Oh Dear .... interesting Job.

[Dave The Man]

What do the Girls Look Like?

[David]

Hmm you never know!

[sherrife]

The position is not paid?

That is completely ridiculous. Just another corporation trying to spin it´s way out of paying workers a decent wage.

Even IF you argue that sex is fun (duh), by testing the condoms full time you would be sacrificing your time and be unable to do other (paid) work.

What the hell??

[EBB]

..anyone else allergic to latex?

[member34258]

Farkin Work(NO)Choices.
Imagine having to do hard graft for no monetary reward!

Whats that phone number again?

[noddy,]

[sherrife]

Really, just because it´s sex doesn´t change the fact that the company is getting a benefit out of the workers´ labour, and giving nothing (in terms of currrency you can spend in a supermarket) in return. I seriously imagine the marketing director or something getting a BIG bonus after thinking of this particular campaign. 200 workers fine tuning their products, and you won´t have to pay them a cent by making it seem that you are giving them a great opportunity!

By the logic in this thread, given that I love teaching, when i finish my degree next year I should be so happy to get a job in a school that I will work for nothing.

[David]

one problem Omar: sex is something that many guys would pay for (I'm not talking about literally, as in prostitution, but more in theory). In any case, they are getting rewarded for their time. In return for testing these condoms, the guys are able to spend a night having sex with some chick. Also, as the article states, they do get some reward for their work, $60 worth of Durex products.

It sounds rather sleazy, actually, doesn't it?

But more to the point, the applicants are not even necessarily sacrificing income, as I'm guessing the 'testing' would take place during after hours.

Let's face it. It would be redundant to pay employees for this job, anyhow, because the corporation is well aware that people will do it for free. Call that what you will, but it's simply how the world works. They're looking out for the best results for themselves, and by doing that, they're looking to make the job seem as attractive for applicants without disadvantaging their company financially.

As for your hypothetical, there's a difference. The very fact that you wouldn't teach a class for free means that, while you love it, you don't love it that much (which is also fair enough because you are actually putting in hard work doing it). Whereas, how many guys would expect to be paid for having casual sex? That's absurd.

[nomadjack]

I think you're misinterpreting what the company's doing Sheriffe. Basically, you get $60 worth of frangers for nothing and then provide them with feedback on their product. Not sure it qualifies as exploitation. And i'm sorry, but if you call sex labour you're either doing it all wrong or getting way too much of it. I'd apply myself, but having been married for 15 years, $60 worth of condoms would take me about nine years to work my way through, and I doubt the company is that patient. However, if it was $60 worth of hair removal cream, I've got just the shoulders and back for them!

[magpiesgirl]

Your post is so funny because it's sadly true nomadjack!

I told my Mum about the whole thing and she goes hope no married men apply because the company will be waiting until 2025 to get feedback from them!

[Joel]

[noddy,]

[HAL]

Perhaps I'm just expressing my own concern about it.