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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
The company is still responsible for that, it doesn't mattter why.
Do you think that consumer cares if the lack of PCI compliance caused them to have their CC information stolen and used because someone internally thought someone else was responsible for PCI compliance?
If you choose to store CC information it's your responsibility to make sure you're PCI compliant, if you employ people, it's your responsibility to make sure they get paid.
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.
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).
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.
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.