Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators?

#151

Post by freedomben » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #150

danShumway wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> See Redhat Linux, Gitlab, Chromium, Docker. If a volunteer helps triage issues for these projects, is it a violation of labor laws? Perhaps this is an indicator that for-profit companies that solicit volunteer contributions to open source projects should set up a non-profit organization to manage the open source project separately from the for-profit business that sells support and / or provides paid turnkey soluti…

> Perhaps this is an indicator that for-profit companies that solicit volunteer contributions to open source projects should set up a non-profit organization to manage the open source project separately from the for-profit business that sells support and / or provides paid turnkey solutions.

The vast majority do, and it's getting more and more common.

> It seems potentially a little greedy to me to insist that highly paid software developers retain the right to volunteer on a wider range of software projects at the expense of lower salaries for workers in other professions.

Are you saying that either everybody should be able to volunteer or nobody should?

Re: Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators?

#152

Post by fragmede » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #72

MoronInAHurry wrote: post #60

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.

> 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. To me, this is rather a sign that the law is far too complicated and should be radically simplified.

There is always a well-known solution to fix every human problems — neat, plausible, and wrong.

Re: Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators?

#153

Post by fragmede » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

daveoc64 wrote: post #117

fabian2k wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But does that mean that the moderator can just take one action every six months and retain their status? You couldn't do that in a job!

What kind of job? The person who prepares and files my taxes will retain their status as "my" CPA basically forever, but they only do my taxes once per year.

Re: Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators?

#154

Post by MrStonedOne » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #133

MrStonedOne wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If laymen can not read, parse, and understand law, then laymen can not follow the law, and laymen can not have due process. Or in other words, lawyers are a value add, not a necessity.

That's not what due process is.

Part of due process requires the ability to know an action breaks the law before you do that action.

Meaning it has to be possible to understand what is legal/illegal for all american citizens, not just the ones rich enough to afford a lawyer.

Re: Is Stack Exchange in violation of NY labor law by using volunteer moderators?

#155

Post by strictnein » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #144

strictnein wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a state be able to stop me from doing whatever I want with my own time? It's my decision to do things with a group of others, not the government's.

Two reasons. From a social justice perspective, allowing free labor is an insult to human dignity and leech in society. It is often associated with coercive behavior, and when events happen, like “workplace” injuries, society is stuck with cleaning up the mess. From a revenue perspective, free labor is an untaxed gift to the company, and it’s highly likely that “free” really means compensation by some indirect, off b…

> "a social justice perspective, allowing free labor is an insult to human dignity and leech in society"

...... no, it isn't. The state does not own me. I should be free to do what I want with whomever I want. Not just whatever you deem to be "in a group or charitable endeavor".