Ethics and Child labour

[stewart38]

god I'm so bored I might just get back to work

where has all the popcorn gone ?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


It would have to get much worse to get back to work

If you're bored I'm sure there is a good book you could read somewhere - and hey, here's an idea, why don't you take it along to the next dance night you go to and read it in the corner somewhere.....

I went on a blind date once and she said id recognised her as she would be reading a book in the pub in the corner, thought she was joking, she wasn’t

3 hours later I left her she hadn’t put the book down

Back on the thread topic

Oooppps nope no one has spoke about the topic yet

Ill add my input obviously Child labour exist everywhere but I think Taxi dancers still do a good job

[ducasi]

Ethics?? Is that near Kent??

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yes it is - and your point is?

that your implication that "what is good for a business therefore must be ethical" is nonsense. You said a ban "makes complete sense" as a reason for doing it and "As has been explained...any intelligent business minded individual can see that" as a reason why it is not unethical. i don't see how they are connected.

However, saying that your employees shouldn't work for your competitors is (again...yawn..) hardly unethical.

If someone makes a living from DJ-ing in a few places for a few different companies and then has ONE of their employers "ban" them from working for others, so that they lose 2 thirds of their income, despite not having more work to offer this DJ....you claim this is perfectly ethical? Fair enough, your idea of ethics differs from mine.

It's not arrogant to know that you're right...

I did tell you to note the quotes.....but you don't listen....

So: 'she did not say she never cared about ethics or honesty, just that it was not a consideration....' Err... if it's not a consideration then by definition it means that she doesn't care about those issues.

If you have never considered the day-to-day life of a soldier serving in Iraq it doesn't mean you don't care about them getting blown up by roadside bombs. Its not something you spend every morning fretting over - you have your own life to lead, and luckily, its not in Iraq.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Ethics?? Is that near Kent??

did the joke ages ago...still funny though

Ethics girl getting medical at the doctors..

doctor: "Big Breath"
girl: "Yeth Doctor all the boyth thay tho"

[Franck]

If someone makes a living from DJ-ing in a few places for a few different companies and then has ONE of their employers "ban" them from working for others, so that they lose 2 thirds of their income, despite not having more work to offer this DJ....you claim this is perfectly ethical? Fair enough, your idea of ethics differs from mine.

That was never the case with the Ceroc policy. The idea was that Ceroc DJs who lost out financially as a result of only working for Ceroc would get more work to compensate. As Ceroc are running dozens of week-ender events across the UK and the world, there was always going to be more work.
As Timbp said:

Surely no ethical employee would try to simultaneously work for a competitor?

I believe it is un-ethical to work for one company and seek out work for its competitors, especially if you then slag off that company.

[Dreadful Scathe]

That was never the case with the Ceroc policy. The idea was that Ceroc DJs who lost out financially as a result of only working for Ceroc would get more work to compensate. As Ceroc are running dozens of week-ender events across the UK and the world, there was always going to be more work.

Thats fine, and if thats the way it works...great. My issue with Rocky was always that he criticised without providing details like this. ANY discourse is better than "no you're wrong and an idiot" which is what Rocky's replies always felt like The fact that I AM an idiot doesn't enter into it

However - its still a borderline case in "ethics" , as you are still "forcing" the DJ down a certain path. i.e. what if they work in their home town 3 days a week and cannot work at weekends - but you can only offer them - 1 day in another town and the occasional weekend - it may seem equivalent from a monitory point of view, but in reality - its a poor exchange that they are forced into. Certainly for all the DJ's I know, they don't do it purely for the pay.

As Timbp said: I believe it is un-ethical to work for one company and seek out work for its competitors, especially if you then slag off that company.

If the rule only came in to prevent DJ's "seeking out" the competition for work that would not be too bad once you define what makes "competition" (although id still argue it was unethical, its people you're dealing with not "pawns" in the business game) . However, if they have already got established work elsewhere, you are effectively "sacking them" from either those other gigs or yours, by forcing them to choose.

The slagging off issue should be treated separately, and if proven should result in some sort of repercussions for the DJ. Why would you want someone who does that working for you ?

[Franck]

However - its still a borderline case in "ethics" , as you are still "forcing" the DJ down a certain path.

I expect if there was no real suitable choice or alternative it could be seen as un-ethical, but again, no such thing happened.

The slagging off issue should be treated separately, and if proven should result in some sort of repercussions for the DJ. Why would you want someone who does that working for you ?

Indeed, I wouldn't!

[Dreadful Scathe]

I expect if there was no real suitable choice or alternative it could be seen as un-ethical, but again, no such thing happened.

In which case - again fine.

Why can't Rocky argue like this

[David Bailey]

Why can't Rocky argue like this

I think he can - well, in a way. E.g. look at the "Ceroc DJs" thread from last year on this very topic. He was wrong of course*, but his arguments were reasonable and measured.

Which makes it especially annoying when he goes into "loony abusive ranty" mode.

* i.e. I disagreed with him

[Heather]

Actually no I didn't start it... you started it with a comment that said that you didn't care how people run their businesses which included not caring if they were unethical or dishonest. All I did was pick you up on it..

Actually I don't believe I ever wrote those words - methinks you need reading lessons and I can recommend the Oxford Reading Tree - its sed in quite a lot of schools these days.
What I actually said was:

" It doesn't matter to me who is running the show or what other people think of their character. I choose what I go to based on
a) Can I afford it
b) Can I get childcare
c)Will my friends be ther
d)Will there be any 'good' dancers there
e)Who is doing the music
f)Can I get to the venue
It would never enter my headwhether the persons running the event are scrupulous characters or not and whether they contribute or not to this forum.
I go where my friends go because I enjoy their friendship and company and because I love dancing.
For me it is the company, dancing and music which is important not the morals and ethics of those running the events."

As DS has pointed out just because I choose not to consider or think about something does not mean that I don't care.
( I refer to DS comment about British troops in Iraq).
I suspect that we are all wasting our breath with you Rocky- it would appear to me ( and perhaps some others) that you would argue about the colour of $hit . I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a heated debate about what I did or did not intend when I wrote my post. I KNOW what I meant and I'm pretty sure most other people do too.
Perhaps you need learning support in your comprehension skills as well as your reading?

Heather

[David Bailey]

I suspect that we are all wasting our breath with you Rocky- it would appear to me ( and perhaps some others) that you would argue about the colour of $hit

Now, that's how to deliver an insult. DS, I hope you're taking notes?

I confess, I'm not completely sure what this thread's about either

For what it's worth, I don't believe that there are any real "ethical" judgements possible in the MJ world, at least not amongst the major MJ organisations. They're pretty much all as good / bad as each other. Whenever I've heard of a business disagreement between operators, it usually turns out that there are at least two sides to the story.

So I don't think "ethical considerations" are relevant when choosing a venue either.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Now, that's how to deliver an insult. DS, I hope you're taking notes?.

I beat around the bush too much - you can always rely on Heather to say what she thinks

[Heather]

I beat around the bush too much - you can always rely on Heather to say what she thinks

Cheers guys!!!
DS - You know me well !

Heather
xx

[Rocky]

It would seem that there are a few dancers who do rely on morals and ethics when picking venues Rocky

Looks like it's just me and you then Stokie... (and obviously our significant udders..)

[under par]

It would seem that there are a few dancers who do rely on morals and ethics when picking venues Rocky

I disagree that it is necessary!

The longer you are a dancer and the further afield you dance the more you hear more about the politcs of dance...but it doesn't mean you want to or need to know about it.

Whether you take notice of the politics really isn't a matter of morals or ethics.

Most of us go out because we love to dance.

You choose to dance because you enjoy it ..... you pay your money to dance because you want to dance ...... you select a date and venue and sometimes travel miles because it suits your circumstances and you want to dance.

The politics exists and it can upset people involved in the organisation of events as well as some punters......... but most punters would rather not know about it and prefer to go to events to dance!

Most punters just want a Dj ,music, a teacher, a half reasonable venue, and a dancefloor............provide these basics to a reasonable standard and price and the punters will attend and be happy.. oblivious to all the politics.


Live and let DANCE!

[Heather]

I disagree that it is necessary!

The longer you are a dancer and the further afield you dance the more you hear more about the politcs of dance...but it doesn't mean you want to or need to know about it.

Whether you take notice of the politics really isn't a matter of morals or ethics.

Most of us go out because we love to dance.

You choose to dance because you enjoy it ..... you pay your money to dance because you want to dance ...... you select a date and venue and sometimes travel miles because it suits your circumstances and you want to dance.





The politics exists and it can upset people involved in the organisation of events as well as some punters......... but most punters would rather not know about it and prefer to go to events to dance!

Most punters just want a Dj ,music, a teacher, a half reasonable venue, and a dancefloor............provide these basics to a reasonable standard and price and the punters will attend and be happy.. oblivious to all the politics.


Live and let DANCE!

My sentiments exactly - I attempted to say much the same thing pages ago!
I don't care much about the politics - but I do care about dancing !

Heather

[Rocky]

I disagree that it is necessary!

The longer you are a dancer and the further afield you dance the more you hear more about the politcs of dance...but it doesn't mean you want to or need to know about it.

Whether you take notice of the politics really isn't a matter of morals or ethics.

Most of us go out because we love to dance.

You choose to dance because you enjoy it ..... you pay your money to dance because you want to dance ...... you select a date and venue and sometimes travel miles because it suits your circumstances and you want to dance.

The politics exists and it can upset people involved in the organisation of events as well as some punters......... but most punters would rather not know about it and prefer to go to events to dance!

Most punters just want a Dj ,music, a teacher, a half reasonable venue, and a dancefloor............provide these basics to a reasonable standard and price and the punters will attend and be happy.. oblivious to all the politics.


Live and let DANCE!

I'm not going to entirely disagree with you UP because you're 9'8'' tall and I like dancing with your Mrs too much....however, I think there is a difference between bolitics and ethics and dishonesty... surely you would draw the line somewhere?

For example (and this has nothing to do with G&L): if you knew (for a fact) that a dancer went to an area of the country and started at a venue and then asked to be put through the CTA just so that could get a qualification - and then took the opportunity of teaching at every venue and as many workshops as possible, 7 days a week to get known - and then plans a new venue in competition and offers taxi dancers and other teachers a partnership deal to come in with him..... would you support their new venue?

I wouldn't... but are you saying that even knowing all this, that you would?

Yes, the franchisee got something out of the deal because they had a teacher willing to take on lots of work - and yes he/she may have been a good teacher and drew people into the network who danced and stayed dancing at the franchisee's venues initially... but wouldn't it be a monumental abuse of trust, and wouldn't that say something about the person in question? It was a premeditated betrayal after all...

Many dancers make the mistake of saying that it's 'only dancing' and I'm afraid I can't help but think this is a very selfish view... sure it's 'only dancing' for the dancers BUT it's not for the organizers and franchisees of dance events. For many of them it's their only form of livelyhood and you would like to think that dancers had some form of loyalty and would recognize this.

I also think that it is a very blinkered view to say 'that you don't want to know and don't care about the politics'. That's just a very convenient way of just absolving yourself of any moral or ethical responsibility - and I'm sorry, but I do think it is a moral and ethical issue. Just because 'it's only dancing' doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to understand the stresses and frustrations of the people who work so hard to put these events on and who turn up week after week to try and build and support venues.. many of whom are taking on significant financial risks.

Maybe I'm different, I don't know... but if ANY organization behaves in an underhand way that shows dubious ethics I take a view NOT to support them. As a customer it's my only way of making my feelings known. Sure, sometimes I don't know all the facts, but I do get a gut feeling and I will act on that.

Come on UP, don't you think that turning a 'blind eye' because you don't want to know is just a 'cop' out?

Ooops, maybe I have entirely disagreed with you...

[David Bailey]

For example (and this has nothing to do with G&L): if you knew (for a fact) that a dancer went to an area of the country and started at a venue and then asked to be put through the CTA just so that could get a qualification - and then took the opportunity of teaching at every venue and as many workshops as possible, 7 days a week to get known - and then plans a new venue in competition and offers taxi dancers and other teachers a partnership deal to come in with him..... would you support their new venue?

Depends, is the music any good?

I actually do agree that there is some place for ethics in consumer choice. And yes, I've made some ethical decisions in choosing which venues I don't go to, based on the behaviour of the venue organisers. Naming no names, of course.

But these decisions are personal - I really don't think it's appropriate to try to persuade others to make any such decisions, because it's all subjective. Everyone in the MJ world - everyone - has made some "business" decisions, and they all think they're right to do so.

Maybe I'm different, I don't know... but if ANY organization behaves in an underhand way that shows dubious ethics I take a view NOT to support them.

Me too, except than I don't believe organisations behave that way, I believe individuals do. So my decisions are based on the behaviour of actual people, not on the behaviour of "organisations".

Live and let DANCE!

Argh! I've got that song in my head now

[David Bailey]

I've moved some posts from the "plants" thread to here, as it's more appropriate to this thread.

[Cruella]

For example (and this has nothing to do with G&L): if you knew (for a fact) that a dancer went to an area of the country and started at a venue and then asked to be put through the CTA just so that could get a qualification - and then took the opportunity of teaching at every venue and as many workshops as possible, 7 days a week to get known - and then plans a new venue in competition and offers taxi dancers and other teachers a partnership deal to come in with him..... would you support their new venue?

Aren't there clauses in the teachers contracts to prevent this from happening?

Yes, the franchisee got something out of the deal because they had a teacher willing to take on lots of work - and yes he/she may have been a good teacher and drew people into the network who danced and stayed dancing at the franchisee's venues initially... but wouldn't it be a monumental abuse of trust, and wouldn't that say something about the person in question? It was a premeditated betrayal after all...

Why is this any different to most peoples careers? If you want to get on in your work, you do jobs that are stepping stones to where you want to end up surely? Therefore all companies have the 'use' of an employee until that person wants to further their career. Are you still in the first job you ever had?