4 ms·

Because that's quite literally a scam? Most employees are paid for the time they put in, if you're a contractor working for a fixed fee for delivering a project

Because that's quite literally a scam? Most employees are paid for the time they put in, if you're a contractor working for a fixed fee for delivering a project, it's different, but it's up to you to get that kind of contract, otherwise it's quite literally defrauding someone. If you tell some granny that fixing her toilet will cost her 5k€ because it will take you a month, and you do it in a day, you're basically taking advantage of someone's ignorance to scam that person. It's exactly the same if it's some tech illiterate small business owner, or even any relatively honest decent boss. Now of course I don't see the harm in doing that to evil abusive companies, but I think most of the companies who deserve to be treated that way would also never let you get away with that kind of thing.

everforward 5y ago
I think there's a double standard here, and people bifurcate on which standard they think should change. On one hand, businesses fight to reduce their opex liabilities by paying people as little as they can to fill the role. On the other hand, some workers fight to reduce their time liabilities by doing as little as they can to satisfy that role. I think it's hard to denounce the latter while maintaining that the former is fine. The moral lens we use for businesses is very different than the one we use for people. For example: > you're basically taking advantage of someone's ignorance to scam that person This is arbitrage in a nutshell, and people don't usually have an issue with it when businesses do it. Dropshippers are doing pretty much exactly this. To me, it just needs to be consistent. So long as there remains an adversarial relationship between employers and employee, employees should be allowed to take advantage of the same tactics. If employers want to try to reduce their liabilities by paying as little as they can, employees should be able to try to reduce their liabilities by doing as little work as they can. Also, a lot of people (maybe most of us here) are not paid for the time they put in, because they're salaried (again, likely to the employer's benefit). I don't get paid more for working 50 hours than I do for 40. > If you tell some granny that fixing her toilet will cost her 5k€ because it will take you a month, and you do it in a day, you're basically taking advantage of someone's ignorance to scam that person. Just another tidbit on this (sorry it's somewhat out of order): you're taking advantage of the granny because no one expects her to know what it costs to fix a toilet. I think there's a reasonable expectation for a company to understand it's labor needs and costs, which makes it far less objectionable. If they want to buy X, and they buy from a dropshipper for twice the price instead of direct from the manufacturer, has the dropshipper done something wrong? Or what if they want a widget, don't specify the material, and the manufacturer makes it out of plastic even though the per-unit price is high enough to afford metal (presuming metal is better)? Is it on the manufacturer to cut their profits as low as possible to sell the best product, or are they allowed to simply comply with the requirements they were given and pocket the rest?

everforward 5y ago

I think there's a double standard here, and people bifurcate on which standard they think should change. On one hand, businesses fight to reduce their opex liabilities by paying people as little as they can to fill the role. On the other hand, some workers fight to reduce their time liabilities by doing as little as they can to satisfy that role. I think it's hard to denounce the latter while maintaining that the former is fine. The moral lens we use for businesses is very different than the one we use for people. For example: > you're basically taking advantage of someone's ignorance to scam that person This is arbitrage in a nutshell, and people don't usually have an issue with it when businesses do it. Dropshippers are doing pretty much exactly this. To me, it just needs to be consistent. So long as there remains an adversarial relationship between employers and employee, employees should be allowed to take advantage of the same tactics. If employers want to try to reduce their liabilities by paying as little as they can, employees should be able to try to reduce their liabilities by doing as little work as they can. Also, a lot of people (maybe most of us here) are not paid for the time they put in, because they're salaried (again, likely to the employer's benefit). I don't get paid more for working 50 hours than I do for 40. > If you tell some granny that fixing her toilet will cost her 5k€ because it will take you a month, and you do it in a day, you're basically taking advantage of someone's ignorance to scam that person. Just another tidbit on this (sorry it's somewhat out of order): you're taking advantage of the granny because no one expects her to know what it costs to fix a toilet. I think there's a reasonable expectation for a company to understand it's labor needs and costs, which makes it far less objectionable. If they want to buy X, and they buy from a dropshipper for twice the price instead of direct from the manufacturer, has the dropshipper done something wrong? Or what if they want a widget, don't specify the material, and the manufacturer makes it out of plastic even though the per-unit price is high enough to afford metal (presuming metal is better)? Is it on the manufacturer to cut their profits as low as possible to sell the best product, or are they allowed to simply comply with the requirements they were given and pocket the rest?