

South by Southwest’s unpaid labor problem - psyklic
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/26/south_by_southwest%E2%80%99s_unpaid_labor_problem_why_its_risking_a_class_action_lawsuit/

======
jMyles
It's wrong, I think, to prohibit volunteering. Under almost any circumstance.
I think that volunteering, and the volunteer-cause relationship, is radical.
It might even be scary to some power brokers.

The really capricious part is when 'regulators' try to figure out what
constitutes a cause for which volunteering is OK. For-profit, not-for-profit,
religious, amateur sports, performance art - so many organizations blur the
lines between two of these.

~~~
greenyoda
_" The really capricious part is when 'regulators' try to figure out what
constitutes a cause for which volunteering is OK."_

The article states that SXSW, Inc. - the company that puts on SXSW - is a
"privately held, for-profit company". That's a business, not a "cause".

~~~
jMyles
It's cause enough to make people want to volunteer.

~~~
dalke
"Radical" volunteerism has clear and definite negatives.

Consider [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/open-job-at-boston-
law...](http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/open-job-at-boston-law-firm-
pays-just-10000-per-year/) where a lawfirm offered a job for $10,000 per year:

> Larry O’Bryan, one of the firm’s partners, said he’s received about 32
> applications for the $10K per year job, since posting it one week ago. He
> said that while the pay is low, the lawyer who is eventually hired will gain
> valuable experience.

Obviously $10K/year for the first year is enough to make people want to sign
up. The estimated eventual gains are worthwhile, so by your logic this is
acceptable.

A negative is when volunteerism leads to stratification by economic class. If
a career typically requires several years of free labor or below poverty
wages, then mostly only those with access to money - through savings, charity
of friends and family, or perhaps a loan - can afford that career.

But those who are poor, with less access to the cash needed to survive those
first few years or facing higher loan rates, are much less likely to enter
that career.

As an extreme case, if all white-collar careers required several years of free
internship then mostly only the children of white-collar parents will be able
to have that job. I am morally opposed to this sort of self-perpetuating class
division.

"I think that volunteering, and the volunteer-cause relationship, is radical.
It might even be scary to some power brokers."

 _Anything_ might be scary to 'some power brokers', so there's no message in
your statement.

In practice, we see that Fox Searchlight and Charlie Rose at PBS are examples
of organizations which enjoyed the 'volunteer-cause relationship', and had to
pay fines for it. Are they power brokers? There are similar lawsuits against
ICM, NBCUniversal, Conde Nast, and the Hearst Corporation - are they power
brokers?

If yes, then the 'volunteer-cause relationship' is not scary to them. If no,
then bringing up 'power brokers' is tangential to the discussion.

