This is a case where the pain of embarrassment may be worse than having to fork over the fine. Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters (August 4, 2014) tells us in an online article entitled: “LinkedIn, U.S. Labor Department settle overtime case for $6 million.”
That is correct; LinkedIn, the quintessential professional networking website, had to fork over $6 million dollars to cover what they owned their workers. According to the article:
“LinkedIn Corp agreed to pay about $6 million in back overtime and damages to 359 current and former employees after a U.S. Department of Labor investigation found the online career networking company violated the country’s wage law.
In a settlement announced by the Labor Department on Monday [July 28, 2014], LinkedIn will pay more than $3.3 million in retroactive overtime wages and more than $2.5 million in damages to workers in California, Illinois, Nebraska and New York.”
I am not quite sure what is meant by “damages,” but we will talk about that later.
The article also stated:
“LinkedIn 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,’ said David Weil, the administrator of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, in a statement.”
I am not quite sure who convinced the Labor Department to make such a glowing statement about a company violating the labor laws, but we will make pretend they say that about every company in violation.
In turn, LinkedIn added to the love fest by saying:
“This was a function of not having the right tools in place for a small subset of our sales force to track hours properly,” said Shannon Stubo, vice president of corporate communications.
To which Chuck Gallagher would like to inquire of LinkedIn: by what measure are 359 employees a small subset?
The article also disclosed these revelations:
“The Labor Department’s investigation revealed that LinkedIn…failed to record and compensate workers for all hours worked, violating provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In addition to the settlement payment, LinkedIn will train all employees that ‘off-the-clock work’ is prohibited for all non-exempt workers, the Labor Department said.”
Ethics in play?
LinkedIn, I am sure, ultimately wanted to do the right thing. They had no choice in the matter; they accept advertisements from companies looking for employees. How would it have looked for the organization to fight the Department of Labor in regard to overtime wages for their own people?
What bothers me ethically is not LinkedIn “the organization” as a whole, but perhaps certain managers who pushed sales employees to produce more and do more without benefit of pay.
Money is tight, I know that, and the job market while much improved, is still a problem in many areas of the United States. Jobs, even minimum wage jobs, are precious. Who is to say “no” to an over-aggressive sales manager who asks for more?
It would have been one thing if the overtime wages were withheld from a true “small subset” of the employees; 15 or 20 maybe, but more than 350 is scary. It constitutes, at least in some respects, a pattern. It also represents corporate arrogance. The workers were low wage workers; quite unlike the higher end executives attracted by LinkedIn employment ads.
Patterns are best addressed by ethical training. It is exceptionally important when an organization has the social media presence of LinkedIn. Are they pressuring their lower wage workers? Are they neglecting to respect their employees?
Before everyone at LinkedIn plays nice and “puts the incidents behind them,” they need to search their ethical hearts. Most importantly, who is minding the store?
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
