Nah, I'm no fan of red philosophy, I just like the idea an honest and open environment that doesn't bend for someone who thinks they're worth more than is reasonable.
What kind of terrible situation would a company be in that they're so desperate to fill a spot that they'd let someone exploit them?
Setting aside the "exploit" angle, I can think of a lot of reasons why a company in the middle of a 3d production would suddenly have a strong need to hire one or more additional employees. Proper project scheduling is pretty difficult and people routinely underestimate the time and manpower needed to finish a project. If the need is strong enough, a company will pay what they need to in order to make sure the project doesn't bomb.
The idea of "exploitation" is misleading here because the potential employee is not forcing the company into a contract (if anything, exploitation of labor is much more common the other way around). Exploitation infers that one party is taking advantage of the other, but I fail to see how this would be the case in our scenario. Econ tells us that if a company agrees to pay a certain rate, they feel the transaction is mutually beneficial. But for a studio in desperate need to hire someone at a high rate and then complain about "being robbed" is disingenuous in context of the market; it was the market itself that enabled them to fulfill their urgent need.
If the company doesn't want to pay the requested day rate, they simply don't hire the person and look for alternatives. This is the beauty of the free market -- people charging ridiculously high rates for no good reason will be forced to lower them due to competition. If competition is reduced due to a smaller market (e.g., you're in Kansas City, not LA) and more complex demands (you need someone with lots of experience or specialized abilities), then those skills are worth more and a higher rate is merited. Greed has nothing to do with it.
To say "I know this is what you want to pay me, and how this is based on the worth of my intended production, but I dont care, I will only work for xx dollars" IS greedy.
I think we actually may be on the same page, at least partly. If someone comes in demanding a ridiculously high rate compared to the local supply of animators (or whatever), it's probably more foolishness than greed. My point is merely this: just because someone asks to be paid more than the company would like to pay, does not mean they are greedy. Any company worth its salt is going to have a preference for low labor costs, but that does not mean the company's idea of "reasonable" is automatically correct and the freelancer's idea is "greedy". Ideally the two sides' preferences meet somewhere in the middle and both parties are happy.
Keep in mind that this works both ways; if someone is desperate to find employment, they may settle for working more hours or receiving less pay,simply because they want a job. Likewise in our situation -- if a company is desperate to find an employee, their idea of "reasonable" changes because their need has increased, and they're willing to pay more.
If a potential employee and an employer have such completely different views of value then it would only cause problems in the future anyway, and to me would not be worth it.
I agree completely, which is why it's so important to make sure everything is very clear upfront -- rates, expected hours, OT, etc... that way both sides have enough information to make sure they're benefiting from the contract.
I'm pretty sure we're agreeing here, I just want to clarify that the fictional offering in question is assumed fair overall, as in fair to the market, or "actual worth" rather than simply fair to the company or from the company's perspective.
That's where I'm coming from saying that asking more than is reasonable would be exploitation, because they would be taking advantage of the company's apparent desperation just to get more money than is deserved.
Replies
The idea of "exploitation" is misleading here because the potential employee is not forcing the company into a contract (if anything, exploitation of labor is much more common the other way around). Exploitation infers that one party is taking advantage of the other, but I fail to see how this would be the case in our scenario. Econ tells us that if a company agrees to pay a certain rate, they feel the transaction is mutually beneficial. But for a studio in desperate need to hire someone at a high rate and then complain about "being robbed" is disingenuous in context of the market; it was the market itself that enabled them to fulfill their urgent need.
If the company doesn't want to pay the requested day rate, they simply don't hire the person and look for alternatives. This is the beauty of the free market -- people charging ridiculously high rates for no good reason will be forced to lower them due to competition. If competition is reduced due to a smaller market (e.g., you're in Kansas City, not LA) and more complex demands (you need someone with lots of experience or specialized abilities), then those skills are worth more and a higher rate is merited. Greed has nothing to do with it.
I think we actually may be on the same page, at least partly. If someone comes in demanding a ridiculously high rate compared to the local supply of animators (or whatever), it's probably more foolishness than greed. My point is merely this: just because someone asks to be paid more than the company would like to pay, does not mean they are greedy. Any company worth its salt is going to have a preference for low labor costs, but that does not mean the company's idea of "reasonable" is automatically correct and the freelancer's idea is "greedy". Ideally the two sides' preferences meet somewhere in the middle and both parties are happy.
Keep in mind that this works both ways; if someone is desperate to find employment, they may settle for working more hours or receiving less pay,simply because they want a job. Likewise in our situation -- if a company is desperate to find an employee, their idea of "reasonable" changes because their need has increased, and they're willing to pay more.
I agree completely, which is why it's so important to make sure everything is very clear upfront -- rates, expected hours, OT, etc... that way both sides have enough information to make sure they're benefiting from the contract.
That's where I'm coming from saying that asking more than is reasonable would be exploitation, because they would be taking advantage of the company's apparent desperation just to get more money than is deserved.