6 ms·

There is a cynical and pessimistic interpretation (just an idle thought; I know nothing at all): the investigators are stretched thin, so instead of investigati

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 12y ago
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.
- Flow 12y ago
  If that actually worked, it would be ideal :)
- biot 12y ago
  Since we're going with car analogies, it's more like a company leases a fleet of vehicles where each vehicle can be driven up to 20,000 km/year for the price negotiated. However, the cars don't have odometers to keep track of distance traveled. The dealership who leased the cars thinks that they've been driven further and complains to the Department of Transport. The DoT investigates and adds up third-party records of everywhere the cars have been and finds out that some vehicles were routinely driven more than 20,000 km in the prior year. The company agrees to pay the agreed-upon rate for any overage distance per vehicle plus a proportional fine and also agrees to add an odometer to the vehicles to track actual mileage in the future.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    Bad analogy. The rights / obligations are upside down. The company leasing the fleet of vehicles was responsible for installing the odometer. In LinkedIn's case, the company was obligated to account for the hours worked (which presumably the employees reported correctly, since the employees won the case).
- Kluny 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    "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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        >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.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  It's in the Gov's best interest to praise LinkedIn for their investigation, because a) there is no reason NOT to (other than moral pontificating), and b) it creates goodwill for any future cooperation they need from LinkedIn.
greggman 12y ago
I'm not apologizing for LinkedIn, with 5400 employees you'd expect them to have people that know the laws. But, ... Most small businesses don't know the laws. I worked at a company that threatened to doc pay if people didn't show up for "core hours". My understanding though IANAL is that if they did that we'd instantly become non-exempt because docking pay by hours makes us not salaried. They can fire you if you're not doing the job they want but they can't pay based on hours worked as part of the definition of "salaried" is that you set your own hours and get paid a fixed salary. (if someone knows if that's incorrect please correct me)
- Alex3917 12y ago
  With 5400 people you'd also expect them to have people who don't know the laws, and people who don't care about following them.
  - talmand 12y ago
    I'm also going with the thought that it's possible they did attempt to responsibly follow the law; but like many laws it's a complicated mess that almost everyone is in non-compliance without realizing it.
- viggity 12y ago
  "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" is fine an dandy when laws amounted to "don't physically hurt people and don't steal their stuff". There are so many laws on the books (statutory and administrative) that is is not remotely possible to follow them all. FFS, there are 40,000 words regulating the sale of cheese. Nobody knows how many laws there even are ESTIMATES range up to 300,000 different laws. But nobody knows for sure http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230431980...

mreiland 12y ago

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.

Flow 12y ago
If that actually worked, it would be ideal :)
biot 12y ago
Since we're going with car analogies, it's more like a company leases a fleet of vehicles where each vehicle can be driven up to 20,000 km/year for the price negotiated. However, the cars don't have odometers to keep track of distance traveled. The dealership who leased the cars thinks that they've been driven further and complains to the Department of Transport. The DoT investigates and adds up third-party records of everywhere the cars have been and finds out that some vehicles were routinely driven more than 20,000 km in the prior year. The company agrees to pay the agreed-upon rate for any overage distance per vehicle plus a proportional fine and also agrees to add an odometer to the vehicles to track actual mileage in the future.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Bad analogy. The rights / obligations are upside down. The company leasing the fleet of vehicles was responsible for installing the odometer. In LinkedIn's case, the company was obligated to account for the hours worked (which presumably the employees reported correctly, since the employees won the case).
Kluny 12y ago
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 12y ago
  "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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      >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.
chatmasta 12y ago
It's in the Gov's best interest to praise LinkedIn for their investigation, because a) there is no reason NOT to (other than moral pontificating), and b) it creates goodwill for any future cooperation they need from LinkedIn.

greggman 12y ago

I'm not apologizing for LinkedIn, with 5400 employees you'd expect them to have people that know the laws. But, ... Most small businesses don't know the laws. I worked at a company that threatened to doc pay if people didn't show up for "core hours". My understanding though IANAL is that if they did that we'd instantly become non-exempt because docking pay by hours makes us not salaried. They can fire you if you're not doing the job they want but they can't pay based on hours worked as part of the definition of "salaried" is that you set your own hours and get paid a fixed salary. (if someone knows if that's incorrect please correct me)

Alex3917 12y ago
With 5400 people you'd also expect them to have people who don't know the laws, and people who don't care about following them.
- talmand 12y ago
  I'm also going with the thought that it's possible they did attempt to responsibly follow the law; but like many laws it's a complicated mess that almost everyone is in non-compliance without realizing it.
viggity 12y ago
"ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" is fine an dandy when laws amounted to "don't physically hurt people and don't steal their stuff". There are so many laws on the books (statutory and administrative) that is is not remotely possible to follow them all. FFS, there are 40,000 words regulating the sale of cheese. Nobody knows how many laws there even are ESTIMATES range up to 300,000 different laws. But nobody knows for sure http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230431980...