How to pay for the bailout and cash for clunkers

[footfootfoot]

all while making a big show of pissing away 50 tax dollars for every five you get...

http://www.cooperativegrocer.coop/ar...dex.php?id=126

In October of 1990, we were subjected to a "routine" audit by the Department of Labor (DOL). This investigation found some minor problems we had to address. They were not serious, but in some areas we were ignorant of the law. Those things have been fixed, and we are now in full compliance and have paid our fines. The only remaining complaint is the volunteer issue.

The DOL offered to resolve the issue for $75,000. This money would be paid to the volunteers for the time they volunteered. Our Gold Star volunteer program had allowed members a 5 percent discount for three hours of work per week. The $75,000 was computed by multiplying minimum wage times three hours per week times 52 weeks, times two years (the statute of limitations), times each volunteer. Never mind the fact that one volunteer did snow removal -- there are several weeks out of the year when we don't get much snow in Missouri. Never mind that one volunteer gave legal advice that consisted of one or two brief phone calls. Never mind that one volunteer was a mentally handicapped young woman -- we were working in cooperation with her case worker to see if she could be trained and be able to hold a steady job. These volunteers are all member-owners and do not want to be paid. The DOL says they know that but it's the law, Nor does it matter that we are a not-for-profit organization. The DOL also stated that the board of directors should be paid because of their role as decision-makers.

The case worker went so far as to say that if you are in a store and there is a box of cereal on the floor, it would be against the law (her interpretation of it) to voluntarily bend over and pick it up and place it back on the shelf.

The statement was made that if we wrote a check to "our volunteers," most of them would just sign it back over to the co-op. The compliance officer said ifthe co-op accepts these checks, "we'll get you for coercion."

When we were audited in October of 1990, the auditor had less than a year's experience on the job. The lawyer our case was later assigned to by the Labor Department had just passed the bar in September of 1991. I ask, could it be possible that these two new DOL employees are testing their authority, throwing their weight around and trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of a 15-year-old company and fourteen full-time and fourteen part-time employees? If we do go to court, the case may set a precedent on volunteer labor everywhere.

We have tried to contact our Senators and Representatives. Their people tell us they will look into it. Then in two or three weeks we get a letter telling us that the U.S. Department of Labor is investigating us, as if we didn't already know that.

[lookout123]

We should definitely turn health care over to this type of organization. Think of the improvements we could have.

[Happy Monkey]

A healthcare equivalent of this issue is restrictions against volunteering for human experientation. There are specific instances where it may be a good idea to let people slide, and there may be poorly handled enforcement (one way or the other), but on the whole it is a good law.

If a company can get workers by calling them volunteers, and compensating them in a method that is cheaper than the minimum wage, and not get called on it, they will. And the mentioned "coercion" does happen (Blog link).

I'm not speaking to the particulars of this case, which looks like it may well be a good candidate for an example of poor enforcement (especially calculating a years' worth of pay when the volunteer only worked part of the year). But there are enough bad actors who would use a setup like this to avoid worker protection laws that some informal handshake-type arrangements may no longer be possible.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

We should definitely turn health care over to this type of organization. Think of the improvements we could have.

No, let's leave it in the hands of healthcare insurance companies, since, in California,

five of the largest insurers in the state rejected 31.2 million claims for medical care, or 21% of all claims

[lookout123]

How many of those claims should they have rejected?

[Spexxvet]

How many "volunteer" hours should the co-op have paid?

[monster]

That is a scary interpretation of the law. Most non-profits depend on volunteer labor. If these people are deemed employees because they get some personal benefit, whoa, we are in a whole world of bad place. I'm involved with about 5 non profits. one of which maybe will need a superfast rethink about their policies One already had one last year and resulted in a huge drop off in volunteers to the point where they had to hire more employees and reduced the $$ actually going to support the good cause.

[TheMercenary]

Well there you have it. Someone had to say it.

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- John Podesta compared the nation’s current budget crisis to the situation former President Bill Clinton faced in 1993 and said some form of a value-added tax is “more plausible today than it ever has been.”

“There’s going to have to be revenue in this budget,” said Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff and co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s transition team, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing today.

A so-called consumption tax would “create a balance” with European and Japanese economies and “could potentially have a substantial effect on competitiveness,” said Podesta. Value- added taxes in Europe and Japan encourage savings by taxing consumption.

Podesta said such a tax may be regressive, but can be balanced by exempting some products and using “the money to support low-wage workers.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGxdXdfWrZ7o