tickerguy wrote in post #16437554
Don't you realize that "I am buying your undivided attention for three hours" sounds like an attempt to own a person, or at least to rent one?
Own? What sort of illogical and outrageously false nonsense is this?
If I own a thing (my person) are you arguing that I am not empowered to choose how to dispose of that which I own, in whole or part, and how much I "should" demand in compensation for that?
Not at all, although a person selling labor seldom has completely free choice about compensation. Being empowered to choose would be nice, but it's rare.
Here's a summary of what I am arguing: You judge an act unethical even if it harms no one, because, it turns out, you believe that paying someone by the hour entitles you to control over what he's thinking during the hours so employed. That's what "undivided attention" is.
Of course, he should keep his mind on his work while doing it, but this duty doesn't follow from being paid an hourly rate. People on a salary or a day rate or a job rate should also keep their mind on their work.
Hypothetical situation. You hire Joe Photographer to cover a three-hour meeting at which a senator speaks for an hour, and Joe gets 20 good shots of the senator speaking. Because 20 is many more than you asked him to get, his work on that part of the job was finished before the end of the speech. Next day, Joe gives you the 20 images and you pick 2 of them. Who is harmed if Joe offers the remaining 18 for sale to the senator's staff? (To avoid the appearance of duplication, he can select a few shots that look very different from the ones you're using.) Competition is nil, since you'll use the shots in the company's newsletter for employees, whereas any that the senator's office buys will go into mailers to voters. The environment benefits because Joe now won't have to drive to the senator's headquarters for a separate scheduled shoot.
The rest of your argument is similarly bereft of logical continuity.
I don't think you understood what I meant.
Continuing the Joe example: Joe shows you the 20 images and says he wants to offer the leftovers to the senator. You say "No, that would be fraudulent! You were paid by the hour! I expected your undivided attention, and if you sell so much as one pixel, you'll be a criminal. I'll blackball you and you'll never work in this town again!" (I'm not exaggerating the tone. It's the one you used on me, just for writing.) But Joe isn't your employee, and there was no WFH agreement. So, by the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, he owns the rights to the images, except the ones he transfers to you. If your terms include removing from Joe the right to sell the 18 images, you have essentially taken the rights in those images for yourself, thus sliding the status of the job toward WFH without an explicit agreement to that effect. This amounts to blurring the WFH concept, with the rules around it that were meant to protect content providers.
If you don't want to sell undivided professional attention to a task then don't. Sell the produced service or product instead. You are then free to divide your time as you see fit.
When I'm working, I give the work my full attention, regardless of the method of payment. That even goes for volunteer work.