81–90 of 155 posts
A bunch of non-lawyers taking a tiny chunk of law in isolation and speculating about whether something "seems illegal" based on it is really, really useless. And this HN thread is just going to be even more of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are unpaid internships if not unpaid volunteer labor?
There are specific criteria that should be met for an internship to be offered without payment. Generally, an unpaid internship must be purely educational, not displace employees, employer does not derive profit from the intern, and there is no expectation of a job offer at the end. At my employer, interns are effectively additional staff for the duration of their employment, so they are paid market wages. The main d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderators are doing it out of their own self interest, too. They're not doing it for money, so if they aren't enjoying it they can quit with zero repercussions, right? ETA: So because of the psychic toll that it may or may not take on volunteer moderators, moderating for free for a for-profit company is illegal? I guess I can understand this: It's half protecting people from getting into an unhealthy psychological t…
Well by that logic you could say the same thing about retired people that take part time jobs just so they have something to do every day. They're not necessarily doing it for the money, and most states in the US allow you to quit at any time without repercussions, but it'd still be illegal to have them work for free. It's more about whether the person is doing 'employee-like' duties and how much control the company…
If someone really is just doing something to keep themselves busy and they are perfectly happy not being paid, then that seems like a fair deal to me. I've done that when my buddy started a bar at the beach. I would help him take orders while I sat down there and he got some intermittent help. What's the matter? Groveling for money changes the entire relationship into something that I do not want.
I think you have to make the case that there's some sort of exploitation going on. I could see how you'd make that argument regarding a 16yo "intern" who bought your bullshit that they are bussing your tables 18 hours a day for "work experience". But you lost me on your own example. Let's say, suggesting that a retired millionaire who voluntarily takes orders at a bar for four hours a day for fun is being exploited unless they're paid $2.15/hr like the other staff.
A bunch of non-lawyers taking a tiny chunk of law in isolation and speculating about whether something "seems illegal" based on it is really, really useless. And this HN thread is just going to be even more of that.
Wouldn’t social networks fall under a similar category? I get that they are different but there is a lot of overlap. If they are in violation then I think the law needs to be updated.
Reddit certainly would. Moderating a top subreddit is definitely as much work as most part time jobs, and essential to that site actually being good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well by that logic you could say the same thing about retired people that take part time jobs just so they have something to do every day. They're not necessarily doing it for the money, and most states in the US allow you to quit at any time without repercussions, but it'd still be illegal to have them work for free. It's more about whether the person is doing 'employee-like' duties and how much control the company…
Well, it's like you're saying volunteer work should never exist. You absolutely have employee-like duties at the volunteer soup kitchen and basically any volunteer outfit. If someone really is just doing something to keep themselves busy and they are perfectly happy not being paid, then that seems like a fair deal to me. I've done that when my buddy started a bar at the beach. I would help him take orders while I sat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> having non-profit designation be the key factor in deciding whether or not someone can volunteer seems like a rule that would have some really negative side-effects. This is literally the distinction discussed in the posted question and is pretty standard law in the US. What negative consequences do you see as a result of this?
Not all Open Source companies are nonprofit. See Redhat Linux, Gitlab, Chromium, Docker. If a volunteer helps triage issues for these projects, is it a violation of labor laws? If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches, etc... that's a really big reduction in who can participate in Open Source,…
> If only nonprofit Open Source companies can use the benefits of Open Source development -- community involvement, community moderation and support, 3rd-party patches,
There is more involved here than any one of those things mentioned. There are certain requirements that need to be met. You listed the five criteria New York has, and so in New York's case, those requirements would have to be considered. Simply having moderators doesn't mean you run afoul of the laws behing discussed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not true for moderators: they have specific tasks they must complete, and they must continue to be active, or they lose their moderation status. That’s not correct: especially on the small sites, it’s acceptable for moderators to be inactive for long periods of time. It’s not great, but it’s understood that moderators have lives, and that they’re … not employees. I can state this confidently because I used t…
The official limit is no activity for 6 months, at that point the moderator status is supposed to be removed. This has been enforced rather inconsistently at times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well by that logic you could say the same thing about retired people that take part time jobs just so they have something to do every day. They're not necessarily doing it for the money, and most states in the US allow you to quit at any time without repercussions, but it'd still be illegal to have them work for free. It's more about whether the person is doing 'employee-like' duties and how much control the company…
Well, it's like you're saying volunteer work should never exist. You absolutely have employee-like duties at the volunteer soup kitchen and basically any volunteer outfit. If someone really is just doing something to keep themselves busy and they are perfectly happy not being paid, then that seems like a fair deal to me. I've done that when my buddy started a bar at the beach. I would help him take orders while I sat…
You're missing "at a for-profit company". Once you'd add that, I (and NY) would say "Yes". (But I'm not the GP).