香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "五一勞動節的自由工作者 (freelancer)宣言"

support!

i was deadly busy these 2 weeks so i didn't really have a life... so didn't read this writing until now.

support support support and totally agree with you!

wrote something on my blog:

五一勞動節那幾天，是最忙的幾天，只睡二至三小時一日，連續成兩個星期，這幾天才可以睡得夠，捱得過，又沒病倒，對我來說簡直是奇蹟。。

追看inmedia才讀到這個「自由工作者 (freelancer)宣言」

真是諷刺，正正是我的「自由」工作的timing踏埋一起，我在五一勞動節那個 long weekend 做到死咁滯，由衷的感受到以下的宣言的入心入肺。

more here
http://www.aahsun.com/blogger.htm

take care,
sun

Dilemma

Really a dilemma, Ah Oi......

Maybe, how about... If we sign a contract or an agreement with them, so we will only do it free for like, 3, 5 episodes? What we do at the same time is to boost the number of listeners, and to do sth with mass media (of course we have to do our best for the programmes); by the time the few episodes are finished, make them pay!
Would it possibly work?

很難搞

聽說港台找人民開咪去做民間團體頻道, 當然又係一毫子都唔比. 我當然會勸說無錢唔好做, 但係即使港台收聽率不高, 點都高過網上電台, 這一點就令好多人感興趣和興奮, 而且民間團體一直以來被主流邊緣化, 有機會發聲, 可能貼錢都願...點搞?

四脚朝天

贊成！

Chinese Input (to Y.T.)

Are you using Windows? (Because if you are using Mac, then I really can't help.) If so, go to www.NJStar.com to download and install the NJ Star Communicator, then you can input Chinese. I am using this software alone to type all my Chinese articles and comments. Rather slow though......

A Reply to 朱凱迪 and 小西, with further remarks

The machine with which I commit these thoughts to writing does not allow me to enter Chinese, except where I can quote. I hope you could bear with me.

To 朱凱迪:
I agree with you, that the discussion has wandered away from the content of the manifesto, which may or may not be unfortunate. Under the rubric of globalization and global competition, some, like Frostig, declared that they would not buy anything from China, on the belief that the goods were produced in an inhumane setting. Some disagreed. It is with this bit of the discussion that my little prattle is chiefly concerned; and not with the original manifesto. You can clearly infer this from the arguments I put forth in the piece.

Now, in the piece I tried to argue plainly, considering the various implications of a simple hypothetical, and the nature of moral arguments for and against the course of action Frostig is undertaking. It is only towards the end of the piece that I, for a nice embellishment, pointed to Pascal. None of my arguments rest on his authority. If you are unhappy with this figure's appearance, you can happily delete my last paragraph and read the whole thing in that light. I assure you, you would miss little.

Whether the nature of the moral considerations has risen to the level of Pascal, I do not know. But your way of putting it: 唔使請pascal出黎，問題未去到那種層次, reflects more a dismissal than engagement. I hope this was the case only because you mistook me to be commenting on the manifesto, rather than some subsequent proclamations.

To 小西:
Like as I said to 朱凱迪, my arguments do not rest on the authority of Pascal. If you think Pascal is irrelevant, I would happily suggest that you read my piece but ignore the last paragraph.

Now, as for the relationship between absolute innocence and the right to protest or to act in some particular way, that is precisely the question I wanted to raise. I acknowledged, at the outset of my piece, that I endorse generally the demands made in the manifesto. But I think that carion calls to buy not from China, e.g., presuppose a kind of moral position, of whose implications the caller is often not aware.

I propose this as a question, a predicament. As one of the participants in this discussion suggested, goods produced in other countries might no less be produced in an inhumane fashion. Applying the same logic, then why do we not stop buying most of the things we now buy?

My question is meant to highlight, that in choosing among different courses of action, not only a genuine concern about humane production is involved, but very often a subtle balance between good moral feeling (after stop buying goods from China, say) and pragmatic considerations.

One conventional strategy of people who think themselves to be critical in rejecting the dominant practice, is to expose how hypocritical it is. For instance, a critic from Inmedia might compare the pronouncements of the HK government and its concrete acts, and find them inconsistent. Great applause would then come from the critical quarter. Battle won.

And yet, the opponent can perhaps do the same thing to the critics, and demand that they examine their own hypocrisy. Now, at this moment, if the critics only dismiss the challenge with some blanket statement, the opponent will certainly laugh with equal excitement.

Thank you, both of you.

Y.T.

係咪呢個意思呢，請問?

pascal?留返讀書組至讀啦，我諗佢老人家唔會介意。我唔熟佢老人家，唔知佢套嘢可唔可以咁引申。不過就算得，咁係咪即係話﹕既然徹底情白似乎真係好難，咁就最好咩都唔好講，當咩事都無發生過呢?係咪呢個意思呢，請問?

唔係針對港台

唔係因為佢係一個公營電台而針對佢,
但係我唔明點解一年吃六次萶茗就有錢,
拍戲話冇budget, 得幾百蚊一組戲
我想知道港台係請班人番0黎食飯定做野
呢頭話推廣藝術, 又起西九
另一邊就將D資源拎去飲飲食食
呢D就係唔尊重。唔通藝術, 創作等等都係唔值錢0既?
唔係一個專業? 連低技術勞工都不如?
掃地阿姐都比我地專業?

不同行業的特徵

我想全球化對不同行業是有不同的 implication　的．
前陣子跟美國的ｉｍｃ朋友聊，他說美國某 it　工會，因為以反對輸入 it　外勞和海外同工而導致一半以上的員工退出工會．我很支持這種國際工人團結的態度．但全球化的外判生產是 freelance　化的現象其中一個成因和背景．而工會亦要探討如何保障兩面工人的利益．

但香港現在的問題已超出 market　的理論．他媽的 wto在香港開會，政府組織幾百個中學生做免費勞工；教統局下的中小學所有講座和 workshop　都有 budget　比講者，大學卻反而沒有這規定．

其實依家國內有好些國內報紙和雜誌的稿籌比香港的還高．香港的文字工作者也會轉往內地，我們亦不希望被國內同工歧視．但若國內同工因為我們而生計受影響，我想以同工／工人團結的角度，亦要思考如何互相支持．

喂返黎先

個討論去到冇雷公咁遠，又自由市場又全球信息產業工作流動又社會連鎖反應。好多行業都有freelance，其他行業的情況我不敢說，但以inmedia成員或友好身處的文化傳媒圈為例，問題很大程度上不是「市場決定人工」或者「我們的行動會不會變相損害了其他人」，而是一種專門剝削知識個體戶和文藝工作者的風氣。

近呢幾年個社會賴係活躍，個個機構大學都話搞talk，搞工作坊，讀書會，一開始時少少地話「幫下手」都冇計啦，但機構卻因此養成了不用撥budget給嘉賓﹝叫你做嘉賓，其實係羊牯阿四白痴仔﹞的習慣。結果一個二個都係咁，個個話幫下手，個個都唔俾錢。這是現況。我們這個社會裏似乎有聲有色的文化活動，大部分是由一班嚴重無償或低薪的獨立人去支撐。

那天去港台錄音，主持人見我寫了一篇罵人的講稿，便打趣說了兩句話：一﹞air-time唔係錢呀；二﹞咁你inmedia度有冇錢？冇。咁你就唔公平淨係鬧港台。

唔使請pascal出黎，問題未去到那種層次。一個一年用億億聲的港台可以咁講野﹝當然有d青年智庫眼光遠大，真係獲air-time如至寶，搶咗唔少報紙地盤﹞，仲搵inmedia同自己比，俾着你下次仲同唔同佢做野？當然唔會。不單唔會，仲應該叫晒d朋友唔好幫佢無償勞動，最終形成壓力等佢地知道知識同創意係要錢o既。

宣言是要將極度傾斜的天秤稍稍移正。

Made in Hong Kong

Frostig, I do not have much money in pocket to make that consideration. I make the decision based on the price (see if I can afford) and "does it worth?".

Anyway, I agree the rest of the manifesto. It is a free market. You find the pay is less and refuse to do the job. Go ahead or ask for more.

By the way, there is not much product made in Hong Kong, especially clothes. Many clothes are made in mainland, get 90% completed, being shipped to Hong Kong, get the rest 10% done (e.g. finish up the collar, buttons) and then label "Made in Hong Kong".

回應四郎

I am a network technician and I do not have a permanent job also. I am also a contract staff and my company has more workers in mainland than in Hong Kong.

Many of my friends have to travel to mainland and Asia Pacific. We all know our industry is in the hard time, many people from mainland are well-educated and their salary is very competitive. We do not blame but we try to learn some stuff other than just IT. This is my way (including most of my IT friends) to deal with this hard situation.

The Curse of Pascal

Let me say at the outset that I endorse raising demands for just and dignified work in society. The little prattle that follows does not dispute the said general stance. But it does invite the reader to reconsider the moral predicament a member of a modern society might face, when he or she proposes that we stop doing something on the ground that that something tends to perpetuate some social ill.

The predicament is this. The proposal, in itself, seems to make perfect sense. For if our action is shown to be complicit in perpetuating a social ill, our decision to act or not must, on reflection, stand in a causal relationship to the said ill. We are accountable - if causality implies accountability - for the presence of the ill, and to those who do suffer therefrom. The argument is straighforward; the proposal, intuitive.

But if we take the argument seriously, and examine our social life in all its subtle connections, we must also realize that we stand almost invariably in a causal relationship to some social ill. Suppose someone studies abroad. He must fly to the country where the institution of study resides. The plane consumes certain kind of oil necessarily. But oil, in the present world, comes largely from countries where oil proceeds benefit mainly the powers that be. By taking the plane, the student contributes in this small way to the welfare of some exploiter. So, on reflection, he might opt for not studying abroad at all.

But now, suppose he really gives up the chance of studying abroad. He contributes thereby, and also in a small way, to the drop in demand for the airline which he otherwise would have chosen. In this small way, he might increase the airline's price (burdening therefore other students) or reducing its number of job openings (affecting then some other workers). It is not clear how much he would help the world by not flying. But it is not clear either if he flies.

One might object that these are only small ways, which the student, as well as we the observers, could well ignore. But to invoke a quantity argument certainly betrays the original proposal. For the spirit of that proposal is not that we are critically a cause of some social ill, that, absent our action, the ill would have been drastically reduced, or even eliminated; but that we are such a cause simply. It is the presence of that causal relationship, rather than the significance of it, that justifies the proposal. Otherwise, one can always counter that since he is only a small potato in this large iron cage, his acting or not does not matter.

Clearly we are at a double-bind. On the one hand, we want to feel that by stop acting in a certain way we can stop contributing to some social ill; on the other hand, the same logic must needs prohibit almost all our social undertaking - nay, it must completely reject our ground to exist at all. For unless we totally remove ourselves from our current dwelling, the way a modern society supports its members - namely, by way of many intricate and long causal chains - means almost for sure that it is related to the continuation of certain social ill.

I have no solution to this double-bind. Pascal once hinted at this problematic condition in his Pensees, which I take as a genuinely troubling thought. Some would therefore be inclined to ignore the condition, and live as he pleases. When criticized, he can quickly point to the hypocrisy of the critic. The critic might have no answer and be left to grumble. Or he might have one. But what that is, I simply do not know.

Y.T.

香港如何能變成創意城市?

對待搞藝術, 文字和科技 freelance 的待遇如此 !

NOT ONLY a Matter of Quality

As stated, the working conditions of the factory workers are also my considerations. The quality may not be much better, but if I know that the workers are treated better, I would prefer that even if the price is slightly higher. Or, if the quality is much higher (like clothes produced in HK), a much higher price is sometimes accepted.

How can you help the bosses suppress and practically kill the workers? (Given that once you know the harsh situation.)

I remember there was an article talking about garments made in China. Who can find for me so we can link this discussion to another dimension? Thanks in advance!