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

[SJ]

The biggest impact the AOL case will have is in the online game market, UO, EQ and AC for the most part have volunteer staff doing 75% or more of their customer service. Its already started to change. AOL will be nailed hard because they did break labor laws. Even if people think the laws are wrong, we still have them, AOL broke them(technically so have EA, Sony and MS but thats another story).

 

[Missus]

I believe that volunteering should only be through non-profit orgs... They are the ones who normally need the volunteers... Profits orgs should pay... That is what profit is for...

 

[saxman]

Not only might this be unfair for the volunteers(yes, thats debatable). But volunteers working at a for profit company give that company an economic advantage that flies in the face of fair competition.

 

[JellyBaby]

saxman hit on a good point: the thousands of AOL volunteers who serve only for free online time contribute immensely to AOL's success in both free customer service and "community spirit". I mean AOL has some decent content but the newbies go there for the chat rooms, many of which are moderated.

Bottom line: from a certain perspective it's virtual slave labor where the slaves didn't feel the shackles and manacles.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

They're VOLUNTEERS. They damn straight knew they weren't going to get paid when they first signed up for the job. I'm sure there are more than enough people who would be willing to become mods for AOL/Anandtech who would replace those who wish to get paid for something they originally weren't getting paid for. People think that "oh well we can sue anyone know" that they can get whatever the hell they want just by suing people. This is why companies go out of business - because money hungry a$$holes have to go out and make everyone suffer.

 

[Russ]

Normally, I would be on AOL's side because, after all I hate government interference in private industry, BUT, sadly, the slimeball, low-life scum-sucking attorneys who filed this suit DO have a case.

By every conceivable legal definition, this IS an employment relationship, not a strictly volunteer one. As soon as AOL put regulations in place, and offered ANY compensation, even a penny, they made it so.

Russ, NCNE

 

[FettsBabe]

I have thought about this before and wondered how companies were getting by with it. I see the attorneys running to file the suits as we speak!!!!

 

[Napalm381]

RagingBitch- Did you even read the article???


<< They damn straight knew they weren't going to get paid when they first signed up for the job. >>

YES THEY DID. How many times do I have to say that? They KNEW when they agreed to the job that they would be compensated by free AOL subscriptions.

Before you shoot your mouth off, read the WHOLE article.

 

[FettsBabe]

I don't think an AOL subscription will take care of a minimum wage law unless the total subscription cost was equal or more than what they would have been paid if they were paid the current minimum wage.

Isn't AOL like $10 or $20 a month? If so, then they would have used this total in 2-4 hours. You also have to take into consideration the free &quot;hour&quot; disk they send out.

AOL may be in trouble along with other online companies.

AOL is a company that profits. All companies that profit are suppose to pay their employees. Doesn't matter whether you volunteer or not...the law doesn't allow volunteering for a profit company. Organizations can have volunteers if they are non-profit.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

Entity,

You do have some valid points, but they are your opinions. Laws are put into place by the Government we vote upon. In other words, we put these laws into place. (In so many ways and words). If it is shown behond the reasonable doubt that AOL (and any other companies) broke these laws, then so be it. If that is so, whether AOL knew they were doing it or not, then the law must be upheld and they will most likely be punished financially.


Brian

 

[Napalm381]

<< I don't think an AOL subscription will take care of a minimum wage law unless the total subscription cost was equal or more than what they would have been paid if they were paid the current minimum wage. >>

That's essentially one of the points that the lawyers are arguing.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

I don't think anyone here is seeing the point. It is not whether the Volunteers expected to get paid or not. It really has nothing to do with expectations. The fact is, if the AOL Volunteer's &quot;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&quot; then AOL broke a Federal Labor Law. Period.

 

[Russ]

Hamburgerpimp,

That is not even the most salient point. Even if AOL could prove in court that the &quot;volunteers&quot; detracted from the value of the company, it is still an employment relationship by legal definition.

The company provided guidelines restricting activity, and compensation. This is the only thing the plaintiffs need to prove in order to win on the merits.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Adul]

I wonder if there will be a redifining of the labor laws concerning volunteers for such activities has moderating a message forum, online game, etc...