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

Wow, I've seen it all!

Highlighted
Community Guru
Setu M Member Since: Jan 26, 2014
21 of 43

**Edited to add** - After reading over the entire thread I realized that this post was meant more for another thread we have been discussing at length. But this is still applicable so I will leave it.

 

There are exceptions is all cases, but there are valid reasons why there are also rules. I can understand the need for legitimate filters for some cases, but usually clients who are conscientious do not scream things in their job posts. Just that in itself is offensive. So we are dealing with a mentality.

 

The reason for the OP was that of exploitation, everyone here needs to remember that. So while some cases do not apply, majority of the times this is the reason for this type of statement. That is what we are trying to get rid of.

 

I just saw a post:

 

This job is for Indian virtual workers only

 

Why? The clients average hourly rate after 240 hrs is $13.83/hr. Yet in this post he specifies Indians only in order to pay $1 for 7-8 blog post submissions. Now we need to stop sidelining the argument and showing the exceptions. I think everyone would agree here that 99% of the times these posts want a certain sect only to apply is for exploitation purposes.

 

This is in black and white. Let us not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is otherwise. The two sides to the story is rather onesided most of the times.

---- easy like Sunday morning ----
Highlighted
Community Guru
Aleksandra K Member Since: Mar 31, 2015
22 of 43

Setu,

 

You are probably right; however, would omitting these “requirements” make any difference? His mind set would still be the same and he would still “aim” at people who agree to work for lower rates.

 

If this client is willing to pay $1 or less for certain services he would still hire only for that price. The difference is that if the client doesn’t put the “special requirements” he will get a lot more invitations (or maybe not, due to the rate) so he will have to go through hundreds of invitations and there will be a lot of freelancers losing connects for nothing.

 

I don’t support discrimination or prejudice regardless of the reasons but sometimes having more specific requirements, even if they are not the most moral ones can be beneficial.

Highlighted
Community Guru
Setu M Member Since: Jan 26, 2014
23 of 43

Yes this is true, since it is a mentality. In the other thread several posts were in favour of empowering freelancers rather than clamping down on clients. I think both are applicable. But since it will be difficult to "empower" all these applicants to increase the "worth" (and I am trying to use the best non-political term), then at least we can start by telling the clients that this behaviour is unacceptable.

 

We also seem to forget that there is already a legitimate location filter built-in that the client can choose when posting a job. So shouting NO *** or ONLY *** is really unnecessary.

---- easy like Sunday morning ----
Highlighted
Community Guru
Santiago G Member Since: Mar 10, 2015
24 of 43

The fun part is that both sides of the story are right.

 

One side here is saying "it's wrong, illegal, offensive, etc etc". The other side is saying "The client posted like that due to bad experiences caused by ...... whoever". It's all in how ..... YOU ..... are seeing it at the time of seeing such a post. Either reason could have caused the post as it stands. So yeah, here comes both sides of the story as we're all seeing in this topic.

 

The not so fun part is that I'm unaware of anything that a client has access to which would allow him/her to post a job that would filter out anyone outside of ..... wherever. Or something that doesn't allow people from..... wherever..... to apply.

 

Even if there was something like that, freelancers like myself who happen to be FROM another country, end up not being seen or not being able to apply for jobs that we very well could do. Freelancers that move around a lot.... lots o luck.

 

I reside in the Philippines..... yeah yeah....big deal...good for you.... try not to FRY... etc etc!! But I certainly don't get results and feedback like I do on my profile because I suck as a writer!! And don't bother with the ONE with missing feedback. That client re-hired me!! The second contract is still ongoing. The client appologized to me because he simply overlooked it (tired and wasn't paying attention). As of yet, it caused no harm so I'm ok with it as it stands.

 

But where does a filter/feature like this leave me and how many other freelancers are in the same or in a similar situation?

 

As for the job post that actually caused this topic to be made...... None of us currently know what exactly caused such a job post. Either side of the story could have done it. So as such, the speculation alone can have the lot of us running around in circles and getting no where quick. This is what we get for not asking and/or not being able to ask.

 

The short version: Until a USEFUL method can be created to prevent posts like that (which caused this topic to being with), no matter what really caused the job post, the lot of us are stuck with it. Sure, anyone can flag posts all they like..... IF that actually does something about it. <<Not too sure there. But otherwise, we're all still stuck. Clients and freelancers.

Highlighted
Ace Contributor
Paul M Member Since: Feb 17, 2015
25 of 43

I can see both sides of this, definitely.

 

I actually see lots of jobs asking for Filipino applicants only, and I've never felt offended by that. I just assume the client is more comformtable dealing with people from the same cultural background or perhaps in Tagalog rather than English.

 

I actually agree with Aleksandra, in that it saves me reading any further and possibly wasting time on a pointless application. I don't immediately think the client is racist, it's just something to skip over and move on.

 

As Preston alludes to, there are far more elegant ways to include such requirements in job posts, but it's far more widespread than people contributing to this thread seem to realise, it's usually just better disguised.

Highlighted
Community Guru
Ramon B Member Since: Jan 11, 2015
26 of 43

I just feel a realistic minimum wage ($8.00 +) would have got rid of most of the problems on this site without all this connects nonsense.

Highlighted
Community Guru
Douglas Michael M Member Since: May 22, 2015
27 of 43

@Ramon B wrote:

I just feel a realistic minimum wage ($8.00 +) would have got rid of most of the problems on this site without all this connects nonsense.


When it comes to any measure that would give a moment's hesitation to a prosepctive client signing up and posting: Don't hold your breath,

 

I don't know the history of minimum hourly rates on Upwork. Elance lowered its minimum hourly rate from (I believe) $5 to $3. This was, they said, at the insistence of big corporate clients, most if not all of whom are based in the US, and would result in a shower of opportunities for providers. In retrospect, I suppose it's not surprising that they're now trying to sell a bridge.

 

Best to all,

Michael

Highlighted
Community Guru
Ramon B Member Since: Jan 11, 2015
28 of 43

Personally, I just wish both low payers and low earners would go away completely. The entire justification for the current disastrous relaunch revolves around the unprofessional behaviour of freelancers and clients at the lowest end.

 

P.S Yes, low paying does include a few early contracts of mine that I am unable to close for reasons of job success.

Highlighted
Community Guru
Sandra T Member Since: Nov 26, 2014
29 of 43

@Ramon B wrote:

Personally, I just wish both low payers and low earners would go away completely. The entire justification for the current disastrous relaunch revolves around the unprofessional behaviour of freelancers and clients at the lowest end.

 


 I don't know about that, and I do wonder what that is, "the lowest" end, or rather where the line is between good (=decent, fair, morally acceptable) low and bad low is.

 

This comes from a personal perspective. E.g. I would like to hire someone sometime to explain some Excel stuff to me (nothing complicated), let's say for 3 hours.  I can't pay $50 (let's assume this is equivalent to a week's worth of groceries for me), but I would like to find someone who can help me for 3 hours at let's say $5 per hour for whom $15 is also a week's worth of groceries. The grocery thing is sort my way trying to keep it at a "good" lower end, if that makes sense. I have a couple of other similar projects in mind, but keep hesitating because the whole thing about where opportunity ends and exploitation begins is actually rather troublesome for me.

 

--------------

 

I think the whole $3/h minimum was a good step into the right direction. Unfortunately this can still be avoided by those hilarious fixed-price offers, e.g. 8 articles for $1 or whatever. It would be good to hear some kind of comment by Upwork, if and how they are planning to increase the quality of the site in regards to this.

Highlighted
Community Guru
Ramon B Member Since: Jan 11, 2015
30 of 43

The 'lowest end' now is clearly $3.00 an hour. However, when I started a year ago it was around $0.20 an hour. Personally, I think wages should be standardised according to the American minimum wage. I do not think it would be a great loss to Upwork if it lost both the people who can only complete by bidding the lowest amount and, indeed, the people with so little respect for human dignity that they are prepared to pay someone $0.20 for a 500 word article.

 

 

TOP SOLUTION AUTHORS
TOP KUDOED MEMBERS