for free AOL subscriptions. They were always compensated for their efforts.

Edit:

<< ; they knew that they were volunteers, and were not being paid. >>


Completely false. They WERE being compensated for their efforts.

 

[Stark]

Rob,

I think the problem arises when you base your business around the labor of your &quot;volunteer.&quot;

Using your example, if the owner of a computer shop lets a kid volunteer to help build systems and in exchange gives him/her some spare parts, ok. Once the owner starts basing his business on the kids &quot;free&quot; labor, not ok.

 

[Entity]

<< Completely false. They WERE being compensated for their efforts. >>



I agree, to an extent. My concern is this: the &quot;volunteers,&quot; as we have labelled them, understood what their exchange was for; they exchanged their time for free memberships. While this may be borderline unethical, I don't think it qualifies as illegal (or, more accurately, that it should qualify as illegal). People should be able to choose what their working circumstances are; if they felt that they were being treated unfairly at the time, why didn't they raise it as an issue then?

Arguing from a legal standpoint, I think AOL will get their asses kicked in this.

However, I think that from a idealistic standpoint, they shouldn't.

Rob

 

[Entity]

<< Rob,

I think the problem arises when you base your business around the labor of your &quot;volunteer.&quot;

Using your example, if the owner of a computer shop lets a kid volunteer to help build systems and in exchange gives him/her some spare parts, ok. Once the owner starts basing his business on the kids &quot;free&quot; labor, not ok.
>>



Stark,

So where do you draw the line? One system, for spare parts: ok, that's fine. Two systems? Ok, that's fine. But if he builds most of the systems - which the computer owner draws revenue from - despite the fact that he's volunteering (for spare parts), that isn't ok. Why?

Rob

 

[Napalm381]

<< People should be able to choose what their working circumstances are; if they felt that they were being treated unfairly at the time, why didn't they raise it as an issue then? >>



First- this quote:

<< but also that their work added value to the company-one of the measurements that conforms to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in determining who is an employee. >>

seems to imply that according to federal law, these people WERE employees. IANAL, but it seems fairly clear to me that these people by any reasonable definition.

Second- many people DID raise the issue earlier. The Forbes article highlights a few of them.



<< People should be able to choose what their working circumstances are >>

Should they? To a degree, yes. But at what point should the government and step in and say &quot;No way, you've gone too far&quot;? It appears that AOL crossed the legal line in this case.

 

[Namuna]

Entity/Rob,

Try seeing it in THIS light...

Let's say you and I run a Mechanic shop. You go through a hiring process, finding good Mechanics and hire them. Pay them salaries, pay to train them and pay part of their benenfits packages (insurance and so on).

Now let's say I also run a similar type shop, BUT...I go out and offer ANYBODY to just come on by and be a mechanic, I tell them that if they want to be a mechanic here they have to come in AT LEAST 20 hours a week, that it's MANDATORY to get training, and absenteeism isn't tolerated...I pay them by letting them have free oil changes...And people COME! Because they want to be able to say they're a mechanic.


What AOL did and is doing is a quesiton of Ethics. And Ethics says AOL took advantage.

The outcome should be that stricter rules should be placed on just how far you can go with a volunteer...For ALL ONLINE firms like AOL. But penalty should NOT be big against AOL. It is an unprecedented case and YES, THE PEOPLE KNEW THEY WEREN'T TO BE COMPENSATED.

 

[Frenchie]

Well, if the Mod.s do want to file suit for a paycheck, I can handle the class action suit....As long as I get paid and I get to be a Mod. too!

Entity: I agree with you that Volunteers should be allowed, as should some minor compensation. It is when the volunteering is identical to the employment position that the lines blur. What the volunteers did was what a person in a paid position would do. Training, time clocks, evaluations, sick days, etc. I've done volunteer work before....it has never been as strict as full employment. And they did receive a minor bit of compensation, the hours. The thing is that at a certain point the lines blur and a volunteers help becomes overreaching by the employer who is unjustly enriched.

 

[uncouth]

AOL was not paying people working for them and as a direct result was able to accumulate incredible accolades. Regardless of the fact that these people were knowledgable of working for free, as long as they were working in the US there are labor laws that companies are forced to abide by. For any company paying the workers it is one of the larger detriments to the cash pool. By cutting that part AOL has become the monster it is today. They should get much more than a slap on the wrists for this. It appears that they are exploiting a lot of people, some of them minors, to do a lot of jobs and then paying them less than the minimum wage. Obviously it is somewhat the peoples fault themselves for getting themselves into this gig but the fact stands that they are working a job that legally requires more compensation than free hours of a crappy service.

 

[fdiskboy]

Down with AOL.

I hope they get nailed to the wall.

 

[guyver01]

Maybe i can shed some light on this... well.. not alot... just a little.
I used to voulenteer for AOL. I started off as a community leader in the internet forum. We ran a little chat room called &quot;Chat about the web&quot; ... and we sat there and answered questions about using AOL, and the internet. For this 'job' .. i went thru a 5 minute interview to see how much i knew about AOL and the internet. When i got the spot, i had to sit in a chat room for 2 hours a day, 3 days a week. And as an incentive i got a 'free account'. Back then, AOL was charge by the hour. <g> My average monthly bill was $500 - $600... and was happy to have that down to ZERO! After a year doing this, i interviewed for, and got, a GUIDE position. HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY. This was the ultimate in voulenteer. Yes there was training classes, 2-3 IIRC, that lasted about 2 hours each (6 in total.. not 30!!)... then a final exam <g> Guide Hell.. other guides were &quot;evil hax0rs&quot; pretending to ruin the service.. and we hadda stop 'em&quot;.. and did i ever. Then it was shift time. 3 shifts a week... 3hrs each... again, the only compensation was a free account. About halfway thru, AOL switched to its unlimited pricing... so no more $600/month account... now it was $21.95.... still... who cared. At the beginning of each shift, we reported to our team leader, and at the end, we filed a report. No time cards, no &quot;doctors notes&quot; if sick. You didn't show, you didn't show... no sweat. During the time i volenteered... i neither expected payment, or demanded payment. I was happy to have a free account. We didn't have quotas... didn't have to follow peer reviews.. nothing like that. Granted, the requirements could have changed since i resigned (damn real life interfeared with my online time)... but i only left back in 97. I've been an AOL member since 1992.. and continue to be an AOL member to this date.

Hope this helps to clear up anything.

 

[Napalm381]

<< i neither expected payment, or demanded payment. I was happy to have a free account. >>

How exactly can you say that these hours are you received were not compensation??? You would have had to pay for them otherwise.

 

[guyver01]

<< How exactly can you say that these hours are you received were not compensation??? You would have had to pay for them otherwise. >>


i never said they weren't compensation.... all i said was

<< i neither expected payment, or demanded payment >>

. I was happy not receiving any money for the time i spent on AOL. You didn't join AOL Community Leaders expecting to receive money... just to help people out and the possibility you didn't have to pay for monthly service anymore.