Monday, August 27, 2012

Penland is a Disappointment

I too was disappointed by Penland's legalistic response. If they truly believe their policies are fair and responsible, then that is the case they should make. I believe in supporting nonprofits that are sensitive to economic fairness with employees. Simply being barely legal is too low a bar.

Sincerely,
David Freeman

3 comments:

June Perry said...

Agree. Their letter was very revealing. They obviously had some records of those employees, so why didn't they contact them to let them know they would be making things right. If was only when forced with the threat of being reported for illegal practices that they agreed to resolve it in house; and then they only gave lip service by doing as little as they thought they could get away with.
They were not in compliance with the law by not keeping proper records, nor by not paying for overtime; and looking at their healthy financial state, it makes one wonder why they would treat artists so shabbily. I certainly hope they have changed the way they do business, but after reading their letter, I doubt very much if there's been much of a shift there.

Sterling VanDerwerker said...

the issue is what is the objective standard for proper compensation? It is the agreement between the employer and the employee working within the scope of the law of the land. In this case, Penland SHOULD resolve ALL PAST CLAIMS WITHOUT REGARD TO DATE WHEN CALLED UPON BY THE OFFENDED.

It is fine to employ one on any terms over the minimum required by law. The problem is that Penland did NOT DO WHAT IS RIGHT:
1) Investigate all past illegal payment of overtime
2) Make a good faith effort to contact ALL OFFENDED.
3) Leave OPEN THE DATE TO MAKE A LEGITIMATE CLAIM.
4) Settle ALL CLAIMS OBJECTIVELY.
5) Make a WRITTEN PUBLIC ACKNOWLEGEMENT and APOLOGY.
6) Ensure that all future employment contracts meet minimum LEGAL STANDARDS.

Sterling VanDerwerker said...

the issue is what is the objective standard for proper compensation? It is the agreement between the employer and the employee working within the scope of the law of the land. In this case, Penland SHOULD resolve ALL PAST CLAIMS WITHOUT REGARD TO DATE WHEN CALLED UPON BY THE OFFENDED.

It is fine to employ one on any terms over the minimum required by law. The problem is that Penland did NOT DO WHAT IS RIGHT:
1) Investigate all past illegal payment of overtime
2) Make a good faith effort to contact ALL OFFENDED.
3) Leave OPEN THE DATE TO MAKE A LEGITIMATE CLAIM.
4) Settle ALL CLAIMS OBJECTIVELY.
5) Make a WRITTEN PUBLIC ACKNOWLEGEMENT and APOLOGY.
6) Ensure that all future employment contracts meet minimum LEGAL STANDARDS.