Meta Is Trying, and Failing, to Crush Unions in Kenya
jacobin.com
jacobin.com
I disagree that internet moderation is an hard job. It is actually quite easy which is why even children are able to do it. It is an attractive job due how you get power over the people you are moderating. This results in most moderators doing it for no compensation at all.
Then we disagree. I think watching videos is easy work. Gruesome content is typically obvious so that doesn't even require much mental work.
Not that I am against paying your jannies, but come on, it's easy stuff compared to anything in the real world.
BTW "negatively affected" is such a cowardly way of putting it. What does that mean? Every job will negatively affect you, typically that's why you're getting paid to do it.
> it's easy stuff compared to anything in the real world.
This is the real world, with real videos of rape, torture, violence, etc. that are moderated. It’s demeaning to say it doesn’t have an implication on the health of humans that perform the job.
> BTW "negatively affected" is such a cowardly way of putting it. What does that mean?
This HN so let’s speak with some context. Butchers can have serious psychological distress like somatization, anxiety, depression, anger-hostility, burnout, and psychotism [1] [2]. Doctors can also experience the same issues [5]. I believe we should constructive replies that use information from the original article and current research that show content moderators face similar outcomes that do negatively affect them [3] [4] just like butchers, plumbers, janitors, cops and healthcare workers. This should be addressed for any job this happens in.
[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/
[2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269813255_Psycholog...
[3]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445092
[4]: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/content-moderators-pay-a-p...
[5]: https://news.usc.edu/179383/stress-doctors-emergency-room-er...
Everyone in here talking about "why would they offer US pay to Non-US workers", that is exactly the point. You should be insulted that your employer is looking to depressed markets to further depress YOUR value and YOUR wages. The solution, of course, is solidarity with these new workers: If they're doing the same work as you, they should be making the same pay. This encourages the employer to play fair.
In the spirit of conversation, i would ask you to consider Bob and Alice, two allegorical characters living on different sides of the same town, doing the same job. Bob has a $1M mortgage in an affluent suburb, and Alice has a more modest domicile in a "working class" part of town. Shall we pay Bob more because his cost of living is higher? Redrawing the boundaries from city to state to country doesn't change the crux of the argument.
Should all remote employees have their compensation reduced accordingly to the pay scale of the location they submit work from, then?
If a Google engineer with a $300k comp in Mountain View decides to work for a month from Nairobi, should their wage be reduced 3,200% for that duration?
The appropriate wage should be a reflection of the remote location's market rate, since that is a decisive business advantage in using human resources in nations with diverse standards of living.
Let's put it another way, one would expect an increase in salary should a Kenyan technology company seek to hire resources from San Francisco instead of hiring locally.
I believe that this model is ultimately beneficial to both parties - the employer gets to enjoy cheaper labour, with the additional bonus of corporate cultural enrichment, while the employees receive a competitive salary as well as gaining necessary skills to get a better life.
Some may claim thst this is an act of exploitation, but I see it as an effect of globalisation. Without the reduced wages, there's a good chance at those workers may never had the opportunity to upskill and learn, leading to a stagnancy in the remote nation's technical prowess.
When their compensation is only a small fraction of the value they create, is their obligation to themselves, their families, neighbors, and governments not to extract the best possible deal? Or is the unfairness of their wage only set so low to subsidize the salaries of highly compensated employees?
The challenges of globalized workforces are not only written from the wealthiest's perspectives. Otherwise, how would Google defend itself from the accusation that they only come to Kenya to take advantage of its minerals and relative poverty?
>decides to work for a month from Nairobi
You are allowed to work from a different location for 4 weeks per year, so no your wage would not be reduced in this scenario.
The question is why a Kenyan in Kenya is worth less than an American in Mountain View for the same work if it is not dependent on their location? What's happening to all of that excess value that's not being returned to them?
If all of Google's employees in Kenya emigrated to the US, what would happen? What happens when global mobility is not exploited in returning fair compensation to workers?
A Kenyan in Mountain View would be paid the same as an American in Mountain View, much like an American in Kenya is paid the same as a Kenyan in Kenya. Similarly, an American in Mountain View makes more than American in Alabama. If they didn't, then the market isn't pricing in cost of living which would be a complete failure of market dynamics. People demand a certain wage because of the price of food, housing, etc, and that cost of living is so universal for a geography that all prospective employees will need the same minimums which drives the price of labor. When you don't have the same basic needs across a population, then those who are willing to work for less will get the position at a lower pay.
If all of Kenyan Google employees emigrated to the US, I'd expect their pay to go up.
Your notion of exploitation strikes me as unaware of world wide standards, and is actively counter-productive. If I'm in Indonesia I can find great fried chicken for $1-3 in a 'luxury' mall. I cannot do that in SF. If American companies pay locals abroad 10x the average pay, you end up causing bubbles that drive up the prices for everyone because some people are now able to move markets. This is why housing is so expensive in SF - there's enough wealth that the market can just keep upping its price and the demand will bear it.
The entire idea of 'fair' compensation is relative and not universal. The world itself isn't uniform, there is no single currency (which is a good thing), and projecting a uniformity on it suggests a dominant mindset. Who get to set the 'fair' prices? If Huawei pays their employees in China half or less of Google employees in Mountain View, does that mean Huawei should also pay the same Chinese wages to those they employ in Mountain View? Is that 'fair'?
Given two people performing the same work that Google derives the same value from, if that value is not dependent on either person's location, then how does Google justify the differential in pay?
Unless they're just pre-assigning a universal value of worth to geographic areas, then what's the logic for their compensation at all? If they reduced overall salaries or moved locations, wouldn't it counter the very situation you described - a la expensive chicken? Wouldn't it be more efficient move to Alabama where not only their expenses would be lower, but their employees'? Why not split Google into entities across the nation to balance comp and uplift more areas?
If your logic were true, it wouldn't make any sense to hire people who lived in "expensive" areas. Because we know that's not what they're doing, it could be interpreted that Google is still taking advantage of largely manufactured inequality, even domestically.
Google does work through Alphabet-adjacent sub-corps that are only legally 'not-Google' that do work exclusively for Google. Several exist in my area, and they pay no more competitively than any other company for the same roles. Talking with their engineers, they're largely just happy that their H1B was approved and that they're not working for Amazon.
Because the pay is independent from the value the person is generating. It is just the amount someone is willing to accept to take the job. The amount Google pays is based off what other employers are able to offer people living in the area. They gather market data of offers made by the other employers and themselves and then choose a range that they are willing to pay hoping that paying an upper percentile will attract top talent.
>Why not only higher from LCOL areas
The two main factors are that Google wants to hire top talent and they want to have people come in to their offices which may recide in a HCOL area. For why not to split up the offices I imagine there are due to some underlying network effects with having coworkers be at the same location and partner companies being a short ways away.
> Even if Meta could make the argument that it has no concrete ties to subcontracting companies in Kenya that operate on its behalf, it’s clear the social media company has no intention of bolstering its content moderation operations there.
I’m not sure how work force size got conflated with union busting.
> By working through contracting companies, Meta is immune from having to pay for workers’ health care or transportation — even daily meals and entertainment, which are amenities most of its full-time employees around the world not only enjoy but expect.
It’s weird to aim this at Meta. It also doesn’t say that they’re not receiving these benefits - just that Meta doesn’t pay for them, which is how I’d expect a vendor to work.
Edit, also:
> Facebook could choose to directly employ moderators rather than outsourcing them to companies like Sama in Kenya or Accenture in the United States. They could give them the same pay, benefits, and mental health cover as Facebook’s employees at Menlo Park …
Asking for Silicon Valley wages in Kenya is just bizarre.
Yeah, sure. Maybe in SV / SF. The tech world is so out of touch (i work in Tech too, but at a 'normal' corp, not some srartup or FAANG) to expected these.
But as someone hinted at: Jacobin mag - socialist agenda.
I think the point here is that these moderators are basically Meta employees but since they aren’t officially Meta employees they don’t get the same benefits that “full” employees get.
I'm not aware of any company that provides same list of benefits and pays similar salaries worldwide. I bet Meta's full-time employees in most countries don't get most, if any benefits from the following list: health care, transportation, daily meals and entertainment.
Overall the article is quite bizarre and I don't understand how it got so highly rated here on HN.