In January 2013 the Labor Department audited our employment practices. Four months later the bureaucracy concluded that our volunteers are actually “employees.” As such, we were told that we were in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding minimum wages and overtime pay. I was told this during a face-to-face meeting, without any accompanying written complaint or advance notice of allegations....
The department is ordering me to conduct business to my detriment, and threatening hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil penalties if I fail to comply. Yet a federal court has ruled that I lack any meaningful recourse until the agency files an official complaint, which it has not done....
Oktubre 31, 2015
"Franz Kafka in Footie Pajamas."
A great column title. Subtitle: "My consignment company for secondhand children’s clothes has somehow run afoul of federal regulators." (That's in the Wall Street Journal, so Google some text to get your own link if that doesn't work.)
Mga Post
31 komento:
Lording over the Lord's work is next. Why let good hearted people do what Government should do?
Seriously -- I'm sure that someone at the Labor Department is proud of doing their "good paying job."
I will suggest that Kids "R" Us (or some similar purveyor of Kids' clothing) complained about this to the Govt -- and the Govt took action.
I'm reminded of Carly Fiorino's description of Crony Capitalism at the last debate. Huge Corporations squashing any kind of competition with the aid of the Government.
Bureaucrats have to do things like this -- otherwise they sit around each day and do nothing -- and even the Govt might not necessarily employ people to do this. Every day they must cast nets to see what can be caught and turned into work. Because safety!
@MM
You're bordering on crime think here bro !
"The case raises questions about what it means to volunteer in the 21st-century economy."
Many hospitals rely upon volunteers to greet visitors, escort patients/family to and fro etc. Is this practice in trouble too?
Here's my prediction: not a single law professor or biglaw firm will volunteer to help this woman. They are much too busy helping Gitmo detainees to bother with white working class trash in Arkansas. Anyone want to take the other side of that bet?
Private charity competes with the narrative.
MadMan is quite right. That's how it works in the age of Obama.
"Every day they must cast nets to see what can be caught and turned into work."
What a great turn of phrase, MM.
I suspect that his organization is also not in compliance with consumer product safety regulations in terms of distribution children's (used) pajamas that are not up to current requirements for fire retardant safety.
If volunteers could be unionized and forced to pay dues, that would make all these problems just go away.
When I was young and inexperienced, I voted Democrat because I had the sweet, earnest idea in my head that they want more government offices and functions in order to help people. Because, help people. Bless my heart.
Time to read Charles Murray's new book, "Without Permission "
Just don't do it.
She must made donations to the wrong political party.
Then, until an official complaint is given the consignment company should be able to continue on with business as usual & see the face to face complaint with the bureaucrats as insignificant & just an agency tactic. Am I wrong? You have to call peoples' bluff sometimes.
Actually, the feds are right here: strictly speaking, a for-profit business isn't allowed to recruit volunteers to do work for the company. That's the law. But there's an easy answer: just call them "interns."
From the article: ...I knew that going into business would bring challenges. What I didn’t guess was that the biggest one would be the government. This is true for any business, I know it's true for my medical practice. The time I have to spend documenting compliance with government regulations is very much a drain and a challenge.
And the usual suspects wonder why jobs go overseas.
The feds wrote the law, Jane. Now they use it as a bludgeon.
"Jane the Actuary said...
Actually, the feds are right here: strictly speaking, a for-profit business isn't allowed to recruit volunteers to do work for the company. That's the law. But there's an easy answer: just call them "interns." "
Serious question: Why would any business want to register as for-profit, when it could register as not-for-profit, pay less taxes, be exempt from all kinds of work rules, and still pay the top executives in salary all the money they would otherwise have gotten as business profits?
Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.
Rusty, "the feds wrote the law" is a bit too vague. These particular government officials didn't write the law. Congress wrote the law. For this woman to operate under this business model, Congress would need to change the law, because this is what having a minimum wage means.
"I suspect that his organization is also not in compliance with consumer product safety regulations in terms of distribution children's (used) pajamas that are not up to current requirements for fire retardant safety."
Based on their website, they've already thought of this and actively follow product recalls and such. I was surprised to see that. This is otherwise distressing and I don't like to think about what it says about entrepreneurship in America.
Anyone find a non-pay link to the article? My GoogleFu has failed me.
Last term, the Suoreme Court decided a case involving the EPA, which was threatening to fine a landowner for violating some admin requirements, and rejected the Gov't's argument that a court could not consider the merits until the agency took final action. The threats, and the potential for ruinous fines, were enough to permit the landowner to bring suit challenging the EPA's assertion of authority. I've forgotten the details if that case, but this store owner might find it helpful if she wanted to take another crack at asking a court to intervene.
When I founded Rhea Lana’s, a children’s clothing consignment company, 18 years ago, I knew that going into business would bring challenges. What I didn’t guess was that the biggest one would be the government.
Well, now you know.
Richard Dolan,
I remember that case. I recall that the potential fines were accruing while the EPA had still not made a final decision. I think that was, or should have been, a major factor in the court smacking down the government's argument.
clint said..
Why would any business want to register as for-profit, when it could register as not-for-profit, pay less taxes, be exempt from all kinds of work rules, and still pay the top executives in salary all the money they would otherwise have gotten as business profits?
Who do you think you are? The Clinton Foundation?
IRS will unleash their anti-Tea-Party squads to crush any "non-profit" who does not donate to Democratic politicians.
If we want to nip this in the bud, someone should submit a law declaring campaigns that receive more than $xxx,xxx should not be allowed to have volunteers.
"I suspect that his organization is also not in compliance with consumer product safety regulations in terms of distribution children's (used) pajamas that are not up to current requirements for fire retardant safety."
Oh! something just clicked for me, because of this comment. I've been looking for secondhand footsie pajamas for awhile now and have been getting very frustrated because I can't find them anywhere. Now I realize stores probably won't take them because they don't know if they're compliant or not. Ugh.
Birches, That is exactly right. When the law was proposed the second hand stores complained that they had no way to verify if the pj's were compliant. The government, of course, did not listen to the little guy. So, they added a bit to the burden on the consumer.
I am associated with an organization which does not charge member dues, which does not pay any member anything, which does not pay for meeting spaces, which has no budget, and in which all work is done on a purely volunteer basis. We have an "internship" program for young people who do not qualify for actual membership. Mostly they take care of things like making sure our guests are attended to during meetings. They, of course, also do not get paid anything.
A member's spouse, who practices in state labor law, recently told us she believes our internship program is in violation of state law.
Oh, joy.
I wonder which law professor will volunteer to help this business out? Not holding my breath. Just click-bait.
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.