香港已成為下流社會(downward mobility society)，它的特徵是：管理階層自我膨脹，低層員工工作壓力越來越大，工資被壓低；為了減低行政成本，縮減勞工保障(如有薪假期、醫療保障、工積金等)，大量工作被外判，社會上出現了大量的自由工作者。
4.不同工種的自由工作者，應以分享工作 (job sharing)的態度，互相協調，制定最低工資，不要造成惡性競爭；
-- 梁文道 於 May 01, 2006 01:22 AM
-- 放浪軍 於 May 01, 2006 01:25 AM
-- 瘋腿 於 May 01, 2006 02:06 AM
-- 朱凱迪 於 May 01, 2006 08:35 AM
這個應被批判嗎? - Of course!!!
"1.很多工種, 如翻譯、編輯、電腦程式等，透過一些中介公司，移到國內;" It is very bad. Bad for both HK and Mainland China.
But this kind of 'competition' comes from the abusement of the labour,should we be happy to see it? I am against it, at least. I am already trying my best not to buy things which are 'made in China'. Also, you may not have noticed it, but the quality of many products and services have decreased in fact. Like the 'funny' translations, don't tell me that you haven't seen them at all!!! (E.g.: 'Pork oil' instead of 'lard' was seen on a package of cup noodles (famous brand!!!), but then it was corrected after a few months. Too bad I haven't kept that 'cup' (but really difficult, you know......)
'我覺得不能因為資方利用低成本的方法影響了我們的生計而作出控訴。' Why not? They are using cruel ways to do so, by the way (Please refer to the above point.).
-- Frostig 於 May 01, 2006 10:21 AM
其實不是控制成本的問題, 很多公司在找中介的時候是以香港的市價, 翻譯是1蚊1字的價錢給的, 但中介公司外發到國內的時候, 卻以國內的價錢1蚊10字的價錢發出去.
宣言不是想批評國內的同工, 而是想說明中間剝削的問題, 就如外傭, 當我們反對外傭中介公司的剝削, 並不等於反對外傭, 而對中介的批評本身, 對兩地的同工, 長遠來說都是有利的.
-- 阿藹 於 May 01, 2006 10:34 AM
-- 小西 於 May 01, 2006 10:56 AM
-- 小西 於 May 01, 2006 11:03 AM
已經有十二人加入 egroup 了
-- 阿藹 於 May 01, 2006 10:05 PM
Frostig, 你有點extreme喎! 一樣商品或服務除了價格外, 品質也很重要, 買家都是在價格和品質中找個平衡點. 那個用"Pork Oil"的杯麵商當然是做了水魚啦!
-- 放浪軍 於 May 01, 2006 10:08 PM
這個不只是香港的現象, 而是華人地區的現象。早前post了台灣文字工作者許斐莉的網誌, 正是這樣的哭訴.
本人任職的某團體, 也有如此荒謬的行徑。外判的翻譯還好, 算是合理價錢; 至於文字創作, 對不起, 嚴例規定一是staff寫,一是volunteers寫, 有償文字工作一律禁止。okay, staff寫, 冇問題, 寫個死就寫到死。問題是,volunteers不是用來取代staff的, 不是因為staff的工作量太多做不來而要由volunteers代勞的; 而且, 很抱歉,volunteers的良莠不齊有時令staff的工作量太大, 倒頭來不如自己寫。最後和阿頂開火, 換來的就是老頂的logic,佢地真係好似你地咁講, 以為創意同文章是唔洗錢的。
我也做過freelancer, 也出席過兩岸三地的座談會,活動,分享會,發表文章, 有償的五隻手指數得清。洛陽紙貴已成過去, 這是華人的悲哀乎?
-- learnedfriend 於 May 01, 2006 10:10 PM
Not Extreme ga!!!
It was a REALLY very famous brand!
A Japanese brand with factory in HK Ar!!! When I bought it, didn't even notice that it wasn't made in HK Ga! If I had known that it was made in China, I might not have bought it Tim-Ar!!!
It was just a typical example! I just
don't think that things can be so good, both cheap and with high
quality...... So, there must be sth fishy. I just told you why I felt
that it was appropriate to protest against such a 'move' to China Jel!
-- Frostig 於 May 01, 2006 11:48 PM
Made in China
Sorry Frostig, I just mean I find
this, "I am already trying my best not to buy things which are 'made in China'.", extreme. I am not meaning you are exaggerating the facts.
Products made other than in China may not be much better than those in mainland.
-- 放浪軍 於 May 02, 2006 12:07 AM
不知道閣下是從事哪個行業? 可能工種移到國內對你暫時沒有影響, 但你知道嗎? 當年香港的工業很發達, 但隨著工廠北移,
影響到多少人的生計? 由當年低技術工種, 到現在一些較高技術, 較專業的工種都慢慢北移, 就為了現在的價廉物美,
-- 四郎 於 May 02, 2006 04:29 AM
笑話幾則 之 Freelance Performer苦
2. 某團體攪musical去新加波,日本等地巡回演出, 只係搵一D冇受過正式訓練0既人演出, 車馬費唔知夠車定夠馬?
3. 某油公司有新product推出要找performer, 油站方面0既中國藉負責人問我地負責人, 點解D performer唔係外國人....
4. 某大劇團話比機會fresh grad, $6000排連show三個月, 其實因為搵唔倒人做, 咁提攜下D新人囉
5. 某舞團導師薪金10年冇加過, 一加就加0左2%,
6. 某大學danso學生跳演唱會$500一場, 冇rehearsal fee,
-- 四郎 於 May 02, 2006 05:22 AM
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!
-- Frostig 於 May 02, 2006 05:37 AM
對待搞藝術, 文字和科技 freelance 的待遇如此 !
-- 阿藹 於 May 02, 2006 09:12 AM
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. 於 May 02, 2006 09:46 AM
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.
-- 放浪軍 於 May 02, 2006 10:04 AM
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".
-- 放浪軍 於 May 02, 2006 10:22 AM
-- 朱凱迪 於 May 02, 2006 01:32 PM
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
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．
-- 阿藹 於 May 02, 2006 02:21 PM
-- 四郎 於 May 02, 2006 02:23 PM
-- 小西 於 May 02, 2006 02:33 PM
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.
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.
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. 於 May 03, 2006 05:42 AM
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......
-- Frostig 於 May 03, 2006 07:34 AM