
LinkedIn to pay nearly $6M in unpaid overtime wages and damages to 359 employees - e15ctr0n
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20140940.htm
======
Smudge
> This company has shown a great deal of integrity by fully cooperating with
> investigators and stepping up to the plate without hesitation to help make
> workers whole ... We are particularly pleased that LinkedIn also has
> committed to take positive and practical steps towards securing future
> compliance.

I'm surprised they're getting praised so much for complying. It's not like
they had a choice.

Instead of commending them on their newfound diligence, we should be asking
_why_ and _how_ these overtime violations occurred in the first place. Was it
a systemic problem with lower management incentives? How far up did knowledge
of the violations extend? Why wasn't it detected until now, and what can we do
to prevent it from happening elsewhere, not just within LinkedIn?

~~~
conistonwater
There is a cynical and pessimistic interpretation (just an idle thought; I
know nothing at all): the investigators are stretched thin, so instead of
investigating anything themselves, they instead ask LinkedIn to investigate
itself. LinkedIn slaps itself a little bit, writes a report, agrees to a
settlement, maybe manages to soften some language or push its own
interpretation of events, "we did this, this and this, but we never ever did
any of that".

The investigators never had enough resources to do an investigation on their
own, they check that LinkedIn's report is roughly as stern as their own report
would have been based on evidence and interpretations presented in LinkedIn's
report and what investigators already knew, agree to a settlement. The outcome
is that LinkedIn is "punished" and investigators look like they are doing
their job.

~~~
mreiland
does it really matter when they did the thing in the first place?

It's like congratulating a car thief for being an upstanding citizen because
they admitted to the thievery and promised never to do it again after paying a
fine.

~~~
Kluny
It could very well have been an unintentional violation of the rules. A few
bad habits here and there turn into a cultural practice before anyone notices,
everyone assumes that someone else must be in charge of enforcing compliance
with that particular rule and that mythical someone must know something they
don't that makes the rule breaking okay, somehow. It's easy to do. Never
ascribe to malice what can be covered with stupidity, etc. And don't forget
that the people suffering from this rule violation and the ones who were
supposed to be enforcing it could be the same people - companies are made of
people.

~~~
crdoconnor
"This accidental car thief has shown a great deal of integrity by fully
cooperating with investigators and stepping up to the plate without hesitation
to help make the car owner whole ... We are particularly pleased that the car
thief also has committed to take positive and practical steps towards securing
future compliance." \-- nobody, ever.

Let's be honest here: the prosecutors are praising them because corporate
regulatory capture is so deeply embedded within our regulatory institutions.
NOT because it was unintentional.

I can't really bring myself to believe that it wasn't intentional either.

You get the same kind of "let's let 'em down easy" speak from the SEC & from
the Federal Reserve toward the banks. Hell, you even get it from the courts
when it's a rich white guy indicted for a DUI or snorting cocaine.

~~~
jcrites
The car thief doesn't seem like a great analogy.

If an hourly employee checks and responds to email in the evening on their
phone then they are probably "on the clock" and need to be paid for it. How
many companies enforce that? Probably not a lot. It's very easy for me to
imagine the situation that Kluny described.

If employees are trusted with discretion about when they work, and the company
benefits from flexible work hours (responding to email at home), then the
solution of course is for employees to be salaried.

~~~
crdoconnor
>The car thief doesn't seem like a great analogy.

I don't see why not. It is about as easy for a company like linkedin to commit
accidental wage theft as it is for a black guy in the 'hood to accidentally
steal a car.

>If employees are trusted with discretion about when they work, and the
company benefits from flexible work hours (responding to email at home), then
the solution of course is for employees to be salaried.

The point being that this solution is SO simple and obvious that not
implementing it couldn't possibly have been an accident.

Companies like LinkedIn don't make 'mistakes' like this that benefit their
employees to the tune of $6m. Ever.

------
allsystemsgo
I don't get it. So if I'm working overtime for my employer, a lot, I'm
entitled to money?

I get that my work after hours is essentially "free" labor. But I wasn't aware
that there are actually laws that say salaried employees are entitled to more
compensation when working after hours.

~~~
yulaow
As a EU citizen I hoped to see a /s under your post. I do not want to be rude
but here it is obvious that if you work overtime you must be compensated and
also very well (usually 1,5-2 times more than regular hours). And not only it,
in some states, like mine, you can work only a limited amount of hours (6 or
8, I don't remember well) overtime per week, otherwise it is illegal.

~~~
jessriedel
Th original link is to a US company operating in the US being investigated for
breaking US laws by the US government. This forum is hosted by a US company on
US soil and the large majority of readers and commenters work in the US. It's
safe to assume that allsystemsgo is talking about US law unless otherwise
stated.

~~~
yulaow
I am sorry, but what I meant was "I thought that in any developed country the
overtime work was obviously paid" not that "oh I think you were in EU zone".

Basically for me is very hard to understand why I should work for free ( I
could want to work overtime for free, but if I am imposed to work overtime I
must be paid)

~~~
hueving
>Basically for me is very hard to understand why I should work for free ( I
could want to work overtime for free, but if I am imposed to work overtime I
must be paid)

If you are in software engineering, the answer is that the US pays the best
salaries in the world. You are not working for free if you are salaried. You
sign a contract to fulfill certain duties regardless of the amount of time it
takes.

~~~
vidarh
> US pays the best salaries in the world.

No, a few small regions in the US pays _amongst_ the best salaries in the
world. Most of the US have software engineering salaries that are nothing
special. And lots of places in Europe have plenty of jobs at similar salary
levels to e.g. Silicon Valley.

> You are not working for free if you are salaried. You sign a contract to
> fulfill certain duties regardless of the amount of time it takes.

... and most of the developed world have seen through this bullshit. In the
EU, for example, the Working Time Directive sets limits, and if the company
assigns duties that are impossible to carry out within those limits, then that
is the company's problem. For a reason: A lot of companies tried (and try) to
abuse the notion of a salaried employee to pile on duties far in excess of
what can reasonably be carried out within the expected contract period.

(looking to exempted groups in the UK: my ex was until recently a lawyer for
one of the largest lawfirms in the world, based out of London; while on paper
her contracted hours are about 40 and her salary on that basis seemed amazing,
her _actual_ hours based on assigned duties that would never be possible to
fit into 40 hours per week brought her actual hourly rate below that of he
secretary)

~~~
aianus
> And lots of places in Europe have plenty of jobs at similar salary levels to
> e.g. Silicon Valley.

Honest question: where? Switzerland? And how much are we talking? A fresh
22-year-old graduate can easily make $110k + stock his first year out of
school in SV.

------
pudo
This is one of these HN discussion moments when you, our American friends,
just have imagine all of Europe sitting with an open mouth, enjoying the
radical feeling of labour law disaster tourism.

~~~
mynewwork
Funny, "labor law disaster tourism" could also explain how an American feels
visiting Spain, France or Italy right now.

No system is perfect, but let's not pretend labor laws in the EU don't come
with massive downsides (unemployment, difficulty to start or grow a business,
purchasing power of discretionary income).

Here's a simple rule of thumb for understanding the situation in the US: if
you have to be at work at a specific time and get scheduled breaks, you
probably get paid overtime. If you're judged on your output and nobody notices
when you go get coffee, eat lunch or start in the morning, you probably get
paid a consistent salary regardless of exact hours you were in the office.

~~~
crdoconnor
>No system is perfect, but let's not pretend labor laws in the EU don't come
with massive downsides (unemployment, difficulty to start or grow a business,
purchasing power of discretionary income).

Unemployment wasn't caused by labor laws, it was caused by intentionally
destructive pan-EU fiscal policy.

Difficulty to start or grow a business - compared to silicon valley, maybe.
Fewer investors / smaller markets. Not really a labor law thing.

Purchasing power of discretionary income - caused by the high dollar, which is
in turn caused by US military hegemony. Not labor laws.

------
crdblb
The reach of these kinds of lawsuits (see also the Yahoo one from a few years
ago) goes far beyond the affected employees. For example, I'm a dev but I've
never worked in ops or any other role where I was considered "on call", so I
have never had the opportunity for being in the plaintiff class of any of
these kinds of suits. But just reading about them makes me reconsider a lot of
things. Despite not being "on call", I have still put in tons of unpaid
overtime over the years, which is unfortunately considered typical for a
software dev these days. Reading about lawsuits like this has essentially
motivated me to stop doing that. If others are getting paid for overtime (even
if it's through lawsuits) but I'm not, then I won't put in those extra hours.
It's changed my life for the better, despite not being directly affected.

------
morgante
Does anyone have insight into which LinkedIn employees this actually applies
to?

I'd think that the majority of LinkedIn employees are computer professionals
or sales people, to whom overtime laws don't apply.

Also, this thread has a lot of consternation/discussion about overtime payment
for software developers. If you consider our bargaining power, overtime
protection is completely unnecessary. Just find a new job where people will
either pay you a commiserate salary with your work hours, or find one which
doesn't expect ludicrous hours.

Despite the stereotypes, it's perfectly possible to find great technology jobs
where you work 40-45 hours a week.

------
larrys
I had this happen to me at a company that I owned in the past. I got the DOL
to chop the total amount due in half and then got them to allow us to pay it
out over 4 or 5 years. (All without a lawyer btw...)

Edit: Reason for downvotes?

~~~
parfe
>Edit: Reason for downvotes?

Because you're bragging about screwing workers out of paid rest time.

[http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/hoursworked/screenEE5.asp](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/hoursworked/screenEE5.asp)

How obscure!

~~~
larrys
Not true. I was bragging about negotiating the government down. Reason you
(and others) jumped to that conclusion?

~~~
gergles
Liquidated damages the DOL collects are paid out to the workers, so the
assumption is that you are bragging about screwing the workers by
'negotiating' damages.

~~~
larrys
Let me ask you a question. Do you personally (or anyone else) think that there
is anything wrong with trying to negotiate down what the government tried to
recover and possibly penalize? Before you answer please review the facts here
again:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8138922](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8138922)

~~~
danm_cc
"Do you personally (or anyone else) think that there is anything wrong with
trying to negotiate down ... backpay owed by law to employees of my own
company" FTFY.

Oh, and the answer is yes; there's a lot wrong with that.

------
rainhacker
How come Investment Banks are never fined for this ?

People have died working overtime in the past:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-22/bank-of-america-
sta...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-22/bank-of-america-staff-
quizzed-as-coroner-probes-intern-s-death.html)

------
shunya
Who are these employees? I don't know any developers who get paid overtime.
Even at shitty companies with shitty pay I have worked at least 55 hrs/week
and during launches over 70 hrs/week.

------
djvv
I wonder how did the Linkedin employees organized in order to file the
lawsuit? I imagine that, if the wrong person heard about the plan, the
organizers would be fired right away.

------
aneeskA
I live in INDIA. I read the verdict and think - I could have been a
millionaire if this happened here :D

------
codezero
I'm really curious if this was isolated to a particular department or team, or
type of worker.

------
revelation
_prohibiting off-the-clock work to all nonexempt employees_

I presume this doesn't include _computer professionals_ , which for some
reason are exempt [1], as are sales staff on commission or, you know,
_farmworkers_. Can someone explain why this insanity continues?

The original source for that exemption seems to be [2], an act from 1990

 _To eliminate "substantial documentary evidence" requirement for minimum wage
determination for American Samoa_

which also includes this provision. All I can figure from the history of this
bill that can be found online is that in 1990 Idaho, senator James McClure
decided to fuck over tech workers and sneaked that into a bill on American
samoa ( _snooze_ ). 25 years later and here we are not getting paid.

[1]:
[http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp](http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp)

[2]:
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg2...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg2871.pdf)

~~~
gnu8
It persists partially because tech industry workers are especially susceptible
to class confusion. That is, the startup culture stock option lottery deludes
them into thinking they are a part of the ownership class rather than the
working class. Thus, they allow basically all of the fruits of their labor to
be stolen from them.

That, and powerful lobbyists keep anything from changing.

~~~
toehead2000
There are a lot of comments like this in this thread, the gist of which being
"people who don't demand overtime pay are deluded/stupid/victims of false
consciousness/act against their own interest."

Pretty much everyone is an at will employee, free to go find another job.
Since these exempt positions tend to be high skill, the logic behind these
laws is that these kinds of employees don't need this extra layer of
government protection between them and their paycheck. They have the
wherewithal to go find another employer if they feel they're being treated
unfairly.

The left wing side of this argument is certainly getting a hearing, but coming
to a different conclusion doesn't make you a deluded member of the under class
(if I'm interpreting your claptrap correctly).

~~~
Iftheshoefits
You missed the point entirely and then went off on a rant about the "left
wing" which is unsupported by any evidence or even coherent argument in your
comment.

Implicit in your comment is an assumption that there is no information
asymmetry and that power (real power--the social, political, and economic
ability to actually assert oneself) is shared relatively equally between the
owners of capital and laborers. I stopped being surprised that people actually
believe such "claptrap" long ago, but am still amused by it.

~~~
toehead2000
The main point of the parent is this:

"people who don't demand overtime pay are deluded/stupid/victims of false
consciousness/act against their own interest"

right? This is was I took him gnu8 to mean when he said "... the startup
culture stock option lottery deludes them into thinking they are a part of the
ownership class rather than the working class. Thus, they allow basically all
of the fruits of their labor to be stolen from them." What other point am I
missing?

I think my post and the follow up make a pretty coherent argument that no, in
fact, mass delusion on the part of tech industry workers is not the best
explanation. The delusion argument is an argument from the "left wing,"
especially when given in terms of capital and labor and conflict between
classes and so forth. That's just a positive statement, not a normative one,
so I don't understand how that can constitute a "rant."

What I think might be illuminating to Europeans who are incredulous about how
our workers would allow the "fruits of their labor to be stolen," would be to
hear why they might not consider working unpaid overtime to be being stolen
from.

~~~
gnu8
You understood my comment correctly. False consciousness is a good explanation
because of the fact that tech workers accept such a meager proportion of the
profits generated by their work without complaint. Why would anyone knowingly
accept less money than they're worth? They wouldn't, knowingly. It must be
unknowingly. They must not know they're being exploited because there is no
significant organization. Instead they all act as "temporarily embarrassed
millionaires" and try to increase their wealth incrementally, by competing
amongst themselves for promotions and raises, working 100 hour weeks at
startups for equity, and so on.

You suggest that they look elsewhere for a better deal, as if the free market
price for their labor is by definition a fair price, but it is not, because of
the power differential between capital and labor. It's not that all business
collude consciously against labor(1), it's simply that the exception in the
law for tech workers drives the price down, because it's purely good
management not to pay any more than necessary for labor.

I'm not suggesting mass strikes, labor unions, and Marxist claptrap as a
solution. Removing the loophole would be an entirely reasonable starting
point. I've never seen anything approaching a rational justification for the
tech worker exemption.

(1) Except when they do, like with the recent wage fixing scandal amongst a
subset of well known companies.

