53 Comments

Why can’t the winery just charge $1 or $5 a day for those who want to learn and just call it an admission fee or an educational experience. What could the government possibly have to say about that? Not that they have any right to do what they are attempting to do now. Every volunteer in any capacity for any cause should be moved to action over this usurpation of freedom. Here again the government is confiscating our rights and selling them back to us.

[…] Welcome to the readers of the excellent legal blog “Overlawyered.com” and thanks to Walter Olson of the CATO Institute who thought our post on the Westover Winery was worthy of mention. […]

Sure, but if we’re going to have a minimum wage in this country, then certain kinds of for-profit “volunteering” needs to be prohibited to avoid making a total mockery of the minimum wage. We can have the argument that we should abolish the minimum wage (not a position I personally support, but I acknowledge the arguments on both sides), but in the meantime, we have to have some kind of rule or the minimum wage will always be $0 thanks to loopholes. For why would we punish the employer who pays his factory worker $1/hour for his work, while ignoring the factory next door that pays $0/hour?

The problem is that history has demonstrated all too well that whenever you make some kind of potentially exploitative labor practice legal, those who want to exploit workers will take advantage of it. We have thousands of years worth of shenanigans ranging from outright slavery to truck systems to (certain forms of) sharecropping to debt bondage. Workers around the world have been forced into arrangements like these, sometimes out of physical force, but nowadays often through economic necessity.

Ah, but you say, if someone freely and voluntarily enters into an agreement to work for free, who are we to stand in the way? The problem is that such agreements have often not to be nearly as free and voluntarily as one could hope. Men have been selling themselves into slavery since antiquity. Unscrupulous bosses falsify or change agreements. Workers labor to pay off inflated debts to their bosses, including in human trafficking cases.

So to prevent abuse, our society has set some pretty solid lines around labor: if you perform work for a for-profit enterprise, you must be paid in actual money, on time, in an amount not less than the minimum wage, with no excuses. Even if you’re the worst employee in the universe and spend your shift breaking your employer’s property, you’re still entitled to be paid up until the moment you’re fired. If this doesn’t happen, you can call up the Labor Commissioner and they will get you paid. We set such a bright-line rule around work because there is no other way I know of to prevent some of the most outrageous abuses of workers.

“So to prevent abuse, our society has set some pretty solid lines around labor: if you perform work for a for-profit enterprise, you must be paid in actual money, on time, in an amount not less than the minimum wage, with no excuses.”

You say this as if unpaid internships at for-profit businesses have been illegal for decades. They haven’t. And yet we haven’t reverted to the evils of slavery.

And even if your doomsday preductions about abuse had merit, it’s not as if more government control of the labor market is free of abuses. Here we have a specific example of people who want to work for non-monetary consideration (gaining valuable experience) and the government is effectively stopping them. No one is benefitting from this, and real people are being harmed. I suppose we are to sweep aside those real abuses for the sake of imagined abuses that might conceivably result from some voluntary arrangements?

“And yet we haven’t reverted to the evils of slavery.”

And one of the reasons things haven’t turned into de-facto slavery is that labor departments around the country do enforce the regulations in such a draconian manner.

” No one is benefitting from this”

Excuse me but that is not true. Coyote’s post describes exactly how a business owner might benefit from unpaid labor. Sure, maybe that guy wasn’t intending to benefit, but if that intern is actually out there picking grapes or driving trucks or filling barrels then they are doing work and they need to be paid for it (and have taxes paid on that payment, and have OSHA regs applied to their work environment, and so on.)

I’m with Gitarcarver on this one. I’m very pro labor. There was a time when the leverage of employer over employee was so great I think government could justify muscling into the fray. But now, it seems like people always have choices. There are too many options out there for labor to get bogged down in some “I don’t know how I ended up here, but I’m basically working for little or nothing” type scenarios.

Libertarians on here push freedom, freedom, freedom. I draw the line short of freedom in many cases because your freedom has too much impact on me or someone innocent. Adrian Peterson, I’m sorry, I know you are the father and I’ll give you some latitude but you can’t beat your son to the point where you have cut his scrotum. (Been dying to hit this issue on here.)

But even those who don’t bend toward the libertarian school of thought can still value freedom. It is an amazing thing that I think we have in abundance in this country. People should have the freedom to volunteer and employers should take free labor if there is something about the job they offer that induces someone to want to give it.

I meant that no one is benefitting from bankrupting the winery over the fact that some people volunteered their time there. Not the winery — it’s gone. Not the workers, who now have lost the opportunity to continue their learning. And not the consumers who might have liked to buy the wine of this particular establishment.

As for the awful threat of businesses benefitting from unpaid labor, perhaps you should post a listing for an unpaid position digging ditches in your backyard. Let us know how many applications you receive.

Amazing, after all these eons, all the history of the world, and all the consistent results to the contrary, how many people still believe in micro-management. It’s a sign of insecurity, I think, a product of false self-esteem, a.o.t. the real (earned) thing.

If the guy wasn’t getting any financial benefit from the unpaid labor of interns, then why did taking that unpaid labor away force him to shut down?

DEM: many unpaid internships at for-profit businesses are illegal and have been for quite some time. The feds have a fairly stringent six point test for the legality of these arrangements. They basically hinge on the intern being there primarily as a learning experience, where the employer gains “no immediate benefit” from the intern’s work. While there are certainly internships out there that meet these criteria (often those offered through educational institutions), the vast majority do not. Enforcement has been limited, but it can and does happen.

For those who are adamant that this is none of the government’s business, consider this hypothetical. I manage a fast food restaurant, paying my workers minimum wage. Per my agreement with my employees, and according to state law, I provide an unpaid 30 minute lunch break during the course of each shift. However, I also provide them with a wide array of computerized training materials to use during these unpaid breaks. I pitch the training as a valuable learning experience: a worker who starts off cleaning floors can learn how to clean the deep fryer, work the milkshake machine, and maybe even learn supervisory skills. Of course, if workers don’t take advantage of the training sessions, I dump them and replace them with new workers from the large pool of people desperate for work in my community.

Should this scenario be illegal? (note: it probably is.) If so, how do you distinguish it from other forms of unpaid labor you want to legalize, such as the Westover Winery case? If not, how do you distinguish it from other forms of unpaid labor you want to remain illegal?

You are right, DensityDuck. He was getting a financial benefit. There is no sense quibbling over that one. But I don’t think we should care.

>If the guy wasn’t getting any financial benefit from the unpaid labor of interns, then why did taking that unpaid labor away force him to shut down?

See earlier post citing the $115,000 in fines against the small winery, more money than its owners had cumulatively made in many, many years. I assume you are talking about the winery case, but maybe not, since “interns” would not be how one would ordinarily describe the customers/visitors who helped out.

One does wonder how many unpaid interns in the news industry were involved in bringing this story to press.

“If so, how do you distinguish it from other forms of unpaid labor you want to legalize, such as the Westover Winery case?”

In your hypothetical, one can argue that the employer is requiring additional, unpaid work from current employees. In the winery case, the volunteers were never employed to begin with. It’s one thing to argue that the law should protect paid employees from efforts to essentially skim their labor without pay; quite another to argue that volunterrism should be banned altogether.

What is the effect of such regulations on such traditional rural activities as barn-raisings, where the community volunteers to build a barn? I don’t know how often this still takes place in “ordinary” communities, but the Amish and Mennonites still do it. Similarly,the Navajo tradition is that you accumulate the materials to build your house.. When you are ready, you announce the date, and your family and friends come and build it.

Density Duck,

Coyote’s post describes exactly how a business owner might benefit from unpaid labor.

I think that you have mis-characterized Coyote’s post to an extent.

His post says that when competing against other “non-profit” companies, he is at a disadvantage because he has to pay his employees where the other “non-profit” companies do not.

However, in the past, Coyote (Warren Miller) has lamented that there are times when a good employee gets to an age where they cannot do some of the physical labor that the job require and so he is forced to let them go. The people then ask if they can volunteer for his company doing less physical labor because they love the work, they love the job, and they love getting up in the morning with a purpose.

Even though he wants to keep them around as their loyalty, experience and knowledge is something he values on a personal level, he has to tell them “no,” because as a for profit entity, he has to pay them even though “non-profits” do not.

The constriction is not that he doesn’t want his company or other companies to have volunteer labor, but he cannot economically compete with others who are allowed to have volunteers and not pay them while he has to maintain an all pay workforce.

I don’t mean to speak for Miller, but his complaint is not that a business gets an advantage. (That’s called competition.) Instead, his complaint is that the rules of volunteering are applied differently across for profit and non-profit companies.

But even if a business gets an “advantage” by having more people willing to volunteer for it than other companies, doesn’t that penalize a company for being a good neighbor? Doesn’t it penalize a company for creating an environment to which people want to come, learn and participate?

If there is a “disadvantage” I don’t see the solution as keeping the same laws that create the disadvantage. The better solution to me is to eliminate the law(s) that create the mess to begin with. After all, do we really want laws that penalize businesses for being friendlier and drawing more people in than their competition?

Finally, while I have seen lots of posts in this thread that address the idea of “advantage / disadvantage,” for the business,/i> I haven’t see too many that address the central issue of what I wrote which is “why can I not donate my time, expertise and labor to an interest that I choose rather than the government telling me where I can and cannot go?”

“If the guy wasn’t getting any financial benefit from the unpaid labor of interns, then why did taking that unpaid labor away force him to shut down?”

DensityDuck.
There is the text of the cited articles you could read in lieu of posting a question. It states quite clearly that there was a fine levied in the amount of $115,000. This on a business that cleared $11,000 in profit.

If someone wants to volunteer that is the opposite of slavery in context. They are there voluntarily and can leave or not work at any time. This labor law stuff has gotten to the point of total absurdity. the people can’t do what they want, the business can’t do what they want. The only slaveholder present is the “government” who has the people in servitude, instead of the original intentions of government in service to the people. How things got this bassackwards and some of the people here thinking it is OK is what is wrong.

“The constriction is not that he doesn’t want his company or other companies to have volunteer labor, but he cannot economically compete with others who are allowed to have volunteers and not pay them while he has to maintain an all pay workforce. ”

This isn’t a rebuttal to my statement that Coyote’s blog post described a way that a business owner might benefit from unpaid labor.

“why can I not donate my time, expertise and labor to an interest that I choose rather than the government telling me where I can and cannot go?”

Because it’s too easy for that to change from “we welcome anyone who wants to donate their time” to “anyone who wants to try for a position needs to work unpaid for a while to prove that they’re worth hiring” and then to “we’ve got such great on-site amenities and services and perks, and the generally awesome amazing experience of working at such a wonderful company, and so we shouldn’t have to pay our employees at all.”

I’m pretty sure that Google would roll this way if they were allowed. “You don’t need money! Just stay at work all day! After all, meals are free and we have nap pods! And besides, you work at Google, man, that’s worth like infinity dollars.”

“See earlier post citing the $115,000 in fines against the small winery, more money than its owners had cumulatively made in many, many years.”

If $115,000 put a winery out of business then it was going out of business. If the business owner didn’t keep an adequate capital reserve to cover contingencies like this then they were operating recklessly.

Because it’s too easy for that to change from “we welcome anyone who wants to donate their time” to “anyone who wants to try for a position needs to work unpaid for a while to prove that they’re worth hiring”

:::cough::: Huffington Post ::::cough::::

BTW, there are numerous volunteer arrangements that really are no business of The State, *if* The State is one in which citizens have rights of association, contract and are considered fully functional adults.

If one is inclined to see The State as benevolent Helicopter Parent, then YMMV.

Yes, I’m engaging in full snark — while I at a DA office that has unpaid volunteer attorneys doing prelims, writing briefs, doing research, etc — because of the experience and a way to get a leg up in eventual hiring.

No one is twisting their arm to do it and no one should be preventing them from doing it.

I am the owner of the winery. I have cancer and have had five surgeries in five years. I left a corporate job to deal with my cancer in 2010. My life expectancy is probably another six years. The only reason I kept the winery going was for the fun and passion of those who wanted to volunteer and their friendship. I am closing the winery to spend time with both of my parents who are in the last years of their life and they are very ill at this point. I also want to deal with my cancer. The fines were probably more than what the entire winery was worth. The fines made my final decisions easy. We are talking about a business that is only open 10 hours per week total. We did not need any of the volunteers.
My wife and I could handle it alone. This was not about money, it was about passion. By the way, one of my volunteers made everything worth it, she later became my wife.

Density Duck is, I fear, callng for pre-crime convictions because of what might happen in the future. It is the next logical step on the road to total control.

Good luck, Mr. Smyth.

Bob

I’m pretty sure that Google would roll this way if they were allowed. “You don’t need money! Just stay at work all day! After all, meals are free and we have nap pods! And besides, you work at Google, man, that’s worth like infinity dollars.”

You honestly believe that people would be hoodwinked into working for FREE if not for stringent labor laws and zealous enforcement of the same?

. By the way, one of my volunteers made everything worth it, she later became my wife.

I hope you filled out the requisite CA294 Volunteering leading to Marriage declaration form on your California income tax.

/I keed. I keed. Godspeed and feel better Mr. Smyth.

DEM: I honestly believe people would wind up working for free if not for stringent labor laws, yes. Not skilled tech workers at Google (who are paid pretty darn well in fact), but unskilled labor. Why do I believe this? Because it’s happened all over the world for thousands of years.

Here’s a scenario not uncommon in places where labor laws are unenforced. Someone gets hired for a factory job. They are told they must receive unpaid training for three weeks, then they’ll start earning their agreed upon wage. Come three weeks, they are told they have to pay back the cost of the training plus room and board at an exorbitant rate. During this time, their takehome pay approaches zero. Eventually, they are fired for poor performance and replaced with another desperate worker. With thousands of human trafficking victims in the United States, it’s really not so hard to believe people are working for free or nearly so.

But we don’t have to look for such extreme cases. What of the American worker who labors through his unpaid break or takes unpaid overtime (when he is a non-exempt employee for overtime purposes)? Sure, some such violations maybe inadvertent or caused by poor record-keeping, but surely untold numbers of workers are working for free every day when they don’t get their promised and legally mandated wages.

Mr Smyth: I’m sorry to hear of your condition and wish you all the best. While I don’t agree with everyone here on what forms of voluntary labor for for-profit enterprises should be permitted, I do think a small winery such as yours is a place where enforcement discretion would have been warranted, hopefully tailored to help you stay in business.

Zach

Geez, exactly how ever did the American worker — even those right off the boat — prosper in the past without Massive State agencies to micromanage every move?

Zach:

And just think of all the people who volunteer to give someone, perhaps a group of nuns, a ride to the airport, depriving good honest taxi drivers of fares, right? (A HREF=”http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140721/long-island-city/tlc-wrongly-accused-hundreds-of-being-illegal-cabbies-past-year”>Not a hypothetical.) You obviously support charging those people with crimes in order to ensure that all taxi drivers don’t end up driving people for free. Too bad about those eggs you have to crack to make an omelet.

And don’t get you started on all those women who give it away, depriving prostitutes of income.

Surely there’s no reason to discriminate between for-profits and non-profits here, at least judging by the complaints of adjuncts and grad students at non-profit universities, some of which accumulate far more wealth than for-profits.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Paid work = tax dollars
volunteer work = no tax dollars.

Paid work = tax dollars
volunteer = no tax dollars

Suddenly it all makes sense

Zach,

I am confused by your response.

This thread started on the idea of people being able to volunteer their own time and labor to where they want it to go. To counter that idea, you bring up scenarios were people are being hired for a job.

Is there no difference in your mind between a “volunteer” and a “hired person?” A Little League manager is the same as a for pay coach of a High School or college team? A nurse who volunteers her time for the Red Cross on a bloodmobile is the same as a nurse in an ER?

As for the person working through a break, should that not be their choice as well? For example, say a person is working on a project and if they take their breaks, they are going to have to come in and work a couple of hours on Saturday taking time away from their family, incurring costs of coming into work, etc. If that person says “I will work through the break in order to not have to come in on Saturday,” shouldn’t they have the right to do that?

There is a difference between a boss or supervisor saying “you must do that” or “you must work at my bottling company” and a person saying “I’d like to volunteer my time, talents and labor.”

Through this entire thread I haven’t seen a single person answer the key question to my initial point: “WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT THINK IT CONTROLS WHAT I DO OF MY OWN FREE WILL?”

[…] following punitive fines for letting customers volunteer continues to draw interesting comments, including one from a reader identifying himself as William Smyth, owner of the […]

Git,

“WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT THINK IT CONTROLS WHAT I DO OF MY OWN FREE WILL?”

Because as a collective whole they think they know better than you.

So the question is how this has come to be, it’s because our elected officials are judged by the laws that they pass, often the number of laws, not even were they good or bad laws. And all those swarms of bureaucrats ready to prove their worth and the reason they need a bigger budget and larger swarms are ever so ready to enforce those laws.

And for the record, this is not a liberal vs. conservative thing it’s a “We have to do something to keep our hoi polloi jobs.”

Mr. Smyth, it is nice of you to post here. That “she became my wife” line is awesome.

May God bless you and your family.

From what I’ve read this fine probably had something to do with workman’s comp statutes. Every business without exception in California must purchase workman’s comp insurance. If you don’t have workman’s comp insurance and your worker is injured while on the job, your business can be fined heavily.

Probably the winery volunteers were not just stomping grapes (which by the way brings up issues related to OSHA and food safety) but were operating equipment or doing other duties like lifting that could cause injury. Believe it or not, even people who type on computers at desk jobs file work comp claims for injuries to their necks, backs, arms and wrists. It’s something small and large businesses are familiar with and held liable for, whether it seems fair or not.

People are understandably angry, saying “what about hospital volunteers, for example?” Well the difference is this: hospital volunteers as far as I know aren’t allowed to handle equipment, lift patients, or do anything that could cause a work-related injury. They just take phone calls or handle reception, or other very limited work. I think they also have to sign a consent form that they are merely volunteers and are not to do certain activities while at the hospital.

All that being said I think the agency could have shown a bit of leniency on the amount of the fine. By the way my husband and I are small business owners so we are familiar with fines and laws that we weren’t aware of. We’ve found out the hard way that ignorance of the law is not considered a defense.

“From what I’ve read” and “probably” are made to do a lot of work in that last comment. There are specific laws on the books regarding the obligation to buy workers’ comp for actual workers, and I don’t see in the local coverage where the state filed any such charges. Nor have I seen anyone allege the winery lacked ordinary business insurance to cover mishaps happening to its customers.

Here’s more about this from the state agency itself. See especially the last paragraph. Apparently the investigation and fine were prompted by a person seeking work comp insurance:

Sept. 19 statement from California’s Department of Industrial Relations about its action against Westover Winery in Castro Valley:

“The public policy of the state, as expressed in the California Labor Code, is to vigorously enforce minimum labor standards so that employees are not required to work under substandard conditions and to protect law-abiding employers from unfair competition by others who don’t comply with minimum standards. The Labor Commissioner is the state’s chief law enforcement officer, responsible for carrying out this policy. Like any law enforcement officer, the Labor Commissioner responds to complaints received and must follow where the evidence leads.

“The state and federal governments have long-standing legal standards on the use of volunteer “interns” in for-profit employment. The state and federal standards, in fact, are the same, and are summarized in the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division’s “Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.” This Fact Sheet lists six criteria for determining whether an internship is a bona fide educational experience for the benefit of the intern or mostly a source of free labor for the employer. This is not just a private concern for the employer and worker because the state may have to pick up the cost when the benefits normally provided to employees are not available to someone considered a volunteer.

“In this instance, the Labor Commissioner’s office received a complaint that a worker at Westover Winery could not seek worker’s compensation for a claimed job injury because the company considered the worker a volunteer. (Normally the Labor Commissioner does not disclose the fact that a complaint was received, since this tends to greatly increase the chances of retaliation against workers thought to have made the complaint.) An onsite inspection of the winery revealed a workforce of over 20 persons helping to operate the business, all of them considered “volunteers” and none of them covered by workers’ compensation or paid for their work at the winery’s tasting room. The winery was assessed $29,375 in back wages, $29,375 in liquidated damages (doubling of wages to compensate employees for not receiving wages when originally due), and $56,800 in combined penalties for minimum wage and pay stub violations and failure to have worker’s compensation coverage. The employer paid the back wages and penalties, appealing only the liquidated damages. That appeal remains pending.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/extra/ci_26563532/document-california-agency-fine-winerys-use-volunteer-workers?source=pkg

To be honest, I’d rather see this presented as “they hassled us out of business” than “they fined us into unprofitability”. The former is more accurate and, to my mind, more indicative of why the modern regulatory bureaucracy is such a tremendous problem. “fined into unprofitability” can be seen as a cost that a responsible owner should have prepared for (or, possibly, avoided through behaving in accordance with regulations).

**********

“There is a difference between a boss or supervisor saying “you must do that” or “you must work at my bottling company” and a person saying “I’d like to volunteer my time, talents and labor.””

If you know what’s good for you, boy, you’ll “volunteer” to work overtime every day and come in on Saturday. If you don’t, well, clearly you’re not as dedicated to this job as everyone else.

During the last week I have visited wineries, small business and several politicians. A lot has been learned. The problem, especially in California, small business must always look over its back. That is not good. There are so many laws against small business and large business that any disgruntled person can make complaints against a business just to cause them grief. In the case of the winery, there was never anyone every injured “on the job,” so workers compensation would not apply. People can file claims even if they not valid. That may trigger an investigation. An auto body shop said they took down a state required sign to paint the wall. The sign was leaned up against a wall and the business was fined $500 by the state along with other grief. Another business in the Central Valley had a disgruntled person constantly call the fire chief, environmental and other state departments. Get the message. People at the winery poured wine and never worked heavy or complicated machinery. Also, a business told me 55% of the workers in Madera county are government. If the government is so great, let’s increase that number to 100% and get rid of those horrible small businesses that are ignorant to the law…joke joke – maybe not.

It doesn’t sound like government is as much of the problem as human nature is the problem. Disgruntled people can and do disrupt businesses which is why regulations exist: to protect businesses and employees from harm. I’m a small biz owner who has had ex employees call OSHA on me for a tiny infraction, and my fine was much smaller than the one in this story. The government person was obligated to investigate since they cannot separate valid from invalid claims.

After that experience I hired a lawyer and human resources person who was well worth the $5K I had to pay to make sure all my operations complied with labor laws. Better to pay the lawyer/consultant than pay thousands more in lawsuits and fines due to one person wreaking havoc on my business.

From the state’s press statement it sounds like volunteers doing wine-pouring wasn’t the main issue but other volunteers helping to run operations. Even the winery’s Yelp page shows a guy mixing grape skins into grape juice at a mixing machine. Who knows if that’s just a volunteer or not, but “employee misclassification” is the issue according to one law firm which handles this kind of thing: http://www.emgelawfirm.com/blog/2014/09/california-winery-assessed-for-back-wages.shtml

I know this winery isn’t completely ignorant about legal issues since the owner offered classes about wine-making which included “legal issues.” http://www.contracostatimes.com/my-town/ci_24363244/castro-valley-westover-winery-teaches-all-about-its

So while business owners sympathize many of us have been there too and do our best to follow rules. If the “volunteer” law is changed it will apply to everyone, not just wineries, which means all businesses will be able to have volunteers do all kinds of things for them for free. That would be nice from my employer viewpoint but not from an employee viewpoint.

Since many people have never been to the winery, they are just guessing about what went on. The fact is, the winery was operated out of the owners house, could be totally operated without the help of any employees or volunteers other than the owner and his wife. The people who volunteered were all professional middle aged people with high paying professional jobs. They just wanted to have a break from their normal hectic lives. One commented on a radio program, they thought they should have paid for the experience. The winery is now in shut down mode, because the owner feels the fines are outrageous, out of line and has taken a small business from being fun for all to being work. It is time to take care of two sick parents who are in the hospital and near their end of life. Just to note, the winery is still open only two days per week, five hours per day and with the owner, his wife and maybe one temporary paid employee are doing over ten times the sales in a day compared to prior to the fines. The losers are those who just wanted to have fun, customers and thousands of very small businesses. The comment someone once made is classic “Try to get a person to volunteer to dig ditches and see how many clamor for the opportunity.” As far as the comment about legal issues being in the course, remember what Assemblyman Wieckowski said to the owner when he learned of what happened “I am an attorney and a state representative and even I did not know about this law!” Did you know that most charities raffle away baskets with cheeses, wine and other goodies and even that is against the law in California and they still do it because they do not know it is against the law.

If the winery were just for fun and personal wine consumption, and you weren’t selling wine, then the situation would be different. Since the winery was producing and selling wine to the public, that means it’s a business. Sounds like you can still operate the business and still teach wine-making, just without “hands-on unpaid” volunteers. People can watch and learn about the process, just not actively participate unless paid similar to how apprentices get paid for learning their craft. Part of the reason has to do with labor law, and part of the reason has to do with liability in case of injury.

I could probably get people to volunteer without pay to dig ditches for my business if I threw in some incentive like beer, or said it was for charity; however, if someone got hurt digging those ditches, I could be in for a world of hurt. Mr. Wieckowski has worked for government most of his working life so I don’t expect he’d know how to set up and operate businesses. Raffles aren’t illegal in California. The non-profit must register with the Attorney General’s specific office that covers that, and “90 percent of the gross receipts from these raffles go directly to beneficial or charitable purposes in California.” Any alcohol in the raffle may have rules too (can’t give to minors). http://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles

Small biz owners everywhere benefit from educating ourselves and each other. All the best to the winery/owner in any event.

Correction: Wieckowski does practice law in his spare time but he specializes in bankruptcy chapter 13 which is different from employment law.

“I could probably get people to volunteer without pay to dig ditches for my business if I threw in some incentive like beer”

Good thing this doomsday hypothetical is testable in the real world. So please go ahead and make some sort of public offer of a 12 pack of Bud in exchange for a few hours’ worth of back-breaking labor, and let us know how many people sign up.

This whole column demonstrates how people often give out information which is in incomplete or not correct. Appproved Non-profits who raffle wine in or out of baskets is against the law in the state of California unless they (which most don’t get) get a type 33 alcohol lic from the state ABC and must have a type 31 lic to have a wine bar. If they make a mistake and don’t get their license because they don’t know about it, to issue a crippling fee to their organization. Going back to volunteers, people should be able to do what they want on their free time and if it is pouring wine to have fun, then so be it. Have them sign a release and have proof of insurance then all this talk of what to do if someone gets hurt is a moot point. Judge Judy always tells people who are fighting with their landlords, if you do not like where you are living, just move!

@DEM

It already happens, just substitute wine or food for beer, and volunteers will do all kinds of labor. To wit:

“…some wineries invite volunteers to help. Entry level tasks include plucking undesirables from a conveyor belt, or operating a garden hose for cleaning. Sometimes volunteers can advance to picking fruit, driving a forklift and punching down grape skins to stir the juices in big fermenting tanks. The work is hard, but the rewards are many. You might get a free meal, sample some wine and perhaps join in a post-harvest party. But no matter what, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you helped a winery produce a fine vintage of Oregon or Washington wine.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/mix/index.ssf/wine/volunteering_at_crush_helping_wineries_produce_a_f.html

All a business would need to do is market the ditch-digging as a satisfying educational opportunity that will lead to opportunity, and spice it up with some incentives. Problem is: if the business doesn’t pay and insure people for this work, it violates labor and safety laws at the federal and state levels, even if the business reclassifies a worker as a “volunteer.”

It seems people in the general public are confused about the context of the word “volunteer.” If my friends volunteer to help me and my family move, no one cares how we arrange for these volunteers to help us. However if I own a moving company and my friends volunteer to help my company move clients, the company is expected to compensate these volunteers for their work because a company is a legal entity with legal obligations and liabilities.

Anyone who sets up a winery business knows that there are various licenses and permits related to such a business. It’s not a simple undertaking. There are lawyers devoted just to wine law. So as a free educational service, the “Stoel Rives Winery Team developed THE LAW OF WINE: A GUIDE TO BUSINESS AND LEGAL ISSUES.” http://www.stoel.com/Files/LawofWine_California.pdf

Starting at page 108 is the discussion about Employment Law for the winery. “The first step to avoid problems is to know the laws that govern your business and abide by them.” The section doesn’t address volunteers but does discuss independent contractors.

By the way, I am not affiliated with this or any law firm. I’m just passing along helpful information.

“The section doesn’t address volunteers ….” Which is kind of the point, isn’t it? Once “the laws governing your business” get to be sufficiently voluminous, remote from any grounding in mala in se, and subject to doctrinal change or shifts in enforcement, the advice to “abide by them” becomes empty, because you won’t actually know of any sure way to stay in compliance.