Comment Those of us who started Hallissey, et al VS AOL (Score 2) 140
I'm going to list items that have been either misrepresented or misinterpeted so that you all may discuss the origins of this suit with knowledge as your base.
The lawsuit came after the Department of Labor investigation was over six months old. The individual that started the DOL investigation, had already passed his statute of limitations to gain financially from the investigation should a favorable decision be made. His reasons for starting the investigation was the unfair practices America Online employed upon its "volunteer force". Specifically, the termination and removal of many of the leadership of the guide progam on AOL, the attempt to charge us to work for them, the removal of all benefits for working for them, and the placement of a management team that destroyed the bulk of the program we were all in.
I was the one who started the lawsuit after joining the Dept of Labor investigation they informed me that the investigation would not be over by the time my statute of limitations was up. Out of everyone involved in the DOL investigation, I had the most concrete documentation of what our working conditions were like, the rules, logs, etc of our employment. I was urged to file a lawsuit to enable the usage of the 100 plus megs of data that has now become proof in our suit.
I filed the lawsuit with approximately 1 week of the statute of limitations remaining, with the DOL the clock doesn't stop, with the courts it does. If I win this case I believe I will only get 1 weeks worth of pay. Mr Williams has a slightly longer S.ofL. than I but not much. This is important to note due to the high quantity of people claiming we are doing this for money.
Neither of us will get much of anything financially.
When we were hired, we were hired as Remote Staff a term now used to describe ACI (AmericaOnline Communities Inc) employees, paid remotes who supervise the "volunteers". Our applications and agreements with AOL said we would be compensated with an Overhead account the value of which was $10 per online hour.
Partway through my employment with AOL, they removed our overhead accounts, tried to charge us 3.95 per month for our accounts, removed almost all tools we used to help members, and fired and terminated anyone who spoke out against them on any issue, including myself and Mr Williams.
My Account was noted do not reactivate contact operations security and my screen names were locked up so that nobody could create them. If I attempted to sign on with a friends account or one made for me, it was terminated. What did I do? I spoke out against an abusive management team and reposted a post from another guide showing AOL was lying to us about removal of 800 number access.
What were the rules of our employment? 300 plus pages of them, including but not limited to: peer reviews every 90 days, timecards beginning and ending of shifts, posting shift reports, the ability to remove chat privledges from members and have accounts checked for validity, as well as have their accounts actioned via reports we made upon them, mandatory training where exams and modules were the norm, observed shifts to ensure we were able to do the work required, forms to fill out in order to go on a LOA either medical or personal which had to be approved in order to receive (at one time they fired several parties with terminal illnesses due to their inability to do shifts, a few signed on from hospitals in order not to be fired) a Minimum time requirement (at one time was 14 hours per week) , formal procedures for disciplining guides which could be special classes they had to take to be "reformed" or removal of privledges etc.
Sounds an awful lot like an employee handbook doesn't it? I volunteered for BSA amongst many other organizations. We were trained what we were allowed to ask of a volunteer. We could not remove one without just cause and a paid scouter had to be in the decision making. It had to be problems with children not being treated properly or improper dressing etc. It could not be because they said the scoutmaster was an idiot, on AOL however, all you had to do was question management on any issue and you would be removed.
As someone who directly oversaw 45 scout leaders, trained hundreds more, was on district level scouting, I can speak quite firmly and accurately that the relationship with America Online was not a volunteer one.
So why did we do it?
Why did we let ourselves get into a situation where we were basically used and abused, and not leave? I can give you dozens of answers.
Many "volunteers" were disabled, terminally ill, or unable to function fully in society for a variety of reasons. Online they found a niche that they could not find offline. They were the ones truly dependant upon AOL. Ultimately, they were the ones hurt most by AOL.
Others got into the "power" of being a part of AOLs staff. Some abused it, some used it to pick up people for relationships/sex.
Still more enjoyed helping folks.
Me? I did it to get a paying job because I felt that by getting in on the ground floor I could work my way up. Almost all of my closest friends have gone onto paid positions, but they kept their mouths shut, I didn't.
And the prevailing reason all of the groups above had in common? Online addiction. It IS an addiction and many many many people are hooked firmly with it.
Now, should the lawsuit affect other organisations that use volunteers? Yes and no.
MSN pays their hosts, because their lawyers told them to. People who performed functions like we did on AOL or on MSN should be paid and compensated, as employees.
No this should not affect everyone, if the person running the site, lets use mine as an example, does not turn a profit off of your providing customer support, technical assistance, TOS enforcement (like we did on aol) then there is no problem. IF the company is making money hand over fist? Then they should pay the hosts.
I AM sorry volunteers are losing their free accounts, and I wish that didn't have to happen. But unfortunately, it does and will continue to happen. Too many companies have taken it upon themselves to follow in AOLs footsteps and use people with their permission yes, but use them illegally.
The law states that if the employer controls the relationship, it is not a volunteer one. The law states that you can not abuse someone just because they said you could.
I'd like to leave you with the following comments.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired for not performing her shifts because she was hospitalized with toxemia.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired while being hospitalized for a progressive disease.
An AOL "volunteer" signed on from a hospital bed to do his shift while undergoing chemotherapy because he was told if he did not he would be fired and terminated.
Innumerable "volunteers" were written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift so they could be fired.
9 AOL "volunteers" were told that after organizing the guide strike that they could come back only if they underwent a "reconditioning" class for several weeks.
By my count, out of people I know, 74 "volunteers" were fired, 34 labeled security risks and terminated, 0 were given an avenue for recourse.
And lastly, how DO you fire a volunteer?
Kelly Hallissey
www.observers.net
The lawsuit came after the Department of Labor investigation was over six months old. The individual that started the DOL investigation, had already passed his statute of limitations to gain financially from the investigation should a favorable decision be made. His reasons for starting the investigation was the unfair practices America Online employed upon its "volunteer force". Specifically, the termination and removal of many of the leadership of the guide progam on AOL, the attempt to charge us to work for them, the removal of all benefits for working for them, and the placement of a management team that destroyed the bulk of the program we were all in.
I was the one who started the lawsuit after joining the Dept of Labor investigation they informed me that the investigation would not be over by the time my statute of limitations was up. Out of everyone involved in the DOL investigation, I had the most concrete documentation of what our working conditions were like, the rules, logs, etc of our employment. I was urged to file a lawsuit to enable the usage of the 100 plus megs of data that has now become proof in our suit.
I filed the lawsuit with approximately 1 week of the statute of limitations remaining, with the DOL the clock doesn't stop, with the courts it does. If I win this case I believe I will only get 1 weeks worth of pay. Mr Williams has a slightly longer S.ofL. than I but not much. This is important to note due to the high quantity of people claiming we are doing this for money.
Neither of us will get much of anything financially.
When we were hired, we were hired as Remote Staff a term now used to describe ACI (AmericaOnline Communities Inc) employees, paid remotes who supervise the "volunteers". Our applications and agreements with AOL said we would be compensated with an Overhead account the value of which was $10 per online hour.
Partway through my employment with AOL, they removed our overhead accounts, tried to charge us 3.95 per month for our accounts, removed almost all tools we used to help members, and fired and terminated anyone who spoke out against them on any issue, including myself and Mr Williams.
My Account was noted do not reactivate contact operations security and my screen names were locked up so that nobody could create them. If I attempted to sign on with a friends account or one made for me, it was terminated. What did I do? I spoke out against an abusive management team and reposted a post from another guide showing AOL was lying to us about removal of 800 number access.
What were the rules of our employment? 300 plus pages of them, including but not limited to: peer reviews every 90 days, timecards beginning and ending of shifts, posting shift reports, the ability to remove chat privledges from members and have accounts checked for validity, as well as have their accounts actioned via reports we made upon them, mandatory training where exams and modules were the norm, observed shifts to ensure we were able to do the work required, forms to fill out in order to go on a LOA either medical or personal which had to be approved in order to receive (at one time they fired several parties with terminal illnesses due to their inability to do shifts, a few signed on from hospitals in order not to be fired) a Minimum time requirement (at one time was 14 hours per week) , formal procedures for disciplining guides which could be special classes they had to take to be "reformed" or removal of privledges etc.
Sounds an awful lot like an employee handbook doesn't it? I volunteered for BSA amongst many other organizations. We were trained what we were allowed to ask of a volunteer. We could not remove one without just cause and a paid scouter had to be in the decision making. It had to be problems with children not being treated properly or improper dressing etc. It could not be because they said the scoutmaster was an idiot, on AOL however, all you had to do was question management on any issue and you would be removed.
As someone who directly oversaw 45 scout leaders, trained hundreds more, was on district level scouting, I can speak quite firmly and accurately that the relationship with America Online was not a volunteer one.
So why did we do it?
Why did we let ourselves get into a situation where we were basically used and abused, and not leave? I can give you dozens of answers.
Many "volunteers" were disabled, terminally ill, or unable to function fully in society for a variety of reasons. Online they found a niche that they could not find offline. They were the ones truly dependant upon AOL. Ultimately, they were the ones hurt most by AOL.
Others got into the "power" of being a part of AOLs staff. Some abused it, some used it to pick up people for relationships/sex.
Still more enjoyed helping folks.
Me? I did it to get a paying job because I felt that by getting in on the ground floor I could work my way up. Almost all of my closest friends have gone onto paid positions, but they kept their mouths shut, I didn't.
And the prevailing reason all of the groups above had in common? Online addiction. It IS an addiction and many many many people are hooked firmly with it.
Now, should the lawsuit affect other organisations that use volunteers? Yes and no.
MSN pays their hosts, because their lawyers told them to. People who performed functions like we did on AOL or on MSN should be paid and compensated, as employees.
No this should not affect everyone, if the person running the site, lets use mine as an example, does not turn a profit off of your providing customer support, technical assistance, TOS enforcement (like we did on aol) then there is no problem. IF the company is making money hand over fist? Then they should pay the hosts.
I AM sorry volunteers are losing their free accounts, and I wish that didn't have to happen. But unfortunately, it does and will continue to happen. Too many companies have taken it upon themselves to follow in AOLs footsteps and use people with their permission yes, but use them illegally.
The law states that if the employer controls the relationship, it is not a volunteer one. The law states that you can not abuse someone just because they said you could.
I'd like to leave you with the following comments.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired for not performing her shifts because she was hospitalized with toxemia.
An AOL "volunteer" was fired while being hospitalized for a progressive disease.
An AOL "volunteer" signed on from a hospital bed to do his shift while undergoing chemotherapy because he was told if he did not he would be fired and terminated.
Innumerable "volunteers" were written up for being 30 seconds late for a shift so they could be fired.
9 AOL "volunteers" were told that after organizing the guide strike that they could come back only if they underwent a "reconditioning" class for several weeks.
By my count, out of people I know, 74 "volunteers" were fired, 34 labeled security risks and terminated, 0 were given an avenue for recourse.
And lastly, how DO you fire a volunteer?
Kelly Hallissey
www.observers.net
