Overtime and Social Justice

Edit: The Trump Justice Department announced on September 5, 2017, that it will not appeal a judge’s ruling against the overtime pay rule, leaving the workers I describe below unprotected and without what would have been a welcome salary boost.

The news about the Obama’s Administration’s overtime pay change took a few days to sink in for me. I didn’t immediately see it for what it was – a policy shift that would bring into sharp relief an issue that has been a constant thread in my career: how social justice nonprofits treat the people who work for them, what it reveals about their double standards, and what the implications are for gender equality.

The new policy mandates that employers must pay overtime to anyone making less than $47,500 per year and working over 40 hours per week. This has put some social justice nonprofits in an uncomfortable position. Nonprofits like U.S. PIRG have spoken out against the new rule, saying it should only apply to for-profit entities, and claiming that it would lead to nonprofit staff cuts. The director of PIRG said that those doing “mission-driven” work do not need the same protections as people at, say, McDonalds (the vast majority of whom I believe were already eligible for overtime pay).

This kind of ethical contortion (MY workers don’t need protection, only YOURS do) is unfortunately not surprising to me. Over the past 25 years, I have experienced the good and bad of working at social justice nonprofits. It has taught me some important yet devastating lessons about the ability of many nonprofit leaders to promote equality and human rights outside their organizations, while turning a blind eye, or worse, to the treatment of their own employees.

Like so many young progressives, I spent a summer canvassing in college. The group was working to end nuclear proliferation and testing (yes this was a long time ago), and daily sent me and my peacenik colleagues from Ann Arbor to the Detroit suburbs to raise money and awareness. But mostly money. The organization made it clear what it valued – you didn’t earn an hourly wage, or even compensation based on how many petition signatures you got. You got a percentage of your nightly fundraising. Even if you were doing great educational work going door-to-door, building name recognition for a pretty obscure organization, the organization only placed value on that work if you also brought in money.

There was also the human rights organization that I spent two years volunteering for in college – a position that was unpaid, for which I received no college credit. I was hopeful about getting a job there when I graduated – during my junior year abroad I had worked on human rights and served as a research associate for the organization’s founder. Coincidently, they had a job opening timed just when I was graduating – for a barely-survival-income, entry-level position, which I figured I was perfect for. So I was pretty disappointed when the director called me into his office to tell me that they had decided that instead of hiring me, they were opting for a religious volunteer – saving them about $6,000 in annual salary. There was some comfort – I had seen the crazy hours their entry-level staff worked, and knew that it would have been challenging if not impossible to pay DC rent on the salary they offered.

I could go on at great length – with things I’ve experienced or heard from others. The place I worked that promoted volunteering – yet didn’t have a comp time policy and required weekend work, so program staff couldn’t volunteer themselves. The child welfare organization that didn’t let employees go part time or have flex-time to be home with kids. The leaders of social justice organizations who regularly yell at and disrespect their employees. And so many (SO many) feminist organizations that, in different ways, show contempt for the young and fabulous feminists who work for them, or pay less-experienced men more than the women they replace.

But there have also been people who have shown real leadership on these issues. I remember one of the members on the board from my full-time job out of college, who was horrified by our miniscule salaries, saying the organization simply needed to just write higher salaries into our budget proposals (I still think many organizations just don’t think to do that). Working for the League of Women Voters out of grad school taught me the value of a union – I worked for the 501c3 side of things, but the 501c4 union had negotiated a 35-hour week and comp time, which we also benefited from. There are organizations that cap executive salaries in relation to those at the lowest rungs. These experiences reminded me that I could expect more – that not all nonprofits depend on heavy demands made of young professionals for poor compensation. That some nonprofits see organizational values as something they must embody internally, as well seek externally.

Of course, I was never in it for the money – as the PIRG director says, this was mission-driven work, and I felt (feel) a calling to contribute to human rights and gender equality. But too often, I have seen the passion for social change turned into a weapon against the very people who do much – if not most – of the hard work, and put in most of the hours. Because they are highly motivated by passion, the reasoning goes, they don’t need to be motivated by decent salaries or sustainable work hours or overtime pay. (This type of argument tends to go out the window when you reach the CEO level, strangely enough.) And how do you suppose that feels to young professionals with a college or graduate degree, living in a group house and barely affording student loan payments?

That nonprofit leaders – especially those working for social justice – don’t see the fundamental absurdity of this argument is very hard to swallow. What these leaders are showing is a blatant double standard, and what they are saying is a huge “screw you” to their employees – and in particular to young women.

As of 2011, women were three of every four employees in the nonprofit sector. At the levels applicable under this new rule (earning below $47,500) the proportion of women is likely even higher, because we know that women are underrepresented at top levels in the sector. (For example, a 2014 report found that men are 90 percent of the presidents of the largest conservation organizations.) So when any nonprofit leader says that his lower-paid workers shouldn’t get overtime, what he’s really saying is that female employees should not be paid overtime.

When you zoom out, this is what you see: a nonprofit sector fueled by the time and talents of young women, who have likely passed up opportunities to work for higher salaries elsewhere so they can pursue a passion for social change. Far too often, nonprofit leaders have been telling them their commitment to social justice will not be rewarded beyond the warm, fuzzy feeling of doing good. We can do better, and it appears that thanks to the Obama Administration we finally will.

2 thoughts on “Overtime and Social Justice

  1. I love this post, but I fear that these regulations may not be nearly as transformative as many seem to think. I work for a Washington, DC based medium-sized nonprofit whose leadership was quick to assert that we are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Some guidance in a brief on the overtime final rule and the non-profit sector (http://tinyurl.com/z6deqbb) states the following on qualifying organizations: “There are two types of coverage: The FLSA may apply to (1) businesses or similar entities (“enterprise coverage”) or (2) individuals (“individual coverage”). Under enterprise coverage, the FLSA applies to businesses with annual sales or business of at least $500,000. For a non-profit, enterprise coverage applies only to the activities performed for a business purpose (such as operating a gift shop or providing veterinary services for a fee)*; it does not apply to the organization’s charitable activities that are not in substantial competition with other businesses. Income from contributions, membership fees, many dues, and donations (cash or non-cash) used for charitable activities are not counted toward the $500,000 threshold. ” We along with many other nonprofits do not qualify for enterprise coverage.

    While I’m currently arguing that some staff qualify for individual coverage, there is a great deal of pushback on this. The same brief states the following regarding individual coverage: “Under individual coverage, employees may be entitled to FLSA protections if they themselves are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce. For example, an individual is covered if the employee makes or receives interstate telephone calls, ships materials to another state, or transports persons or property to another state. This individual coverage applies even if the employee is not engaging in such activities for a business purpose. For example, if an employee regularly calls an out-of-state store and uses a credit card to purchase food for a nonprofit that provides free meals for the homeless, that employee is protected by the FLSA on an individual basis, even though the non-profit may not be covered as an enterprise. The Department, however, will not assert that an employee who on isolated occasions spends an insubstantial amount of time performing such work is individually covered by the FLSA.” Despite the fact that some staff seem to engage in these activities, the organization is stating that this portion of their work is not an integral part of their job, and they are therefore not qualified (I disagree entirely). My interpretation of this also leads me to believe that the canvassers you mentioned working for U. S. PIRG (an organization I interviewed with after college for a position paying $23,000 per year to live in Chicago and that I fortunately did not get) as well as that younger version of yourself who spent a summer canvassing, still will not qualify for overtime.

    To your point about young women benefiting from this, it just so happens that our president is a man, the leadership team consists solely of three men, I myself am a man making slightly more than the $47,476 threshold, and all of the individuals who might stand to gain from this ruling are, in fact, young women. Perhaps I am wrong and many nonprofits will have to change their practices, but, unfortunately, it seems to me that the celebrations started early.

    1. Thanks so much for your comment. That’s very upsetting about the different ways nonprofits can avoid paying a living wage (or keep time demands at 40 hours/week). There are so many issues I didn’t cover here that won’t be helped by an overtime rule, as well – like sexual harassment, family leave, etc. Nonprofits shouldn’t be held to lower standards than businesses – they should be held to a higher standard because they (or at least many of them) are about creating a more just society. Foundation donors should emphasize this more – that may be one thing that will help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *