4 ms·
Or just offer both options. I certainly wouldn't eliminate the opportunity for unemployed people to get a little cash, just because of contract issues that gain
by unishark 6y ago
Or just offer both options. I certainly wouldn't eliminate the opportunity for unemployed people to get a little cash, just because of contract issues that gainfully employed people might have.
- bbarnett 6y agoYes, but... Now one worries, is this itself a test? Are they judging my desire to donate.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoWell, honestly - if I wanted to donate, I could do so myself after they pay me. Then I'd be worried... are they watching to see whether I engage in hollow virtue-signalling?
- bbarnett 6y agoNo, they're watching to see if you're worried about whether they're watching to see if you're engaged in hollow virtue-signalling. :P
- unishark 6y agoWell there has to be some benefit to passing on the money. It's kind of like at salary negotiation. You can impress them with how you really are there for your passion not materialism. Or you can get money.
- twic 6y agoThere are tax implications, for both employer and employee, to paying the candidate, at least in the UK. It would be quite a lot of headache for not a lot of money. Donating to charity has tax implications for the company too, but they're much simpler.
- unishark 6y agoI'm not a corporate accountant or anything, but I've been on both sides of this and it's very simple to pay people for outside work in the US. And for that matter, giving real-but-unpaid work to do as part of an interview may be illegal. So paying for your time may be something companies are doing to protect themselves taxwise, not just for good will.