If they had used actors to portray homeless people, what would they have had to pay them? Shouldn't that be a basis for what they paid the homeless folk?
And if they had used actors, would people take issue with it?
I believe the torontoist article stated the cost of using an actor would have been $300 dollars, plus royalties for using the actor's image?
I used the wrong word in my previous post; I meant to say I thought the writer was jumping to conclusions and assuming facts not in evidence, not being misleading.
And the reason I have talked about payments in kind is because I know of similar examples where a company paid homeless people in the Milwaukee area to hold up signs for companies. In some cases, the companies paid a straight wage and in other cases they gave them a small amount of money but also gave them food, bottled water or winter coats. In those cases, the companies arranged the payment structure that way so the homeless person wouldnt get robbed by fellow homeless or spend the money on a vial of crack. My whole point is the Torontoist writer is labeling the advertising company as exploitative without investigating further.
mastodonfarm Wrote:Poor Skippy. How tiring it must be to interject on every topic with that exasperated condescending attitude. We can only hope that going through life with the intellectual burden of a Salinger Glass child doesn't produce the same results as poor Seymour Glass.
I can only implore of all of us to take a moment in our day to sympathize with the poor shlub: he's forced to attempt to communicate with knuckle dragging simpletons at every turn, constantly declaring how confused, confusing, unclear and moronic everyone else's incorrect opinions are. What a burden...
Been only an observer so far on this thread. I have to wonder at the tone of this post and then its accusation that Skippy is condescending. If he is in fact being condescending, one would hope that the rebuke for such an attitude would not be. Perhaps I'm an idealist.
Generally speaking, Skippy's just throwing a little common sense out there on this one. Skippy and I fundamentally disagree on a number of things. But his opinion is always well-informed and well-reasoned. And yes, sometimes a little condescending. I do find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that paying a homeless person less than minimum wage for services rendered is the moral thing to do. I'd have no problem with paying
simply the minimum wage. Sitting there holding a sign, after all, requires little training and minimal effort. If they pay less than that, it is, as Skippy rightly said, exploitative.
This situation is actually a little different from paying homeless people to hold up advertising signs. That is, while it is a simple matter of holding a sign, this particular ad revolves around the fact that the person holding the sign is homeless -- i.e., the homeless person is the ad. The principle in play is the same as that preventing me from using Tiger Woods' image to advertise for the Skippy Widget Co. without paying him through the nose; we all get to control how advertisers use our images. So, while minimum wage would normally be fair for someone holding up a sign (assuming they are paying minimum wage), the ad agency would normally have to pay more for this kind of thing. This is where I see the exploitation -- and the article refers to it, in passing, when it talks about actors and the use of their image.
VLH, I have no problem with payments in kind as long as that is what is negotiated. And if businesses can put homeless people to work, that's good. My point is, payment in kind isn't in the article -- you're dragging in all kinds of other stuff here that is unrelated to this specific case.
What the agency has said suggests they're paying much less, in cash or in kind, than they might normally have to. That's my objection to this.
Well, that and the fact that they're advertising their station using really dumb questions. But that's their problem.
Gotcha. In this case, homelessness is an expertise! It seems funny to type that, but I get your distinction.