COMPETITOR GROUP (Rock'nRoll Marathon races) is SCREWED

Well if you paid them they wouldn't be volunteers now would they?

Xjxjxjxjcjxjjcjx wrote:

Well if you paid them they wouldn't be volunteers now would they?

The point is that a for-profit used volunteers as labor.

Imagine McDonalds used some volunteers to clean the restaurant every night.

Whateverr wrote:

Xjxjxjxjcjxjjcjx wrote:

Well if you paid them they wouldn't be volunteers now would they?

The point is that a for-profit used volunteers as labor.

Imagine McDonalds used some volunteers to clean the restaurant every night.

They are called volunteers.

Ironman races have a bunch of people volunteering at aid stations. They are for profit.

What part of "volunteer" do people not understand? If they cared about whether the group is for profit or non profit then maybe they should have used the googles. It's not hard.

This is some law prof trying to get peer reviewed papers out of some garbage argument.

Case will fail.

If they have to pay all the people who help set up and hand out water, then how much more will races cost?

$100 5k? $500 26.2?

We would lose a lot of races probably.

People honestly "volunteer" with the idea that they are going to get paid?!? That's ridiculous. If you want to get paid to work a race, then don't volunteer. Become part of the race staff and do the year-round work necessary to actually justify getting paid. Volunteering allows you to be part of the race, experience it by helping others and feeling pretty darn good when you go home. What a joke!

Ragnar races also rely heavily on volunteers. Teams are forced to supply 3 of their own or pay extra fees. If you volunteer to be a major exchange coordinator (counts as 3 volunteers), your shift might be 16 hours long with no breaks.

Whateverr wrote:

Xjxjxjxjcjxjjcjx wrote:

Well if you paid them they wouldn't be volunteers now would they?

The point is that a for-profit used volunteers as labor.

Imagine McDonalds used some volunteers to clean the restaurant every night.

How dumb would you be if you volunteered to clean a McDonald's every night?

Pretty dumb.

You folks are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the volunteers know they are being paid or not.

The point is that we have labor laws that prevent corporations from utilizing labor without paying them at least a minimum wage. Those rules are different, however, for charitable organizations.

In short, if you are a for profit company, you can't Tom Sawyer the gullible people of America into handing out water or manning an aid station unless you pay them.

Mundus Vult wrote:

You folks are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the volunteers know they are being paid or not.

The point is that we have labor laws that prevent corporations from utilizing labor without paying them at least a minimum wage. Those rules are different, however, for charitable organizations.

In short, if you are a for profit company, you can't Tom Sawyer the gullible people of America into handing out water or manning an aid station unless you pay them.

Next thing you know, spectators are going to sue because they don't get paid for providing moral support.

You are missing the point that the complainant here is a law school professor trying to expand an area of law to publish papers about.

Don't volunteer if you think you should get paid.

plaintiff = law prof

http://law.slu.edu/people/yvette-joy-liebesman

And they representing attorneys want to make it a class action

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Will competitor owe 10 years of wages for 100,000 people retroactively?

Random Runner Dude wrote:

If I were a race director, I'd be very careful about not paying my volunteers...

What it doesn't mention in the RW report (that I can see) is that not-for-profit organizations, from New York Road Runners to your local fire department, would not be affected by this ruling.

asdfsfsaffadsaf wrote:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Well, yes, of course. Law = Economics.

The question is whether you want the RnR owners (and investors) to profit more or whether you want the workers (or their attorneys) to profit.

I don't see a "right" or "wrong" in this. This is just a choice that--at least at this point--our laws have made: you can't circumvent labor laws in the guise of "charity" work.

Mundus Vult wrote:

The point is that we have labor laws that prevent corporations from utilizing labor without paying them at least a minimum wage. Those rules are different, however, for charitable organizations.

It sounds like competitor teams up with charities that profit from these races but must provides volunteers. Competitor still takes 90% of the profits.

The ? is if this "trick" is legal or not.

No law comes before economics. They are our ideals. Econ is limited by law in our social model

These are ppl just wanting to profit and get a settlement using a sham argument. The plaintiff is a law prof? Really?

I actually went to law school and the arguments in the briefs are terrible.

Don't make this more than what it is.

Would you try to write off your time as "wages" for taxes when you volunteer for charity?

People are volunteering their time and that is it

If they were fundraising, that is different. People are volunteering for the race and not for a company or a charity. It's for a race.

Nutella1 wrote:

Mundus Vult wrote:

The point is that we have labor laws that prevent corporations from utilizing labor without paying them at least a minimum wage. Those rules are different, however, for charitable organizations.

It sounds like competitor teams up with charities that profit from these races but must provides volunteers. Competitor still takes 90% of the profits.

The ? is if this "trick" is legal or not.

Nice summary of the other issue that is not discussed. If there's a nonprofit they get pennies on the dollar in exchange for the charity run angle.

For profits running under charity cover needs to be stopped. One or the other.

They always say the "partner charity"

not "charity race"

It's a sham lawsuit

How screwed are they?

Wasn't this just getting past preliminary stage?

It's not even near Motion for Summary Judgment

Who thinks they will win if it doesn't settle?

So now you are going to see a bunch of for-profits switch to non-profit status (much how NYRR laughably holds itself out as a non-profit when it most certainly is a for-profit) to get around this issue.

I also think that WTC gets around this issue with its volunteers because volunteering at an ironman or half ironman race usually gives the volunteer guaranteed entry into next year's race and it would be very easy to argue that however many hours worked at minimum wage is worth less than guaranteed entry into a race that sells out in minutes.