BigKev

I don't think we are arguing, I think we are having a reasonable and sensible discussion.

I can't agree that the value of work is measured in the value of the product. For example, in this case the value of the product - advertising - can only be measured by how successful it is. Does that mean if say in 12 months time Dreamworld get so many people through the gates they double profits that the unpaid actors get a cut? And don't forget we are not just talking about wages here. Being an unpaid worker removes many other rights and protections such as superannuation, death, injury and illness insurance, leave, unfair dismissal to name a few, as well as creating taxation issues. I also don't agree that a person's right to be a paid a fair wage is dependant on their personal circumstances or what they do with the money they are paid. I'm not disputing the keenness of the participants here or that they will probably enjoy doing it, but it's not relevant to the overall question. As I've said, someone not being aware they are being exploited and are willing participants (As is the case with kids and teenagers all the time) doesn't make it right.

So if we extend your logic further along that line, it would be perfectly acceptable for Nike to have kids making their shoes as long as they don't mind doing it and get to wear a pair home afterwards. Where we differ, and indeed I differ from most people here is the definition of fairness as it applies in the 'the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work' exploitation definition. I consider not offering the appropriate payment (as well as the removal of all of the other rights afforded to workers on a wage) for filming a commercial for Dreamworld to be unfair. Others consider the offer of contra instead to be fair.

Ok then let's keep it going. I don't see much difference. Dreamworld are paying no money knowing there will be no shortage of teenagers who want to visit the park for free. Exploitation occurs regardless of if victim knows, cares or enjoys it. The net value of which costs Dreamworld essentially zero and one could argue that letting people into the park for free is a win for Dreamworld given they are likely to spend money in the park anyway. Dreamworld is using people for its benefit without giving up any real compensation. There's nothing else it can be called but exploitation. As I said, whether or not someone is happy with the arrangement is irrelevant. Just because your job is enjoyable doesn't mean you shouldn't be paid to do it. The points you make about V8 racing is actually the exact argument against Dreamworld. They are deliberately avoiding all of those costs and issues by taking this action. Therefore they are increasing profits by asking people to work for free. At the end of the day your business affords what it can afford. If Dreamworld can't afford to fund advertising then it shouldn't advertise until it adjusts its business model to allow it to. If the V8s can't afford the staff they need then it also needs to review its business model and operations. Maybe it isn't viable as a professional sport. Do the Olympics, Commonwealth games and G20 make a profit for anyone? My feeling is that they don't. The issue is you and I have different definitions. When I refer to volunteering I mean working for a not for profit organisation, like the SES. What you refer to as volunteering for organisations operating on a profit and loss basis I call unpaid labour. What I call labour is being employed by an organisation to work, as opposed to volunteering or charity. Being a volunteer is very much the Australian way, unpaid labour is not and I see them as being very different things. Without a profit you can't be exploited, apart from on a goodwill basis. I don't know anything about Bartercard but it sounds as though it is a very borderline proposition, once again exploitation exists even if two people exploit each other. The lines here are often blurry as most questions of ethics are, but I think in this case the lines are clear. Dreamworld is a profitable company, conducting a commercial venture and want to employ people to work in a marketing campaign for them, but not pay wages. While Tony Abbott is Prime Minster of Australia I am more than happy to be in the minority!

No backtracking here. The comparison to volunteers at not for profit groups is ridiculous. Like the SES. They are people who volunteer to help their community in emergencies. No-one makes (we hope) any money out of their work. They don't just come around to a house and fix a roof or lop a tree like the professionals you refer to. They come in an emergency and make the situation as good as they can until a professional can do the repairs properly. Doing a job for a friend isn't an example that fits either. Unless someone is doing a job for a friend who then profits from that job and keeps all of it themselves and they would be a pretty ordinary friend. On the V8s, I take the same line. If it is a business out to make money then it should pay a fair wage to anyone who works for it. I'm going to leave this now as it is well off topic but I will never agree that exploitation is ok, regardless of whether of not the people being exploited realise it or even care.

Comparisons to volunteers is ridiculous. This is a commercial venture, creating professionally made advertising as part of a marketing strategy to maximise profit for a company. The aim here is to cut costs by getting people to work for no pay. Contra isn't pay. If it was an ad for the RSPCA then fine but for a commercially venture it is tacky. Not as unethical as much of what goes on in the corporate world, but still tacky.

I don't agree. All labour should be paid, especially when it is being done for massive companies. The fringe benefits or willingness of the worker are irrelevant really. I'm sure plenty of people would work as 'interns' at the parks on ride operations in exchange for tickets, food and drinks. It doesn't make it right. A fair days pay for a fair days work is one of the most important principles this country has. Anything that contradicts that should be illegal.

Don't like it at all. If you want people to do a job for you then pay them the appropriate wage.

Seaworld for mine, my favourite park but a lot of it looks like it is stuck in the 80s.

That's a pretty neat piece of marketing. Dreamworld really kicking goals.

Whoops, for some reason I was thinking they had to be evens.

Hydrocoaster is a bit easier cause you can join a pair riding as well.

Sounds like this will be a much better fit for Seaworld than the dinosaurs which I always felt were a little out of place.

Surely SeaWorld will back up with another ride before too much longer. It's not like the demise of Sea Viper was a surprise so I'm sure they will have planned for it and with the Gold Coast Comm Games on the horizon you would think the parks will want to be at their best.

What would be great with something like that is if it was unpredictable, eg occasionally it shoots through the usual stopping area. The buffs might be able to tell me, is there such a thing as a coaster that has an unpredictable element to it?

I'm no expert in asbestos but there was a demolition of a factory that contained it near my kids school and they shut the school for three days while it was going on, plus there was a weekend in there as well. Distance from the factory to the school would be much further away than the furthest points of Dreamworld from Eureka.

Also is it true that there is asbestos in the structure? If that was the case I would imagine the entire park would have to close while the removal process was completed. The potential park closure and associated impact on people's confidence in the health and safety of the park would be pretty significant reasons why it is still there I'd imagine.

Is this enough of a market to chase and be financially viable for new attractions though? I would have thought not.

It's even a challenge on the Gold Coast in Winter, especially when there is some wind about. Climbing the stairs to the slides wet isn't much fun.

Yep, because I don't think one ride is fantastic. I hadn't realised your opinion = overwhelming evidence to the contrary but duly noted.

Rather than get out the crayons and draw a diagram I'll call a halt to this as well.

Not sure why? Just because I'm not a fan of one ride? I think the Constrictor is great, be nice if there was another way to get the tubes up to the top but otherwise all good.

No, not at all, I'm saying it is second to the quality of the ride.

You point out the existing ride experience with no theming, I point out the existing theming with no ride experience. Happy to agree to disagree though, and I'll have Supreme.

I don't see how anyone could argue they aren't closely related to dodge'ems. Fancy, well-themed dodge'ems with a much more interesting driving area no doubt, but still very dodge'em like in appearance, track and operation.