
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^the flip side, of course, is that there are innumerable existing charities which rely on the zero cost time and effort which is 'volunteered' by people to keep the charity operational.
Of course! And when someone decides to donate time and effort to a cause that they believe in, they are truly volunteers, and no one would expect them to be paid. As I have said before, if I decide to donate my time to a soup kitchen, this is true volunteerism, and I have no right to expect to be paid.
New mandates requiring that each of those 'volunteers' be considered as employees, thus triggering minimum wage pay requirements as well as all associated 'employee' rights, benefits, and costs, would absolutely bankrupt many of those existing charities. We are not talking about "new mandates." We are talking about the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1937, and which was enforced effectively in the 1950s and 1960s, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, at a time when our economy grew steadily
The shared legal question boils down to people ( still ) being allowed to 'volunteer' their time and effort ... as NFL cheerleaders or corporate interns or any other kind of unpaid work ... in exchange for 'intangible' benefits ... versus a ( new ) gov't mandate that all 'workers' be treated as employees. This is really where we disagree. We are no longer talking about volunteering for a charity. We are talking about people donating time to rich, powerful corporate entities so that they can make more money. If people are willing to work for "intangible benefits," then why would anyone get paid. It reminds me of the strip club customers (I'm sure you have run into the type) who find it disturbing that the performers wish to be paid for spending time with them. As I have said on occasion, "Its their fucking job. Of course they want to get paid. That doesn't mean that they don't like spending time with you or dancing for you, but its a job, and of course they deserve to get paid for it.
Your attempts to raise a minimum wage discussion ... and especially a discussion of a $15 minimum wage for fast food workers ... clearly falls under the heading of 'politics'. I did pick that example because I believe that low wages contribute to the suffering of children. But I could have picked any other cause that is important to me. Why does whoever replaced Dave Thomas get to decide what charities are worthy of MY dollars. He can donate to whatever he wants, but it is none of his damn business who I want to donate to.
Similarly, any attempts to separate different kinds of unpaid work into types of work 'worthy' of being treated as ( mostly ) unpaid volunteer work, versus other types of work which should be treated as employees with associated wages, benefits and other 'employer' costs, is also 'political'.
Bookmarks