Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply

Elevating our workplace with a new minimum rate

Community Guru
Suzanne N Member Since: Aug 15, 2012
51 of 150
[quote=Stephen B.]Why not - it would be more fun Smiley Tongue[/quote] Sure would be... I wanted to post something for those whining about the raise to a minimum ex·ploi·ta·tion ˌeksploiˈtāSHən/ noun 1. the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. "the exploitation of migrant workers" synonyms: taking advantage, abuse, misuse, ill-treatment, unfair treatment, oppression "the exploitation of the poor" 2. the action of making use of and benefiting from resources. "the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits" synonyms: utilization, use, making use of, making the most of, capitalization on; informalcashing in on "the exploitation of mineral resources"
Active Member
Jason R Member Since: Mar 24, 2012
52 of 150
[quote=Suzanne Nee][quote=Stephen B.]Why not - it would be more fun Smiley Tongue[/quote] Sure would be... I wanted to post something for those whining about the raise to a minimum ex·ploi·ta·tion ˌeksploiˈtāSHən/ noun 1. the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. "the exploitation of migrant workers" synonyms: taking advantage, abuse, misuse, ill-treatment, unfair treatment, oppression "the exploitation of the poor" 2. the action of making use of and benefiting from resources. "the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits" synonyms: utilization, use, making use of, making the most of, capitalization on; informalcashing in on "the exploitation of mineral resources"[/quote] I'm not really sure what your point is here. If your an employer ( I doubt you are ) why dont you just hire the most expensive workers in each field, that way you wont exploit them, or at least it will exploit them less. Every business on the planet exploits workers based on some of the information shown above, others have no relevance at all. These people are adults, do you think they would take jobs if they had something better? No! Go read my post about the Philippines and showing salaries in the country to see why I think this raise is a bad idea. Its not to keep people down, its to pay whats fair giving the skills/working online and other factors. I have a 4.90 rating as an employer with probably 3000 hours of work time (most of that in the 8$) range but that is because i mostly higher better skilled people do you think i get that by exploting the workers. This change doesn't effect me much as i only have 1 sub 3$ worker on odesk, I'll source lower skilled workers elsewhere if i ever need to. The biggest thing you should consider is that you probably have not lived in any of these countries and have no understanding of what these people earn in those counties. I do, and have lived in several developing countries so I know the scoop, and I know that this 3$ an hour for the lower end ( Va's, seo non-native writers, data entry ect) is like Santa clause paying them a visit because it puts there salary vs skill way above what it would normally be in their own country and they dont even have to get dressed, go to work and have a boss breathing over their shoulder all day. Also related to your Exploitation quotes. This is a free market, and my gripe has nothing to do with standards of living. Why? Because odesk is not their employer, this is not a job, even hourly is really just a contract. Effectively freelancers are independent contractors running their own business, so they do not get the benefit of all the labor laws (or if they do, they shouldn't) they either take whats on the table or get off their butt in their own country and go find better in person job. Its pretty simple, these are adults and they dont need babysitting by you, or odesk. Anyway this will not change, and I'm pretty sure this minimum has nothing to do with odesk trying to make sure workers get a better living wage, its because they are probably trying to line things up with the company they merged with months back.
Community Guru
Natacha R Member Since: Aug 2, 2010
53 of 150
[quote=Jason R.] This change doesn't effect me much[/quote] I have read all your comments, including the ones that got deleted. It seemed to me this is something that will negatively impact your business, which is why you can't stop going on about it.
Active Member
Jason R Member Since: Mar 24, 2012
54 of 150
Why dont you find something that actually will/might effect you to engage in and if you are going post why dont you put some thought into it instead of doing a 1 sentence drive-bye.In this case its regarding something that has zero effect on you personally. Sure it doesn't really effect me as far as using odesk. But it might at some point if i want to hire some lower skilled workers, however at least I could be effected, you will never be, but your still in here commenting? My reason for posting is on the principle of this change as a business owner (not a worker who just wants as much as i can get without doing more) that i disagree with and the whole can of worms it opens by instituting something like this because it doesn't help all freelancers and doesn't make sense to me. The funny thing is you probably think they are doing this to help the workers who is the lessor of concern to odesk i can promise you that, its the MONEY and those that spend it ( Employers ) that will always get the edge in any decision because they make the wheels turn and the doors at odesk stay open, however above the employers is odesk's own business success, future plans and own well being witch they feel this is best for them. Anyway this decision has nothing to do with helping workers, its probably about the merger that has caused this, in fact odesk is often criticized as a cut rate shop of cheap labor (And that is not a knock on them in my book) and i think this is one of the reasons it has done so well, to eclipse marketshare of company's like elance because of this. So dont get to happy about this, because every year Millions are getting access to the internet, and English is getting better, and people in the provinces can live cheaper, so when they enter the online "I want to work at home, its great and i dont have to get dressed or go outside my house" workforce costs for labor will keep going down, and what odesk is doing here is just artificial inflation witch will eventually topple as other businesses/companies see opportunity to fill the niche something like this creates, and you can bet there are plenty of workers (who will soon get no work on odesk) willing and happy to accept the $1 an hour or less to be able to work at home. I dont care if a worker makes 50$ or .50, as I do not even consider that there should be any limit on what you can charge, just like i dont think there should be any minimum, so while you might get the impression im against workers making a fair wage its not so. I dont care about the workers wages period. I care to hire the person who provides the best value for service, and if that comes in the form of 50$ an hour fine, but if it comes in the form of .50 an hour to do a robotic job a 7 year old could accomplish then so be it, but I dont want to have to pay $3 for a job that a 7 year old could do, and I think that's my right (at least outside odesk it is), and dont forget it should also be the right for the .50 worker to take/reject the job, but on odesk that type of worker will simply not get any work now, so show me how that helps him/her as a worker or helps his/her family eat. Do you really think that the implantation of this rule is going to magically get this worker a job making $3 an hour? Who will pay it? YOU? I dont think so because your not an employer, your stake in this is completely transparent and maybe mine is as well, but at least mine is based on a principle this type of site (odesk) was founded on, and that is open market, supply and demand. So yeah, this will not effect me to much, it might if i need low skilled workers later, but I'll find other places to get those types of workers, its the principle of this decision that i really dont like, and thats why im posting in a thread that both might effect me a little in the future, and I disagree with because I believe its illogical and the antithesis of what the odesk business model was founded on. Btw, yeah, i get a little passionate about something I dont belive in so some of my posts where removed, although its not like i was being overly abusive. However, you mentioned you read all my posts, even the ones that got deleted? *Removed by admin*
Community Guru
Natacha R Member Since: Aug 2, 2010
55 of 150
[quote=Jason R.] [quote]Natasha R Is it better that the freelancer doesn't have a job at all or to have a job that pays 1.50 USD per hour? Answer is...We are kidding here ,right? Nowhere ,literally nowhere in the world, no human being can live on that money -so if you do pay your freelancer that much take a moment to reflect on how your actions support outright,clear exploitation[/quote] [/quote] I never made that comment, it was Natasa from Serbia Yes, I did read the discussion you had with her. By the way, it's against forum rules to repost deleted comments.
Community Guru
Natacha R Member Since: Aug 2, 2010
56 of 150
[quote=Jason R.] why dont you put some thought into it instead of doing a 1 sentence drive-bye.[/quote] I'm not sure how I feel about this, I haven't made my mind up. We used to get freelancers posting topics asking oDesk to set a minimum rate, some would respond telling them it's a free market, to set their own, and I was one of them. I would agree with comments like this one. I think some clients have gone too far, I have seen job posts offering 30 cents per hour. Please stop saying *Employer*, you're a client.
Active Member
Jason R Member Since: Mar 24, 2012
57 of 150
[quote]Our users are entrepreneurial, independent and ambitious.[/quote] From the above link. This is why I dont like the minimum, no matter how bad things get I think the words above do not go with the word "minimum" because most entrepreneurs make nothing, most fail, and most lose not only money but a lot of time and there is no minimum for all the normal people starting/running and failing at businesses. people are going to push the limits if its a free market. I would not bother posting .30 an hour contract myself. There are clearly a lot of shady clients around here, I dont pay attention to much but i see them as I browse job postings sometimes and the demands are harsh, and completely laughable at times, but I still think if people are willing then that's their own fault for taking the job. As bad as you might think .30 is, i'll bet there are people that actually don't even deserve that high a rate. Odesk should weed them out when they break rules. I actually like the idea of getting rid of bad clients as well as bad workers. I'm not up to date on all odesk rules but I think you do not even have to verify you can pay for work prior to posting a job. That right there seems like a horrible idea that clogs up and waists the workers time (i could be wrong) and some are desperate enough to apply for a job from an employer that not only has no feedback but has no verified funds. This seems like it would be a bigger issue than the low rates. I guess I just dont believe a solution to fix these bad apples is to raise the rate to $3, and I'm sure a lot of workers will benefit from this but a lot will be put out of work. [quote]Changing terminology from "employers" to "clients" [/quote] This is actually rather funny, that the name use to be "Employers" and now its "Clients" with this new change of a $3 minimum wage I think the term should be changed back because these forces (words) are fighting against other as how can a "Contractor" get a minimum wage from a "Client" that they didn't set themselves. By definition I think a contractor is in control of their rates right? So now that is not the case right? so They are Employee's again (or a hybrid) because they do not have full control over their rates anymore.
Community Guru
Natasa R Member Since: Feb 2, 2012
58 of 150
[quote]This is actually rather funny, that the name use to be "Employers" and now its "Clients" with this new change[/quote] Actually no, it has been "client" for a long time. Yes, you are right about freelancers being in control of their own rates. In fact, as the businesses we are, we are in complete control of that, not the clients. But then again, we have to see the bigger picture here. Many freelancers that work for $0.10/hr would even work for $0.001/hr if they could just to be able to land on a job. And I can assure you that there are clients that would gladly jump on that deal in a split second. It's an evil circle that is feeding itself. By the way, I'm Natasa from Sweden, not Natasha or Natasa.
Active Member
Joe M Member Since: Jun 14, 2013
59 of 150
Gillan, I read and fully understand the policy. The problem for us in particular is that we were planning on expanding our team. If we hire more people, and at a higher rate than our current employees, we will be forced to raise the rates of our current 46 person team (or suffer morale problems and resignations). It effectively forces us to pay more or leave.
Community Guru
Gillian Michele N Member Since: Mar 15, 2012
60 of 150
OK. I've read your comment.
TOP KUDOED MEMBERS