In my years there, labor laws were so far off our radar as directors, since it was a campaign and our employees were activists, etc etc, that something like this would have been truly a surprise. Shocking.

But from what I know now, having spoken with many people inside and outside of PIRG/Fund with years of experience running canvasses, there is a great amount of anxiety that the Fund would bring exactly this upon itself.

It concerns me too, a little bit, that the canvass model could be really threatened, but I also think that this is appropriate and maybe even necessary.

The GCI canvass was not just build on the Fund model, it stole from it. Doug Phelps, who is head of the for profit GCI and the defacto head of Fund (although he will deny it despite the fact that no one in the Fund or PIRG can make a decision without his approval) literally stole the canvass models the Fund uses, as well as its member lists, and used it to start the GCI canvasses. He also used Fund staff to help train and run the GCI canvasses and paid them through GCI so it would not show up on the Fund books and so he would give Fund staff bonuses and extra payments while keeping Fund salaries artifically low.

This lawsuit was a longtime in coming, and it will be interesting to see how is shakes out. It is well known throughout the Fund organization that canvassers who do not come in for extra hours are targeted for firing or demotion, but this policy will not show up anywhere in writing and may be difficult to prove in court.

Go, Christian.

I read Greg Bloom's series and thought it was great.  I canvassed door-to-door in the early 80s before the Fund and GCI became dominant in canvassing.  Even back then, the PIRG canvasses had a reputation for treating their canvassers like dirt.

I wish you the greatest success in your class-action suit.  I am disgusted that so-called progressive organizations are not willing to examine the dirty laundry regarding the canvasses they hire through the  Fund.

Interesting.  I worked for GCI, and am now in law school focused on labor law. Not that I am not a lawyer (IANAL!), so don't take any of this as legal advice...

The outside sales exception is fairly broad, so I'm honestly not sure how successful this suit will be.  There is a department of labor opinion letter from last year saying that charitable solicition is not outside sales, but there are a few issues using that as precedent.  

First, it is an administrative decision, so while there will be some level of deference, it won't be binding.  (Don't ask what level of deference, please, it will make me go look at my admin law notes, I'd rather punch myself in the nuts).

Second, the cases establishing the exception make it fairly clear that people who are out on their own, and provide few services other then customer contact, are outside sales.

There are probably some issues related directly to class certification, as well.  (For example, field managers and canvassers would be very different in terms of hours worked, so the Fund could have a challenge on typicallity)

I'm not going to go too far into detail on this, but the case is not cut and dry.

Wonderful news!  Thanks for pursuing this.

I worked for the PIRG, but as a Campus Organizer in their MASSPIRG branch from 2002-2003.  Myself and several other of the campus organizers at that time attempted to unionize, but unfortunately our effort fizzled out at the end.  I don't know if our stories would help our not, but feel free to contact me.

hi christian-- this is the former gci employee from sf you spoke to during the winter, after the moveon project. we got our lawsuit off the ground, finally! things are moving. we're class action, too. :)

i'm sorry i lost contact with you. email me/call me if you still have my info! or you can email my anonymail: processwhore AT hotmail DOT com.

I hope you are well! hanging at the yearlykos?