This was an interested read today as I saw a person essentially arguing with a company on how its compensation structure is what he feels borderline slave labour. On the surface it didn’t sound too bad as apparently they calculated it as paying people about $30/hr. However, the reason for the conflict was that they expected people to produce a quantity of work where you would probably have to pay a professional hundreds of dollars for. Example, expecting you to write a professional and proof edited book each hour.
The interesting thing to me was how the business tried to defend itself such as implying it’s a business and they have to make a return out of their investment. Of course that didn’t go out too well as people continued to criticize them. I think what made it worst in this situation is that they try to pass it off as a very good deal for all parties. Based on industry average it wasn’t though if you were looking at it that way.
It makes me wonder, if you were the business isn’t it better to simply be upfront that you can’t say compensate very well due to limited funds for example? While granted it’s probably harder to attract talent, the bad PR is probably way worst. It almost reminds of like how some people want help and advertise their job as if they are giving you the best opportunity in the world and so working for free should be no issue. Like there it is probably better to be upfront on how you can’t afford standard professional fees and therefore are looking for volunteers or people who can negotiate something that works with their budget.