So people who volunteer should not be compensated for their effort or time because they can afford it?
If people are doing something for compensation then it’s a job not volunteer service.
Since it appears the OP is not really interested in factual information but rather in arguing a position, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
What about the CEOs and such who agree to take a salary of $1 for an entire year? Isn’t that breaking minimum wage laws, even though we all know that he/she is a millionaire and doesn’t need a livable wage? Does the DOL just look the other way on those sorts of things even though they are technically illegal?
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Here in the UK if you are unemployed for more than a month or two the government Job Centre will pressure you into “volunteering” or doing “work experience” (i.e., “voluntarily” working for nothing for someone), with the threat of cutting off your Job Seekers Allowance (unemployment pay) if you refuse. In the US you have “interning” where people work for nothing in the hope of eventually getting a job. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because they are told they will never get a real (i.e., paying) job otherwise. If there were not so many people working for free, there would be a lot more real jobs to go around. It is all just another way the poor and the young get scammed, same as working for below minimum would be. It is a sort of end-run around minimum wage laws with results that are even worse for the workers, and better for the employers, than paying below-minimum wages.
There are several possibilities here: first is that most of the $1/year CEO types are getting far more than minimum wage in compensation that’s not strictly salary (Steve Jobs, for example was very highly compensated despite his $1/year salary)–via stock options, bonuses, etc. A second possibility is that these are structured as a higher real salary, with the “extra” given away to charity. The third is that minimum wage laws only apply to employers – if you have no boss and are not an employee of the company (which is only possible for certain company types), the law doesn’t apply to you: “solo” small business owners, for example, can’t guarantee themselves minimum wage if the business can’t support it.
In spite of the moderator kibosh, I think it’s a valid statement and will therefore answer it.
While you may feel that it is “good for you” to accept a job below minimum wage, the state feels (rightly or wrongly) that it is not good for the general society at large. Mostly because, as others have pointed out, employers will take advantage of desperate people “volunteering” for less than minimum wage jobs.
Labor laws are often different for executives than for ordinary workers. For instance, in many places executives are not entitled to overtime pay.
If laws are different for executives, then why can’t I become an Executive Bovine Rotation Engineer at my local McDonald’s and work for $1 a year?
IANA labor attorney, but I think what Alessan is referring to are officers in a company, which has very specific legal definitions, responsibilities and obligations. As opposed to “executives” which is a more broad term for middle and senior management.
IANAL either, of any sort, but that’s what I was referring to.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “volunteer” means. “Volunteer” isn’t (or, with respect to njtt’s statement, very much shouldn’t be - fuck the British government for allowing that degree of wankery to go unchecked) “worker”; volunteer work is not to be treated as a job. It’s something you do for free, for society’s sake, and what counts as volunteer work is actually quite limited, as previously stated. Volunteers shouldn’t earn anything off of their volunteer work, because the goal isn’t earning. Using “volunteer” to describe a person’s career is like using “gamer” because you just play a lot of video games next to your real job (or instead of having a job) - if that’s your career, you’re either doing something very wrong, or you’re Mew2King.
No, people who volunteer should not be expected to be compensated for their effort or time because if they were, it’s not volunteering. It’s like if I told the old lady on my block “I’ll volunteer to walk your dog if you pay me”. Doesn’t make much sense, right? Of course not.
[QUOTE=Terr]
Because the state knows better than you what’s good for you.
[/QUOTE]
Terr, what regulations, if any, do you feel are sensible? What regulations do you believe are beneficial to society? Environmental regulations? Child labor laws? Minimum wage? Because this statement seems to imply that you really don’t understand what regulation is or why it’s important. Which, given your posting history, would not surprise me one bit, but still…
I understand the debate behind the question; however, there are a couple of ways around this that I didn’t see mentioned.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/
So, a salary of about $22,000 per year is the “minimum wage” for a salaried employee. That’s roughly $11/hr. A good deal of “overtime” could bring you below regular minimum wage laws… I’ll bet there are some admin assistants and paralegals out there who come close to doing that.
Similarly, contract work. Offer the employer your services on a job as if it were piecework. In a former life I took a few painting commissions that I ended up making less than minimum wage on (even before expenses). I’m sure McDonald’s would run afoul of carefully crafted labor law on this one, but imagine a small business owner hiring a handyman to, say, reshingle her office roof for $100. Done.
This is exactly why. Once you allow people to consent to working for less than minimum wage, the incentive for employers (who hold a disproportionate amount of power in this transaction) to hire workers who are effectively coerced by economic necessity into giving that consent is enormous and there is indeed a “race to the bottom”, which has been shown to have a deleterious effect on the economy overall. Witness, for a real example, the problem with Walmart employees needing food stamps to live. When the system allows employers to force wages downward, that situation becomes endemic and neither the safety net nor the economy overall can cope. This is, in short, a Bad Thing.
According to Krugman, there’s pretty decent evidence for the economic benefits of a decent minimum wage.
Allow ? They, and the Blairites before them, sedulously foster this sort of thing.
I never read newspapers, but noticed a headline this morning indicating the present fat little retard has redefined ‘fuel poverty households’ ( which was a metric, previously meaning those who cannot afford heating when it was more than 10% of income ) to a new meaning that has relieved 800,000 households from the stigma of being rated fuel poor.
Lady Thatcher’s regime famously redefined unemployment 31 times to lower the figures…
That’s assuming that they meet the requirements to be exempt from FLSA ( the law requiring overtime). Titles don’t determine exemption, duties do and most administrative assistants won’t meet the tests requiring the excercise of discretion and independent judgment in sigificant matters.
I interpreted it as a “Why isn’t this legal?” kind of question: If X is legal, and Z is legal, why isn’t Y, which is an intermediate stage between X and Z, legal? Or maybe a “What’s wrong with my idea for getting around the law?” kind of question, like the popular “Can I get around the laws against prostitution by hiring a prostitute to star in a porn movie with me?”
I know, and it’s absolutely atrocious.
The median salary for a paralegal is in the mid-forties. There are certainly office grunts who are “asked” to work overtime and not compensated under the FLSA exemptions, but as doreen notes that’s a matter of lax enforcement, not a loophole. The burden falls entirely on the employer to justify its claim that an employee is exempt; wage and hour litigation (on the plaintiff side) is one of the easiest jobs in law.