• imnotgooz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The terms of service for reddit are based on California law. Based on liberal Laws of California, I would venture to guess that there is some grounds for back pay. I was wondering about this with all the discussion around volunteer moderators.

    Similar to Uber drivers, the test for independent contractors is pretty difficult to meet in California nowadays. So I believe there is a solid case (cough class action cough). Fuck reddit. They deserve all the backlash and a mod class action for backpay would be legendary.

    • TestAcctPlsIgnore@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand how mods could argue they deserve backpay. They are volunteers, are we saying that all volunteers can sue for backpay?

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more about the principle. He’s saying that they can’t provide reddit for free, they’re not a charity. But with the same logic, should mods work for free, since they’re also not a charity?

        • _finger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, they shouldn’t. When subs reach a certain member threshold modding becomes a job for many. Mods should absolutely form a union, but asking for back pay is a stretch. What they should do is asked to be paid moving forward stating that profiting off the backs of volunteers is no longer acceptable not only because Reddit has made modding much harder by giving third party apps the finger, but also because the mods should in theory value their spare time. Another thing is that people posting free content to Reddit without reimbursement should be viewed as an atrocity, even YouTube reimburses content creators once the content gets a certain amount of views.

          • BuddhaBeettle@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Negociation 101: ask for more than you actually expect to get (within reason, you don’t want people to think you are a joke).
            They ask for backpay not really expecting for backpay, just to give them wiggle room to settle in court for better rights from that moment on.
            Last and only time I had to sue someone (and won) my lawyer told me what the usual result of cases like mine is, then we asked for that and like, 20% extra. Then on the mediation we “negociated” for the amount we were really expecting to get.
            (This is all personal speculation, Im not a mod, clearing that up just in case).

          • Widget@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            but asking for back pay is a stretch

            I don’t think anyone’s denying that. Lawsuits in the US always follow a “throw everything at the wall” approach because there’s no downsides to it. The actual worst case for including it is that particular claim gets rejected and the rest of the suit continues.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure the courts will view volunteer work that enriches a non profit very differently from “volunteer” work that enriches a for profit enterprise.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        California has many of laws on the books which grandfather workers under various statutes of de facto employment. Even contracts can be voided. No contract is necessary for an employment relationship to exist.

          • kru@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a point in favor of reddit, but a small one. As my company’s labor lawyer enjoys saying, “You can’t contract around the law.” Meaning, an agreement can be nullified by a court that finds the agreement is in violation of a law.

            • GankTopPlz@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right, but you also can’t create a work agreement where one was explicitly denied. It’s like mowing your neighbors lawn then asking them to pay you, but they told you they wouldn’t pay you if you did it before you started. It’s the same with the 3rd party app devs too. While I think reddits actions are insane and detrimental to the health of the site, they are fully in their right to deny those devs access to their API and their site as a whole.

          • deejay4am@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It may surprise you to learn that if an EULA/TOS and an actual law conflict, then the law wins.

            Reddit can’t say “nuh-uh doesn’t count if you use our site!” anymore than someone can sign a contract saying it’s ok for you to murder them.

            So the real question is do any of these laws actually allow for the conditions set forth by Reddit to be considered employment?

      • imnotgooz@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t need a contract to sue someone in California. There are labor laws meant to cover situations that are inequitable or unfair. In my mind, having mods do all this work for the benefit of reddit (eg. Free labor) is unfair and seemingly rises to a level that should be investigated.