2014 In Dreamworld - Tail Spin construction, Wipeout refurbishment, Triple Vortex construction

[Jay Jay The Jet Plane]

There's another commercial being done at Dreamworld on the 25th as well, I managed to get in for the commercial, I have to do Wipeout, TailSpin and Claw at Dreamworld, We have to be White Water World as well, I'm going to be at two theme parks from 6:00am till 10:30pm ?

Edited October 22, 2014 by The_Ninja_59

[Reanimated35]

^ You'll probably want to get on to these guys about your pay for it too.

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/

[Brad2912]

This site then makes money off the ad revenue generated by the traffic this content attracts.

We are clearly being exploited.

Oh really? I've been getting paid since post 1. Maybe you entered your bank details wrong...

That's true. I now demand say $3000 each for every comment and photo I've added here.

What do I get if I take the photo with a potato?

There's another commercial being done at Dreamworld on the 25th as well, I managed to get in for the commercial, I have to do Wipeout, TailSpin and Claw at Dreamworld, We have to be White Water World as well, I'm going to be at two theme parks from 6:00am till 10:30pm ?

Illegal to work more than a 12 hour shift (excluding breaks). They'll probably get you to work in the sweat shop hidden beneath Kung Fu Panda land for 15c an hour

[Reanimated35]

What do I get if I take the photo with a potato?

A kick in the ass

Illegal to work more than a 12 hour shift (excluding breaks). They'll probably get you to work in the sweat shop hidden beneath Kung Fu Panda land for 15c an hour

I would have to assume he means he's going to fright night, in which case, why leave before 11?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I've had to condense your post, but quoted it where relevant as it's on the previous page.

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. <snip> Dreamworld is using people for its benefit without giving up any real compensation. There's nothing else it can be called but exploitation.<snip> 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.

<snip> 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. <snip> Do the Olympics, Commonwealth games and G20 make a profit for anyone? My feeling is that they don't. <snip>

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!

You're right - a lot of it comes down to definitions. Google gives two definitions for "exploit" -

1. To 'make full use of and derive benefit from' (in which case every employer exploits their paid workers - clearly this is not the definition referred to here).
2. To 'make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand'.

Now you have stated (in perhaps different words) that what Dreamworld (and now the V8s as well) is unfair. But is it underhand? Both organisations have put out a call for people to volunteer to do these tasks. They've been clear about what they need, and from who, and what they will offer in return. There is nothing 'underhand' about either of this situations.

As for 'unfair' - The option is then on the people who put their hand up. If they feel the deal that they are getting is unfair - they won't volunteer - so regardless of whether I think it's fair, or you think it is unfair - it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to do so, and therefore it cannot be 'unfair'. Anybody who views either of those situations and decides not to volunteer isn't being treated unfairly. They had the opportunity, and they decided it wasn't for them.

So you cannot define the actions of these two organisations as exploitation based on these definitions. It is voluntary. It isn't depriving the volunteer of an income. It's totally optional, and in general it isn't really doing any 'paid' professional out of work. Nobody is being exploited. Yes - Neither of the events could occur without those volunteers, or otherwise they would have to hire in professionals which does add an additional cost - a cost of which will either deprive funding from other areas, or increase costs to the consumer, or otherwise the project or event won't happen. If Dreamworld can't afford to shoot the add because it lacks extras - this hits their marketing - less people hear about new and exciting things at the parks, and they get less visitation which then affects revenue, which then affects frequency of new rides and attractions - it stagnates.

I already explained the affect on V8s if they were to have a paid workforce... and it isn't practical to do so for 1 or 2 weekends a month over 6 or so months. A casual workforce is a lot more difficult to manage. It's not about the viability of the business - it's the nature of it.

As for olympics, comm games and other such events - there is a lot of profit out of some of those events - it's just that most of it doesn't go to the host city, and instead to many bloated executives within the international organising committees.

Again to reiterate on definitions - volunteering is volunteering. It doesn't matter if it's for a charity, a sporting or major public event, private fundraising, or marketing purposes.

Mystery shoppers receive token reimbursement usually only enough to cover the expenses they incur in doing the mystery shopping task - A very long time ago I did a mystery shop for Subway. My task was to purchase a particular 6 inch sub, complete a survey, and receive $10. As it was substituting my usual lunch, I got a meal, with a drink and a cookie - so that was pretty well the $10 gone right there. Basically - I got a free lunch - and they got feedback on that particular store.

KFC offers you a free serve of chips if you complete their online customer service survey

Hungry Jacks has a 'shake and win' app that rewards you with menu items for 'checking in' to their store using facebook (a marketing tool)

Many food retailers offer samples of their newest product offering (including fast food and supermarkets) - sometimes before the product is released - in return for you giving them your views on the product.

If I use my bartercard to (as you say) EXPLOIT you by obtaining your services that I need without paying you actual money, and you in turn EXPLOIT me by obtaining services that you need from me for similar value without paying me actual money - we have indeed "exploited" each other in terms of the first definition given above, but not in terms of the second definition given - which as i've stated, is the one most closely representing the views you have expressed. There is no unfairness or underhandedness. If I'd grossly overexaggerated the value of the services that I provided to you, to make you think that you were getting far more value from me than it actually cost me to provide - THEN it would be underhanded, and considered exploitation by the second definition...

But to return to the main point - Dreamworld, V8 Supercars, KFC, Subway, The Olympics, Future of Fun, Woolworths, Costco and any other organisation that obtains opinion, market research, background filler or otherwise voluntary workers for any particular purpose make it ABUNDANTLY clear that they are:

1. seeking volunteers
2. to do a certain thing, task, or achieve an objective
3. not offering money
4. are offering non-monetary compensation in terms of free goods, services, merchandise or otherwise
5. needing a particular group of people, for a particular timeframe
6. most importantly - NOT HOLDING A FLIPPING GUN TO ANYBODY'S HEAD TO PUT THEIR HAND UP

[bladex]

heading to dw tomorrow if i see anyone volunteering i'll be sure to call the police

[BigKev]

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.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

attaboy.

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.

Well that would depend - an example given earlier in this discussion was a suggestion of a fair wage x number of hours needed = +/- $90. The day's entry to the park, coupled with what would probably include some food or snacks would see the compensation commensurate with the approximate pay applicable to a paid worker.

Is the kid making the shoes receiving multiple pairs of shoes commensurate to the value of the product manufactured? I would suggest not - and therein lies the exploitation.

Couple that with the fact that the kid is probably working because his family cannot afford to eat, and therefore he would be unlikely to put his hand up to make shoes for the reward of taking some shoes home - he can't eat shoes.

However teenagers in South East Queensland usually don't need to work to put food on the table (of course there are exceptions in disadvantaged families) - so when a teenager puts their hand up to be in a film shoot for a commercial, they are fully accepting of the reward offered, and happily do the task.

The flaw in your sweatshop example is that the kid making shoes is supporting a family with their efforts.

[BigKev]

Is the kid making the shoes receiving multiple pairs of shoes commensurate to the value of the product manufactured? I would suggest not - and therein lies the exploitation.

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.

However teenagers in South East Queensland usually don't need to work to put food on the table (of course there are exceptions in disadvantaged families) - so when a teenager puts their hand up to be in a film shoot for a commercial, they are fully accepting of the reward offered, and happily do the task.

The flaw in your sweatshop example is that the kid making shoes is supporting a family with their efforts.

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.

[XxMrYoshixX]

Can we just stop arguing about paid workers and just move on?

[BigKev]

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

[Reanimated35]

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.

So you want dreamworld to hire extras, pay them per hour for the time they work, pay them super, provide them insurance, provide them super and provide them royalties all for 4 hours of filming an ad? (edit - I wrote super twice)

Can we just stop arguing about paid workers and just move on?

What else is happening in DW in 2014 apart from this outrageous exploitation of child labour??

Edited October 23, 2014 by reanimated35

[BigKev]

So you want dreamworld to hire extras, pay them per hour for the time they work, pay them super, provide them insurance, provide them super and provide them royalties all for 4 hours of filming an ad? (edit - I wrote super twice)

Not royalties but the other stuff is a standard employer/employee relationship isn't it?

[Reanimated35]

So you want them hired as casuals, work one shift then be fired?

[Brad2912]

Which itself would open them up to a range of HR issues.

[Reanimated35]

Are they entitled to staff benefits for that day? Or just for those 4 hours which they would be filming and not have an opportunity to use them?

[BigKev]

Can't see any issues with it, businesses hire people as casual employees all the time.

I bet Dreamworld hire people on a short term basis all the time to deal with the handful of days each year when they need many more staff than usual.

[Reanimated35]

You can't see a problem with employing someone for only 4 hours then firing them again?

Oh crap, I hope BigKev doesn't see this.

It’s hot, sweaty and unpaid work and you will get repeatedly whacked over your head by Dave Warner and some of the world’s most destructive batsmen.

But on the plus side, you will be able to one day tell their your grandkids about bowling to some of the best cricketers in the globe.

And you will get a World Cup training uniform and two World Cup match tickets for each practice session in which you take part.

[BigKev]

You can't see a problem with employing someone for only 4 hours then firing them again?

Firing is the wrong term.

It's a four hour position, accepting a contract is no different than accepting a 6 month contract. The terms of employment are clear.

But the easiest solution would be for Dreamworld to simply use their existing employees, many of whom fit the demographic anyway and I suspect their contracts would already include a release for image use.

And I know you are kidding about the cricket thing but I actually think it is even worse!

International cricket has a river of cash running through it and they ask for highly skilled people to work for them for hours and hours on multiple days and offer them a t-shirt and a couple of tickets!

Imagine if a promising young all-rounder, with the prospect of earning millions of dollars bowls and gets one smashed back at him, smashes a finger and never is able to reach his potential. They will have forgotten him before the ambulance leaves.

Same kid is employed by Cricket Australia and has the same incident and he has the opportunity to access the same employee safety nets as any of us have each day when we go to work.

I wonder how it would go down if I rock up to the World Cup Final and offer to mow a patch of the MCG in lieu of paying for a ticket?

[Brad2912]

Ahh, but kids under 16 in Qld cannot legally work more than 14 hours a week, so they pay them for 4 hours for the advertising/commercial shoot and it screws up there weekend roster!

4 hour contract? The paperwork would take more time than it's worth!

They've done the most efficient & effective means of getting extras for their ad, whilst also tapping into their target market, and getting people talking DW. This thread would have been dead & buried, yet we've been talking about DW, good or bad, for days now. All Publicity is good publicity!

[iwerks]

Extras are employed by the day or the week. I would think all of those other things would be included in their one off fee. I think the main actors would get some royalties. There are pretty standard contracts for these. I reckon you would expect a lot more from paid actors with regards to performance.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

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.

But the measurement I gave was what a 'paid extra' would earn for the day +/- $90 or so - so non-cash compensation to similar value (in the hands of the 'worker') is still acceptable. You are aware that the Australian taxation system is actually set up to factor in 'non-cash benefits' and tax them at their appropriate market value right?

So a free ticket to the park, valued at $85ish at the gate - despite it not costing DW that much to produce - is still considered to hold that retail price value - and therefore they are receiving the equivalent to the cash wage they would otherwise receive, without the complications of having to employ them.

So a pair of Nikes going for around $110, and the sweatshop kid normally receiving around 20 cents a day - he will earn himself a nice shiny pair of Nikes in around 18 months!

Now here is where you are all sorts of wrong:

1. Insurance: Being an unpaid worker does not remove ANY of the mandatory workplace health and safety requirements, public liability workers compensation insurance. A volunteer worker who is injured is covered by the organisations insurer, and they are compensated based on any PAID work they held prior to the accident if they are no longer able to perform it.
2. Superannuation: if the "worker" earns less than $450 per month (which they would in only a single day) then legally they aren't entitled to superannuation.
3. Leave: Casual workforces don't receive sick leave, annual leave, or any other sort of leave. If they don't work - they don't get paid.
4. Unfair Dismissal: You've sat here arguing the merits of paying people for 4 hours work. Firstly - minimum shift lengths in most industries is 3 hours for casuals and 4 hours for FTE. Once the worker reports for duty, the employer is bound to pay them for those minimums to offset costs such as travelling to work etc. So we're talking about a 4 hour gig here - the earliest they could be 'dismissed' would be at the 3 hour mark... you honestly think anybody would argue for that extra hour?

   <waits for answer>

   Because - newsflash - the worker would be considered to be on probation, and therefore the employer doesn't even need to provide a reason for the dismissal - it may simply be that too many people showed up and not all of them were needed.

The keenness of the kids doing the work is ABSOLUTELY relevant. If the park were bringing kids in to do tasks that employees at the park already do (such as your suggested internships earlier) then it would clearly be exploitation as they would not need to pay the full time workers to do their job... However there is no clear task here being done by these kids that would ordinarily be performed by a paid worker. Park employees aren't paid to ride rides (the exceptions being pre-opening testing and that sort of thing).

You wanna pay these kids you need them all to fill out a tax file number declaration - which most of them won't have.

Nobody is saying a person doesn't have a right to a fair wage. But you're confusing ongoing employment with a once off marketing shoot.

You are of course aware that the terms and conditions of entry to the park (yes, when YOU PAY THEM to let you in) entitles them to capture you in film or photo, and use for marketing purposes without payment or permission from you, and your acceptance of this contract is evidenced by your entry through the turnstiles?

So let's scratch this whole 'organised, out of hours thing' and let's shoot the commercial during park operating hours, using real guests having actual fun - and just use their image in the commercial? Is there anything wrong with that - given that they accepted that contract by scanning their ticket and entering the park? It's in the Ts and Cs right?

The only difference between that, and what they're actually doing is that they've targeted the demographic they want on the ride, and they're doing it out of hours where they don't inconvenience paying guests by surrounding the ride with equipment, and potentially affecting operations. You'd most likely be one of the first people to come on here and complain that the film shoot they were doing during hours closed down the two newest attractions in the complex when you wanted to ride them, and woe is you...

Would it be different if they went outside in the morning to the earlybirds and said "hey guys, we're shooting a commercial - would you all like to come in an hour or two early (isn't early entry normally chargeable?), ride our newest rides first without queues, and get free breakfast?"

The only difference to that is that they've put out a call in advance so that they can be sure to have enough people at the gates when they need them.

I really don't care if you don't see it from my point of view. You can remain on the wrong side if you wish. It is clear based on our culture, and even just from those who have commented that you are in the minority.

Incidentally, the current government requires independents to pass legislation through the senate - so clearly - they aren't in the majority, are they?

[Gazza]

Can we just stop arguing about paid workers and just move on?

They weren't arguing, they were just telling each other why they are right.

[Gary86]

I was back at Dreamworld today. There is still a random dinosaur on the rapid ride, there was not a mushroom (or crazy mushroom guy) on the Log Ride or in Main Street. The Mine Ride is full of junk. You can no longer get bubble-gum Fanta with the change from Coke to Pepsi (they mostly just have Cola / Raspberry). The staff member at the shop said she misses the bubblegum flavour too. Triple Vortex only allowed 1 person per 2 person raft for some reason. Vintage Cars were open despite apparently being closed by the sign at the front but lacks the theming they once had. There is no barn as seen on the Dreamworld website (old image from the better vintage cars). The river looked pretty clean with lot of turtles and some eels swimming in there. Tail Spin is not a thrill ride (I couldn't get it to spin). WipeOut is awesome now (I got soaked). Central Café is getting a makeover. Buzzsaw is a terrible ride. It looks like they gave up painting Ocean Parade after the Wipeout. There is room for another "flat ride" which will probably be a new ride for 2015 - knowing Dreamworld and there love for flat rides and not adding good rides like a decent rollercoaster or replacing the Mine Ride.

[Brad2912]

Tailspin seems like a thrill ride to me, your inability to unlock the 'thrill' feature doesn't change it's category.

What makes Buzzsaw terrible? What does that make MDMC then?

Where is there room for a flat ride? Being more specific may help.