Will Netflix be okay if I pirate their shows but I talk about them to my friends a lot and provide them "free exposure?"
/s maybe?
Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
351–360 of 424 posts
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#352This will be an unpopular opinion, but I am feeling chatty today. As long as safety + working conditions are not cruel and unusual, and someone is willing to work for $0, why are you trying to stop (or hide) that fact? Someone willing to work for less (or for free) is offering a bargain to incentivize giving him/her the business or the benefit of experience instead of more $. You restricting them from doing that does…
Yours is the perfect example of predatory practices. Fair wages for fair work. Is that so hard of a concept to understand? It's this kind of attitude that workers are turning on trickle down and starting look at more as eat the rich.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Whats the value of 'promotion' at that point?
> If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.
Aren't those the people already offering to pay in 'exposure' or 'experience'? I have strong doubt that taking no money from Netflix will help you extract payment from other people.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was monarchy essential to the socioeconomic system of the EU members? The point is not that slavery was a founding pillar simply because it existed at the time of founding.
Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the citizens of those countries continue to preserve that institution. The question at hand is whether it's a foundational pillar of the EU , which it's obviously not, because that's not a concept that's defined at the EU-level. Similarly, slavery as an instituti…
> Uh, yes?
My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar.
> Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States.
That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants.
> By that logic, is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.
No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#355This will be an unpopular opinion, but I am feeling chatty today. As long as safety + working conditions are not cruel and unusual, and someone is willing to work for $0, why are you trying to stop (or hide) that fact? Someone willing to work for less (or for free) is offering a bargain to incentivize giving him/her the business or the benefit of experience instead of more $. You restricting them from doing that does…
> You just hide the problem by saying that it's unjust to pay so low a wage and not allow people to do it.
We have minimum wage laws because we as a society have decided that some wages are too low to be just. "It's a volunteer position" exploits a loophole in that.
There are plenty of things like this in labor law, like mandatory breaks of a certain length after working for a certain amount of time. We recognize that the employer usually has much more negotiating power in the relationship with the employee, and try to equalize things a bit.
> You are not going to escape the fundamental fact that there are people who are out there wanting to work, but who cannot command the pay rate dictated.
Pay is only dictated by what people want or can command when demand for a certain kind of worker is higher than the supply. In this case, there appears to be more supply than demand, so the pay is determined by the perceived value the employer gets from the work. Given that this production presumably couldn't happen at all unless they filled these positions, the value of this work is greater than zero. So they should be paid for the work. The only reason they are offering zero pay is because there are people desperate for work, who will buy the (nearly-always false) representation that they'll get enough "exposure" or "experience" for it to be worthwhile.
IMO these sorts of predatory practices should be illegal, but it's really hard to do that without also making legitimate volunteer opportunities illegal as well.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but abusive and predatory behaviour is STILL abusive and predatory in an oversupply situation.
Please expand on why you think so. Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain? (I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
People should be paid a living wage for their work.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#357Similar shenanigans were rampant in Hollywood in early 20-th century. This lead to creation of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) trade union representing interests of movie actors. Might be the time for photographers to unionize as well?
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think unpaid internships being socially acceptable is one of the roots of this insidious habit. I think tipping as a cultural norm is another of the roots. Making it acceptable to move (a large portion of) staff payment from the employer to the customer should never have happened. The toxicity with which people defend tipping culture (in my experience in online forums) is astounding.
I hadn't thought of that but yea I agree entirely. Tipping culture is something that's also really difficult to combat - I feel like it'd require legislation making tipping illegal to actually break the habit since otherwise you're just lowering the waiter's take home. I will continue to both grumble about how bad tipping is while also tipping constantly since I think it's the only reasonable thing to do.
100%. That's what makes it so insidious, whether by design or happenstance...the burden of both payment and guilt are responsibility are placed on the customer. Tip poorly, or not at all, and the employee doesn't get paid. Makes it impossible to change.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, yes? Monarchy is an essential component of the political systems of the Netherlands, the UK, and Denmark (to name a few). There are a variety of reasons the citizens of those countries continue to preserve that institution. The question at hand is whether it's a foundational pillar of the EU , which it's obviously not, because that's not a concept that's defined at the EU-level. Similarly, slavery as an instituti…
> Uh, yes? My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar. > Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essentia…
> If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar.
The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite.
We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants.
There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html).
And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.
Re: Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal was to disprove "this sets the standard that work is worth $0". And celebrities using it in the middle of successful performance careers seems to disprove that idea just fine. You're the one that brought up breakouts, but the part you're demanding proof of is something that's obvious. No, I don't have proof that a nobody performing in the super bowl would have a huge spike in popularity. But I think you're b…
At best we can say it doesn't hurt some of the best-known and most popular performers in the world. If you're the Beyoncé of your field you can do whatever and it's unlikely to hurt you that badly. That has little bearing on the current discussion.
Willful ignorance is not a good argument. These performers have detailed public sales figures. We know with certainty that performing in the Super Bowl is a large boost to their sales.