Thanks. I will do so. Upwork finally responded to me and said this
Hello Mihajlo,
Maintaining the integrity of our site is of utmost importance to our team and to our community of users. Considering the violations that have occurred. Due to the security of processes, I am unable to provide additional details.
I understand this decision is a difficult one for you, but I am comfortable with my team’s choice to close your account. The decision is final.
I wish you the best in any future business endeavors, even though our working relationship is now effectively ended.
Best,
Cheryl
So basically some rule that I dont know about but they wont tell me.
Unfortunately, US companies tend not to subscribe to US ideals of judicial process.
If you don't know why this company did this, and it's put you in a bad situation, then one option is to contact an organization like `eff.org`, and ask them for ideas. They might be interested in the issue of Internet-enabled "gig economy" middle party accountability. If not, they might be able to point you to the right US government authority, or to a different non-profit organization.
You could also consult a private attorney. In the US, you can get a referral to an attorney through a Bar Association, and ask for a free initial consultation, during which they will give you an idea what they can try, and how expensive that will be. If you're in the US, you can also sometimes go to a free legal clinic operated by a nearby law school.
But, I hate to say it, be cautious about raising a fuss. It sounds like you're already burnt irrevocably at the original company. (Even when someone in an organization realizes a mistake was made, an organization will tend to double-down rather than admit it.) But raising a fuss might also preclude future work at many other companies (which are often paranoid about human resources). It's not fair to the individual, nor good for society when people who feel wronged are afraid to speak up, but it's often the reality.
I'm sorry that you're currently losing income and the reputation that you built up through a company, and I hope that can be straightened out.
I got that call in 2016. I passed that. This was maybe second or third time they have a call with me, and this one was the shortest. Maybe 3 minutes top.
That is my first gig for VOIP company for 5$ a day that I described at the start. Just to show how I had to start. And after all that climbing, they do this.
Still, the idea that a even a "starter" freelance DevOps job could ever be $5/day, especially for a "long term" gig, is kind of depressing. It's way, way less than US minimum wage.
Well I was never warned over 3 years. I never accepted payment away from Upwork, i maybe couple of times got off site communication on client request, but nobody gave me infraction for that. I think that should come before the ban.
I figure there is two possible reasons they banned me. Facial recognition software decided that my profile pic (when I was younger and clean shaven) is not sufficiently similar to my pic taken during video call.
Other reason might be that they think my services are not being needed, as I had interviews without hire... except those were ones where I did not want to be hired, it was not like client rejected me. I simply wanted to pick best jobs, while still having time to concentrate on my long running contract with full time employer. In a hindsight, I probably should have set my profile to private in order not to get any invites. And go public only when I want side-job. I did not know they count that metric.
The man's livelihood was destroyed, without a provided justification or an apparent means of appeal. The "court of public opinion" is basically his only shot to get it back, and that requires views. Clickbait gets views.
That's not a bad argument, but it isn't a good fit for HN. Clickbait is against the site guidelines, because its strengths—attracting quick attention and generating indignation—are actually weaknesses for intellectual curiosity, the main value of this site.
Its not clickbait. They gave him no explanation for the ban. They required a video call. It is reasonable to speculate that his appearance could have been a factor.
Ok, but the title doesn't speculate; it makes the claim outright. People naturally feel rage at the image of someone being banned so arbitrarily and trivially. Generating rage with evidenceless claims is definitely clickbait.
Maybe clients you turned down gave you 1 stars or what ever.
Do you think it was chat bots? These automated fraud detection system are a nightmare.
I did some jobs at elance as a student. You could feel how the platform was on the side of the work buyers. I stopped trying making money there after a dispute with a SEO dude over payment for some text where he wanted me to do another one before I got payed ... luckely the money (30 USD) was in escrow for me and I actually got it from elance, but it's a buyers market.
This is nonsense, they did not cry against PRISM like that. Ohwait, they did not know at all, until Snowden told everyone. So STFU Googlers, precentant has been set already.
Well no, but no law needed here. You see, this is part of the deal with Jim Whitehurst and rest of Red Hat management, otherwise, Jim would not pitch this to shareholders as a good deal. It would be a hostile takeover, which can fail, or lead at the end of IBM buying just a shell of the company.
So to back up their intentions, IBM probably had to give golden parachutes to Jim, Paul, and rest of Red Hat top execs, and probably huge golden parachutes ones at that. Jim is becoming part of IBM uper management and keeps leading the Red Hat business unit. If Gini starts some crazy moves to endanger Red Hat's well being as an entity inside IBM (as in IBM-fying the company), she will get at odds with Jim and RH upper management. So she can fire them all and pay up bilions in golden parachutes, at which point they will probably found a Green Hat company and hire away all Red Hat employees... or Gini can keep her word in the deal and leave Red Hat a separate business unit within IBM, one that grows revenues and profits, unlike most IBM business units. And IBM is a meritocracy, if Red Hat continues good performance, expect Red Hat execs taking top position, including next CEO role. In other words, I expect IBM to be Redhatized, and not other way around.
Well, I am professional and I see Miguel De Icaza as Microsoft zealot and nutter/troll. Person that is "psyched" (see http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-guru-... )about Nokia going Wp7 can't give unbiased opinion about anything connected to Micorosft, especially anything that he is actively pushing... and he pushes .NET more than Mono these days.
