Labor lawyers: How is it legal for Competitor Group to use volunteers without paying minimum wage at races?

doing a volunteer job like manning the volunteer water table or the chute crew is one thing doing a job that otherwise would be a paid position is another IMO

thresholdtalent wrote:

The OP raises an important question. Many respondents are simply ignoring the key distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit. It makes me think about my volunteer experience with the BAA last year at the Boston Marathon. In previous years, when I volunteered I worked the registration/packet pick-up tables. Last year I was assigned to an adidas booth where I helped sell jackets. It didn't feel like volunteering so much as working for adidas. Granted, we received a lightweight jacket, as all volunteers do, but I don't think that would qualify as compensation, especially as I doubt anyone reported taxable income as a result. For-profits simply should not be profiting off of the work of volunteers.

A true volunteer makes the decision to do so, if a person thinks they are doing something that they should be paid for the simply should not volunteer. I think the question comes in when employees are pressured into "volunteering" by their employers. In this case the owner of a running store or perhaps a shoe company. In these cases the employer should be paying their employees for "volunteering" and I think in most cases they do. Not sure of the exact details of Rizzo's situtation.

Rizzo's employer (the running store) was making money off of the RNR event. That is who should be paying Rizzo, not the Competitor Group.

The biggest problem for anyone trying to bring a suit under the FLSA against a for-profit group like Competitor is that the FLSA doesn't allow class actions, only opt-in collective actions. That means you'd have to get each volunteer to make an affirmative choice to sue for non-payment. Good luck finding a lawyer to bring that suit (even if it does have merit, which I believe it would). State law may be different. That'd probably be the best bet if anyone actually wanted to bring a suit on behalf of volunteers.

thresholdtalent wrote:

The OP raises an important question. Many respondents are simply ignoring the key distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit. It makes me think about my volunteer experience with the BAA last year at the Boston Marathon. In previous years, when I volunteered I worked the registration/packet pick-up tables. Last year I was assigned to an adidas booth where I helped sell jackets. It didn't feel like volunteering so much as working for adidas. Granted, we received a lightweight jacket, as all volunteers do, but I don't think that would qualify as compensation, especially as I doubt anyone reported taxable income as a result. For-profits simply should not be profiting off of the work of volunteers.

Why wouldn't that qualify as compensation? You received something in return for your work.

It's hard to argue against consent to do something for free (volunteer). However, Competetor is obliged to provide Workers compensation if/when volunteers are hurt on the "job". Want to get $$, get hurt volunteering b/c of negligence (not yours).

Fascinating

I see several layers

1) volunteering at a race for a large corp like CGI seems odd, but many local race organizers are for profits too. How would the MLB lawsuit affect these small entities and racing opportunities

2) was this an issue before CGI dropped its elite athlete program?

3) I think if you volunteer that you should not have any expectation of pay. Maybe some schwag. At some events you get to watch the event. Heck I volunteered at the 1996 Olympics (a non profit mind you) and saw tens of thousands of dollars worth of events for free.

Please. This is a free market. CGI doesn't care how hard he worked for the race. It's everyone's choice to work for shit pay, right? McDonald's pays minimum wage because people accept it. Or they can find another job. Just like Rizzo or anyone else. He isn't employed by Competitor anyway, moron.

trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:

65 hours ~ 2-3 weeks of marathon training (~4 hours/day). Your comment is like saying you local 5k winner works at $400/hour for his 15minute 5k win last weekend ($100 first place). This doesn't account for the hours/days/months of work leading up to that win.

Yes, that was my point....maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

This is something my wife had mentioned to me a long time ago and I didn't really pay much attention, so I brought it up again last night at dinner. She says it would be pretty much a no brainer for her to take the case if a volunteer ever came to her office. FLSA violations require the losing party to pay the attorney fees so she said she'd happy take them for nothing. She figures that Competitor is relying on the fact that 99.9% of volunteers are unlikely to seek out an employment attorney, since they would be entitled to very little compensation. In terms of the guy who said that a company that makes millions has plenty of lawyers, she makes her living suing companies that make millions and screw up. It happens every single day.

I asked her about the notion of paying charities a nominal amount and having the volunteers work for the charity. She said that it was a pretty good ruse, but that the court would see through it unless they were very, very careful. As a for instance, she said that if they recruited volunteers through their website and directed them from there to the charity that it would probably fail. She said that many companies attempt to circumvent the FLSA by classifying volunteer positions as "interns" but that courts subject these arrangements to detailed scrutiny and that most of the programs she has looked at are flawed. I asked her how many "volunteer" FLSA cases she has taken and she said about 50. I asked how many she failed to recover anything and she said "none". She said that they usually settle, because if the other side loses they have to pay a lot more in attorney fees if it goes to trial.

She said that going after "volunteer" and "intern" programs is a pretty hot issue in her field right now and that plaintiffs are mostly killing it in those cases. For what its worth, she is quite experienced in this area and teaches CLE courses to other attorneys in employment law.

Good stuff.

What state does your wife practice in?

Sounds like a REAL way that letsrunners could change the landscape. Get a bunch of tem to volunteer for a CGI event in your state. Afterwards, they could go to your wife, and the lawsuit could take off.

Would probably bring about change much quicker than the BroJos penning a poorly written editorial.

Linsanity wrote:

WTF does an internship have to do with anything?? If I volunteer at the soup kitchen does that mean I'm an intern? No. All the big races have volunteers, hedge fund owned or not. You can volunteer for anything.

I really hope you are not pre law.

Whoops!

I can't imagine why anyone would volunteer for a for profit race run by a private company.

whoopsiedaysie wrote:

Linsanity wrote:

WTF does an internship have to do with anything?? If I volunteer at the soup kitchen does that mean I'm an intern? No. All the big races have volunteers, hedge fund owned or not. You can volunteer for anything.

I really hope you are not pre law.

Whoops!

http://molawyersmedia.com/2014/10/06/for-one-law-professor-volunteer-gig-at-marathon-leads-to-federal-court/

Anyone have access to the paywall? I can't see the story.

Here is the lawsuit http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1849&context=historical

Paging Let's run dot com editorial staff.

How about a front page article on this story?

There is very little information on this out there.

It would be interesting to read more.

Competitor Group is the same pack of d-bags who sued the American Cancer Society. Vile humans. They get what they deserve.

Competitor Group is the same pack of d-bags who sued the American Cancer Society. Vile humans. They get what they deserve.

I remember that. And the American Cancer Society had to dole out nearly a half MILLION dollars just to settle. It's pretty disgusting behavior by CGI, really. Here's the link...