[consulting] oDesk

Tue May 5 20:20:07 UTC 2009

I live in Buenos Aires.

As someone living in a "third-world" country (similar to g-d forsaken Los
Angeles, for example), I doubt replacing true efficacy, based on as much
trust and cooperation as possible
  (possibly fostered by an agile approach to development which doesn't put
the boss, the client and the worker into separate cubicles, but has them all
working together in the same
    (could be virtual)  room )
  )
with whips (are you working?) will improve our lot a lot.

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Sam Cohen <sam at samcohen.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Victor Kane <victorkane at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's the same thing, and if it isn't, the aim is to make it the same
>> thing.
>>
>> The aim is to drive down wages and worsen working conditions. The aim is
>> to make people afraid of being able to take a break, or answer a friends
>> ping on messenger.
>
>
> Whose aim are you talking about?
>
> The aim of the person hiring someone is to make sure that person is working
> when they say they are ...and  that they are not -- while they are being
> paid -- writing emails to discussion forums about the merits of being
> monitored by Odesk :)
>
>
>>
>> Proving to the boss with a whip you're on the go, and if you take a break
>> you may not get paid, is sweatshop conditions.
>
>
> In traditional work environments the "boss" was able to monitor the worker
> because the worker was on the premises.  If the worker didn't show up for
> work they weren't paid or they were fired.
>
> In a virtual environment there needs to be someway to monitor employers.
>
> I don't see any whips here.
>
>
>>
>> No disservice done.
>>
>> No-one voluntarily works in a sweatshop either. It's because they may not
>> have work. Citing the "freedom" to accept or not these conditions is
>> tantamount to a "freedom to work" position.
>>
>> No-one has that freedom if they don't have work. There are tons of people
>> in the IT industry without work. These sweatshop conditions must never be
>> allowed to become "acceptable".
>>
>
>
> But we are not talking about sweatshop conditions.  We're talking about
> holding people accountable.
>
> If anything the conditions of Odesk workers are incredibly liberating for
> those accepting work in these countries.  These folks are their own boss,
> can negotiate their own terms, and get rewarded according to their abilities
> and willingness to work hard.    There's no master slave relationship.  They
> are on equal terms with those who hire them. (Just ask them what they think)
>
> Monitoring their computer is no different than the way a meter would
> monitor a taxi driver who takes you somewhere -- or would you just let the
> taxi driver charge you whatever he wants when you get to your destination.
>
> I think sites like ODesk create great opportunities for people in third
> world countries to improve their condition and live a better life, more than
> any amount of chairty and foreign aid could ever do.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Victor
>>
>>  On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Cohen <sam at samcohen.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The attempt by you of posting here in order to normalize and pass off as
>>>> perfectly acceptable a power "master"/"slave" relationship between those
>>>> selling and purchasing labor power needs to be denounced, as several here on
>>>> this thread already have.
>>>>
>>>> I believe personally that it is brazen of you to defend sweat shop
>>>> conditions, where you as a purchaser of labor power get to pry into the
>>>> private screen of someone selling their labor power to you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who said anything about sweatshop conditions?  I think its unfair of you
>>> to accuse Matt of that.
>>>
>>> He's simply trying to make sure that the folks he hires are working.
>>> Every employer in the world does that, and in remote work environments, it's
>>> particularly important.
>>>
>>>  As free individuals they can chose not to accept that type of
>>> monitoring.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't work under those conditions right now, because I have plenty
>>> of work.
>>>
>>> But if I really needed the work and the condition was that I would be
>>> monitored, I would take it.
>>>
>>> I hardly see that as slavery -- it's just being held accountable.
>>>
>>> There is an enormous amount of  real suffering in the world by those who
>>> work in slavery or under sweatshop conditions.  You do them a disservice by
>>> equating their condition with an Odesk worker having their computer
>>> monitored.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> consulting mailing list
>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org
>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20090505/e6135d29/attachment.htm>