 |
Spirituality @ Work Dialogue
When is a wage unjust…and what to do about it?
Opening reflection by Greg Pierce:
Something happened to me recently that I wanted to get your feedback on. The details are not important, but the bottom line is that I was offered what I considered an unjust wage to write an essay for publication-an essay that I wanted to do! I'm not sure what I should have done about it, but here is the response I made:
"I am available to write the piece you requested, I believe I have something to say, and I would love to do it. However, there is an issue that prevents me from doing so.
"As a practitioner of the spirituality of work and the owner of a business myself, I have had to grapple with the issue of 'the just wage.' It is not easy to determine what is a just wage, much less how to pay it sometimes. Still, I do not think it is right to allow that difficulty to stop us from considering the issue.
"In this case, I feel that your stipend is not a just wage--not just for me, not just for any writer. I realize that you have an impressive list of writers for your journal, and perhaps all of them consider your stipend to be just. Or perhaps they are writing for you for another reason--friendship, self-promotion, support of your mission. I this case, I suppose it is OK for them to accept whatever is offered. I do many things for other reasons than pay, and in fact I would have written this piece for free if I had been asked to do so as a favor by someone I know.
"But one of the key elements of Catholic social teaching is that the fact that someone is willing to accept a wage does not make it just. If you have writers for your journal who are trying to make a living from their writing (which I am not), then offering them about ten cents a word seems to me to be unjust on its face.
"Nor does the financial restraints under which you operate allow for us to pay less than a just wage. I have no idea about the financial situation of your company, but another principle of Catholic social teaching is that a for-profit company (or a not-for-profit organization, for that matter) is not allowed to pay less than a just wage over an extended period of time, even if it means that the employer cannot do a particular project or even ultimately stay in business.
"My final point, and I hope that you will excuse me for this lengthy and unsolicited reply (a simple "no" would have sufficed!), is that people have to stand up for a just wage, even if it means that it makes them unpopular or leave them open to being held to a higher ethical standard themselves. A corollary of this is that those of us who are more able to refuse an unjust wage must do so on behalf of those who are more desperate for any kind of income.
"Therefore, I must respectfully decline your invitation. There are no hard feelings on my part, and I certainly am not privy to all the information you have regarding this specific issue. I can only judge your offer on the face of it. If you feel that yours is a just offer, I would be willing to listen to your reasons.
"If you would like to discuss this further, you are welcome to call me. Thank you for listening and best wishes in your new endeavor."
How about it, readers. Have you ever worked for what you consider less than a just wage? If so, when and why and would you do it again? What are the circumstances under which it is right to accept a less-than-just wage, and when is it necessary to stand up and refuse and maybe even organize to change the situation?
P.S. The people who asked me to write for them did get back to me. They felt that the fee they were offering did meet their "industry standard" and was all they could afford. They asked me if I would write the article for them as a favor, and I agreed. I said that I would donate the stipend they were offering to the National Center for the Laity to continue its work.
Here are some of the responses from members of the e-mail group "Faith and Work in Cyberspace." If you would like to respond to this issue or receive a free e-mail on this subject from me about once a month please respond to gpierce@actapublications.com. (No one else will ever see your e-mail address.)
Ron Chicon writes:
I have to hand it to you. I don't know that I would have the courage to stick my neck out by soliciting the judgments of others on my personal ethics decisions -- maybe unless I were absolutely convinced that I were right.
Anyway, I had two responses. One was that I was fascinated by your statement, "A corollary of this is that those of us who are more able to refuse an unjust wage must do so on behalf of those who are more desperate for any kind of income."
I think your meaning was that others would not be able to make the ethical refusal because of their financial desperation, so you could make the public statement for them and for all who would otherwise want to refuse, but could not. But, I also took it to mean that you did not need the money that much, and your refusal would open the opportunity for someone else who did need it to say yes. Maybe the first meaning is the high road, but I like the Christian sacrifice undertones of the second meaning.
My second response was that, ethics aside, an offer to pay me something less than what I think my time, effort, or ideas are worth can be an ego wound. This is especially true in areas of art and personal craft (like writing) where we tend to extend our egos into our work products. Such an ego wound might be deflected by strategies like writing a long ethical defense of my refusal to accept the ego wound or by offering my services for free, in effect recasting my work to my own sense of personal value and then, once again in my control, I can keep it or give it away.
I would just ask, beyond the opportunity to lift high the banner of just wage and the protection of worker's rights, what does the Holy Spirit have to teach us about our deepest selves when we encounter conflict situations like this, that energize us to act.
Dan Mulhall writes:
I'm asked continually to write articles either for free or for next to nothing. I like the way you handled this situation. The question of just wages is certainly a good one. I've also been on the other side of the coin as well. I have asked others to write articles for me for a pittance. If I really want the person I've asked, I'm willing to negotiate when I have budget room. Otherwise, it is a "take it or leave it" proposition.
That being said, my belief is that no one is forcing me to write for next to nothing. I am not being held a slave, nor am I being taken advantage of (necessarily, at least). I write because I am given an opportunity to express my thoughts, to share my ideas. Is there a just wage in publishing articles? I'm sure there is. But what it is, I can't say.
Bill Droel writes:
I once thought that the definition of exploitation was conditioned by the attitude of an employer and the attitude of an employee. For example, I reasoned that the pay for teachers in Catholic schools could not be called exploitation because the employer was trying to reach a higher good (a superior education for children) and the employee was well aware of the motives. The teacher in this example was, I thought, taking a lower wage out of dedication or vocation.
Then, a few years ago, I read the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. Dedication and higher purpose are all well and good, it says. But attitudes or motives have nothing to do with a just wage, with exploitation. The wage is either fair or sinful--no matter how nice everyone might be. Also the dollar amount of a just wage can be roughly calculated, contrary to the ambivalence that permeates that idea.
All that being said, I'm uncomfortable with moralizing. Your best response to the journal that solicited an article is to organize a guild of writers for Catholic journals. That's the Catholic antidote to injustice and exploitation.
Sharon "X" writes:
I attended a very interesting conference last week at Wheaton College: Faith, Profit and Decision-Making". Laura Nash did an interesting keynote on her latest book, Just Enough. I was also able to spend a little time with David Miller who hosts Avodah on the net and is now the director of the Yale Center for Ethics and Culture.
Your piece on just wages for journal articles was an interesting one as I prepare a submission in the coming weeks. My experience with religious journals is that they pay little or nothing for articles. It seems we are to be sufficiently compensated by the honour of seeking our work in print. Quite frankly, that's often enough for me. It is curious, I have observed, how much the church is actually engaged in unjust wage practices. The proliferation of part-time pastoral appointments has been fueled by the decline of mainline congregations. The easiest way to cut costs is to reduce clergy salaries and this is done with little or no regard to whether or not it is just or livable. As one who worked under such a scenario for 12 years I can assure you that without sidelines like babysitting, teaching skiing and teaching night school seminary classes, I would never have been able to remain a part-time minister. Like nursing, church staff positions are frequently listed as .5 or .8 rather than as full-time even though the expectations have not been reduced.
Getting back to the specific case you have set before us I draw the line when the publication is supported in large part by advertisements. I think those folks have an obligation to compensate writers appropriately, which is to say a reasonable amount that reflects the time necessary to create a decent piece. I realize when i write for a journal that is largely supported by a seminary/church organization/subscriptions that it is not realistic to expect more than an honorarium. When you get right down to it, often it is more important to get your work published in a vehicle that will allow the most discussion/networking to happen than to be paid. Personally, I am so thankful I am not in an academic position that depends substantially on being published.
Alice Camille writes:
As a full-time free lance writer, I do write primarily for a living. This is the only way money comes into my house and therefore the money has to be there or I can't offer my time and experience to a publication without real sacrifice on my part. What intrigues me is that, for a normal-length essay (1500-2000 words), I am offered between $150-500 by various publishers for whom I frequently write. Certainly I understand that some journals have a wider circulation and presumably greater resources behind them. But I also know that an essay will take at least a full day to write, not to mention a day or two to research before I can begin to write.
Because I have no dependents, I can afford to work three days for $500. But it impoverishes me to work three days for $150. Yet I will consider such work, as Greg did, if the topic is something I feel deeply about, if the editor is a friend, or if I believe I can reach an audience I don't normally have access to in other publications. From my perspective, such work is practically pro bono, but if it satisfies some other goal - the pure pleasure of writing about what I love, or doing a friend a favor, or gaining new eyeballs for my work - I take it on.
Is it just to be underpaid? Never. Does it happen? Often. Am I participating in injustice to accept such fees without protest? Maybe. The fact that I don't accept speaking engagements for less than my standard fee anymore suggests that I am willing to take a stand when the work is more demanding and less personally rewarding. But I don't do it for justice' sake. I do it because, when it comes to talks, there's just nothing in it for me but the money.
Bill Diehl writes:
Your 'unjust wage" essay is a good one. I would like to add another point to consider: Over the years I have been asked to do many speaking or retreat leadership engagements for churches or church-related organizations on the topic of the ministry of the laity in the church and in the world. Frequently I will be asked about the fee I would seek. My response is, "What do you normally pay an ordained clergy person for a similar assignment?" Many times there is a pause on the other end of the line and then. "Well, O.K." My point is that the church structures tend to remunerate their own better because what the clergy say is considered of greater value than what a lay person might offer. .I have had as much formal education as most clergy and considerably more experience on the topic. So why pay me less?
But back to your situation? Would you consider accepting the minimum wage for the number of hours you spend writing the article? If not, then join those of us who are seeking to raise the minimum wage, and index it for the future.
Andrew Lyke writes:
As one who works in, with, and for the Church, I find myself facing this kind of situation more often than I like.
Many years ago as I began consulting for parishes and church organizations, I did it in my leisure time. Working for free or meager stipends was not a problem in those days because I earned enough in the corporate world to more than sustain my family.
Since leaving Corporate America and changing my world of work to the Church, there have been plenty of times when clients appeared to be shocked by the fee I would quote. Over the past 10 or so years I've learned valuable lessons about this.
-
I've learned that people undervalue the work when it is free or cheap. For the love of the work itself, I refuse to undervalue it.
-
- The clients who got services free or cheap expect the same fee, even when the quality of the service has grown tremendously. I don't like to haggle. So, I find myself not pursuing old clients.
- The "Nazareth Syndrome" is real. Folks who "knew me when" don't pay jack! So, much of my work is out of town.
- Sticking to my fee has helped clients with limited resources to find new avenues for resources.
- I always price services based on what I need not what I want or what I can get. Some of my advisors disagree with this because it doesn't always reflect the "market" for such services. But, it keeps me connected to the mission and the value of simplicity. Though, there are many times that I am reminded that I "need" some comfort every now and then.
Richard Bouch writes:
Once I was in a situation where almost all employment opportunities were closed off except working as a bookstore assistant. After two pay "increases," I earned $7.50/hour. The work was very physically demanding (moving boxes/books, bending, standing). It was thin on variety and interest. Interactions with customers ran the range from pleasant to stressful. The company gave occasional pep talks that most of us found unhelpful or demeaning. Was the wage too low? - In view of physical demands, competence required (more than the uninformed might realize), inconvenient hours, rising cost of living, yes. Was it unjust? - unjust is a strong word. Let's say it came pretty close to that. Even someone working 7 days/week (I did not) would struggle to pay basic rent and food, let alone car, medical, etc. This in S. California where costs are high.
I did this for more than a year before better work materialized. Would I do it again? - Yes, if nothing better was available. Don't want to be the idle non-provider of I Timothy 5:8. Willingly? - not very, but lack of basic income is remarkably coercive, and too much idleness is wretched.
Connie Gemson writes:
Even though I am Jewish, a lot of our social concerns and solutions are the same.
Regarding your just wage issue, join the National Writers Union. It is an advocacy group that is affiliated with the UAW and is interested in better working conditions for those on the factory line and those who are writers.
Here is a similar problem and here is how I handled it. I write an article about the multicultural work force for a magazine. This was a big feat for me and I agreed to write for copies. A few months later I got a form letter stating that a new author wanted to publish my work but due to the " economics of the project" he was not paying subscribers. This was a ninety-dollar text published by a well-known and established publishing company.
I called the Union and I asked what a fair rate would be for a 4 page essay. I also was told that the Union would be able to negotiate with the editor. I felt I could handle that matter and since I got the information, I spoke to the editor and I stated I knew he wanted to be fair and I named a workable fee I asked him to pay. I also stated I would love to get a copy of the book. I got the money and I got the book!
I am not at all sure of the editor's fair intentions but I appealed to his sense of decency and won.
Join the Union!
Ginny Cunningham writes:
Oh, Greg, where are you? La la land???
My own work for the Catholic press (including yours, I'm sorry to remind you) has been done for the most dismal monetary return. No one in the secular press has ever paid me so little for so much work. I gave it up long ago and make my living now as a PR flack. I'm glad the case you mention turned out satisfactorily for you and the editor in question, but I find it incomprehensible that you could take up this issue with such passion. Or are you like the reformed smoker, drinker, etc., who has seen the error of his ways and now wants to reform everybody.
There will always be writers willing to work for little or nothing. It's the nature of the beast. We want to make our point, to be read, to be heard, to imprint something on the ages. And generally, we want that more than we want money. The hard realities of life ultimately force individual writers to rethink this egotistical position, but there will always be others (others who are good, by the way, too good for this nonsense) who will bleed for free.
Sorry. I am so cynical but you have truly pushed one of my buttons.
Later, Ginny Cunningham wrote again:
Doesn't the nature of writing make "payment" an automatic issue for button pushing, though? Writing is so solitary and often requires that we put our innermost stuff on the line. Sometimes I think the money issue is just where we dump all our angst about the art, the craft, the rejection, the failures of confidence, etc., etc. I don't believe, not deep down, that one writes for money. Sure, it's nice if you make it. But if you want to be guaranteed a living wage, you become an engineer.
And you know what? The latest five-year long PR gig for the Retirement Fund for Religious has given me a front row center seat for observing and accumulating a body of work about the disappearance of a subculture (nun life as it has existed in this country since its founding). It's a phenomenal story in its own right that now inspires my various op-ed-for-fun pieces, as I call them, and the playwriting that I do on the side and hope to turn to full time, whether it makes me any money or not.
So, thanks for raising an issue that let me feel and assess some old angers and maybe even let them go.
Thom Clark writes:
As someone who's labored most of his adult life in the nonprofit sector, I think many of us are paid "below scale' for our contributions from plugging holes in the safety net to working thru mini-furloughs when a grant fell thru or a governmental reimbursement check was late.
As a former editor, I know how small my freelance budget was and how often I
relied on "donated" labor to get the copy I needed. I also believe that most
writers already know how modest their compensation is from most
publications. Yet many of us still write, whether for pure reasons of ego
or because it may be the only way to get stories and issues in front of a
broader public. And some of us work other jobs to supplement what we can't
earn from the marketplace for our editorial output.
So, while I understand you're seeking a just wage from a publisher, they may
not have much more to give; and you may need to pass up that opportunity to
that they can find someone hungrier (?) to fill the spot.
On a related note, how often do we consumers -- of the written word or just
plain stuff -- think of the "just wage" workers serving us may or may not be
getting. For example, many folks love the deals they may get from walking
into a Wal-Mart. But do we ever think of the part-time workers serving us
there, workers who could qualify for food stamps after they cash their
Wal-Mart paycheck, who have to pay for lousy health coverage while selling
us "outsourced" product from oversea sweat shops?
Cathie Duff writes:
Hmmmm, I think that I might have simply declined and there would be the end. But I think that your explanation is a very good one, and explains something that I don't think many employees dwell on, and that is the challenge that an employer has to provide a just wage, especially in times of economic stress. It is very tempting to keep wages at the point where employees will accept them, but that really flies in the face of social teaching and what I would consider the moral obligations of an employer.
Having gone to some lengths to identify skill sets necessary for my employees and wages comparable to those skills in our market, we have established a comp program that more or less insures that anyone working at our company will be receiving appropriate wages for the work that they do. It makes management (me) more cognizant of what the real cost of labor is rather than "what you can get away with." And it is desirable for labor to know that they are being fairly compensated.
I do not write for a living, but have been asked to write industry articles from time to time and have always declined compensation based on the fact that it is NOT my livelihood, and that the professional writers need to be fairly compensated - but I have always perceived myself as kind of a "guest" author. I think that your argument, though, about compensation that is really penurious is a good one, and your solution creative. I hope that the laity group made good use of your stipend!
Harry Dickherber writes:
I haven't worked for what I considered an unjust wage since high school. My dad was disabled due to a heart attack, There were 8 of us kids living at home and it was all my mother could do to keep us fed. She still insisted on us attending catholic high school however and they only way we could do that was be working in a restaurant - there were not many jobs in a small town in Missouri. I worked a 54 hour week and took home a little over $18. Organizing was neither a practical or legal option and I quit as soon as I got a better job offer as a janitor for the school. This has continued over the years to make me a believer in Unions and the right to organize - it is just a shame the unions have historically been so crooked.
I my 25 years of work in developing countries, I saw 1000+s of people who worked for unjust wages. Hunger has a way of compelling people to do what there mind tells them is not worth it. People often quit after short periods of time out of frustration and awareness that the compensation is inadequate to the effort required. But soon, the one who quits or some other member of the family is compelled by hunger and other needs to go back to work for the same type of unjust wage. But where unemployment and underemployment are high and poverty is widespread, and the poor are exploited by both government and the capitol controlling elite, the working class has little option but to work for the unjust wage or no wage at all. Some hardy souls strike out to make a living off the land or the sea and this contributes to deforestation, over-fishing and other environmental disasters. Many of these people who strike out on their own, while poorer financially, have a certain level of self pride that is not found in the exploited laborer. The unjust wage not only fails to be adequate for basic human need of food clothing and shelter, it usually goes along witha type of authoritarian management that dehumanizes the worker.
I think you did right by rejecting the unjust wage and I think we should whenever we can but there are many who don't have the option.
Susan "The Church Lady" writes:
I currently work for less than a just wage. I have been in this situation for nearly 10 years. I know my husband resents it. He is paid very well and earns a just wage.
I do this because I consider it a gift to the community in which I work, my parish. I am the Director for Liturgical Rites and Ministries and work an average of 40 hours a week with an office in the parish office.
Sometimes I wish it were different and I made more money for my work and dedication. However it would be financially difficult for the parish. Not only that, I currently have no money problems because my husband makes good money.
This is a personal decision for me. I would not ever ask someone else to make this decision. It must come from inside to make a sacrifice in regards to money. It was not an issue when I was originally hired as I was hired to just work a few hours a week for a reasonable stipend. The job grew and I grew with it and the money wasn't there to offer me. If it was offered, I'd take it, though.
This is a complex issue too. I'd surely stand up for another person who wanted to make a stand for their just wages. Life is demanding and money problems can wreck lives and marriages. Employees must be willing to work in relation to their just wage. Unfortunately there is a segment of the population who make just wages and surely don't earn it....
Sr. Ruth Ellen Doane writes:
I often think Catholic schools, churches, organizations, publications feel they have a right to pay persons who work for them less than a living wage. When I taught in Catholic Schools, and especially when I was an administrator in such, I often argued that if we couldn't afford to pay the teachers a living wage we had no right to exist. I taught in a parish high school in the Boston area one year for a total wage of $600.00. Granted, I had free living quarters in the parish convent, but no help on food or even any health insurance. (This was in 1968-69.) At a parish meeting I raised my hand to express an opinion, only to be told by the pastor to sit down, as I didn't contribute anything to the parish!
Joan Huber writes:
I don't think much about just wages because I mostly worry about the sub-slave wages worldwide. If a little journal is working hard to stay afloat and its execs. aren't making big bucks either, then I would definitely contribute the article. Just wages are vital, but so is the truth that we often get only in small publications.
Stephen Moss writes:
What about prices? If there is a just wage, does that mean there is a just price as well?
Is it just for prices to go sky high for plastic sheeting after a hurricane hits? Or for plywood to go sky high before it hits? Isn't that unjust as well? What about doubling the prices for the removal of downed trees after a hurricane? That's price gouging isn't it? What if there is a drought? Should the price of wheat go up? Is that just?
Who will determine what wage is just? Who will determine what price is just?
Perhaps we could form a Central Committee of well meaning virtuous, justice seeking citizens to work on this committee. Of course they should be paid a just wage. Who will determine what they get paid? I'm sure since they are well meaning, virtuous, justice seeking individuals we could entrust the decision of their wages with themselves. Don't you? Who will pay these virtuous citizens? I know, the rich. We will just tax the wealthiest Americans to pay them a just wage to determine the just wages throughout the country. Do you realize that the wealthiest 5% in America already pay 50% of the taxes and that the bottom 50% of Americans only 4%?
But what about these Multinational Corporations who are paying unjust wages overseas to poor impoverished natives of Indonesia. Well, I think our virtuous citizens should establish just wages for those people as well. They should force Nike to pay a just wage or exit the USA.
How about that? What do you think would happen?
Why do you think people in the tree removal business drive for 18 hours to get to the Carolinas after the storm? Because there is great demand and small supply. Prices go up. They make a buck. The money is their incentive to drive all that distance to bring their expertise to the area that desperately needs it. Many state legislatures have made it illegal to "profiteer" after a natural disaster. Can you guess what the effect will be? The next disaster in these states will not attract the people with the know how and the equipment to help things get back to normal. They won't drive the 18 hours to get the "just price" that the legislators think they should charge.
What about the just wage in some impoverished town in Indonesia. What about the big sneaker companies paying a couple of dollars a day? Celebrities in the USA protest these abuses. What is the effect? Nike pulls their factory out of a town like that because the bad publicity is killing them. The people in that impoverished little town no longer get their $12 a week. I wonder if the people just gather around the town square or the marketplace and discuss how fortunate they are now that so many well meaning people in the USA were looking out for them. Isn't it great that we are no longer being abused by these Corporate thieves at Nike. Of course they are no longer getting their $12 per week, either. This may cloud their thinking somewhat. Probably there are some enlightened among them who realize that they are better off without the exploitive westerners in their little town. I'm sure there are others who can no longer afford the fruits and vegetables that they used to purchase with that $2 per day who are not so grateful. The farmers that sold their fruits and vegetable to them may not be that happy either now that they no longer have enough money to buy their produce. I wonder if the chicken farmers are appreciative that the factory workers are no longer being exploited. Of course, they no longer have any money for chickens. The chickens probably are the only ones who are genuinely happy to be dying of old age instead of being eaten in the prime of their lives by the Nike factory workers.
The central committee has been tried! It doesn't work! It ends up dragging down the entire economy. When that happens everybody suffers, except those on the Central Committee who started out so well meaning but end up looking out for themselves and their families.
Come to think of it, I'm not even sure the chickens will be happy because the chicken farmer at some point can't afford the chicken feed anymore and they die of starvation instead of old age. And that is one tough way to go
Scott Fleischmann writes:
Unlike Bill Droel, I believe that motives are the only significant issue.
In Proverbs 16:2 we learn that "All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord." The motives of the publisher/editor are more important than the value of the wage, as are the motives of the writer. In fact, that essential point is both encouraging and disturbing.
Apparently, Greg feels that unjust wages are a problem worthy of his
energy. He is willing to stand against the perpetrators of that problem,
with words alone. If he ultimately made the decision to do the article
because the publisher/editor convinced him that the wage was fair, he made a just decision. Likewise, if he was convinced that the wages offered by management of the publication were made with pure motives, a just decision was made, even if he disagreed with the value of that wage.
However, any other reason to write the article is unjust and self-serving. A prostitute who donates the proceeds of services rendered to the Society for the Prevention of Prostitution is a prostitute nonetheless.
Len Mondi writes:
In this global world of free trade, we must insist upon an international standard for wages and benefits. Otherwise, we have priced the American worker and our goods and services
out of the market.
Karen Ball writes:
I was especially fascinated with Bill Droel's comment about "attitude." My daughter faces this one every day. She is a single mother with three children and works as a daycare provider because she likes having the opportunity to influence/encourage children in their early childhood years.
She currently works in a church-sponsored daycare that has as a mission to "provide affordable childcare." Now who could argue with that?
Unfortunately the way they do that is by paying the employees slightly more than minimum wage. So the families receiving this affordable childcare live in million dollar homes, drive Mercedes or BMWs, and frequently show up 15-20 minutes late to pick up their children so my daughter can't get home to fix dinner for her own family. And many of the almost entirely minority and women staff (my daughter is the only Caucasian on staff) can't afford automobiles and can't afford to buy a house. The church doesn't see that there's a problem. Their mission is to provide affordable childcare and if the employees are the ones to pay the price, oh well.
Sue Bliss writes:
I have worked for many different wages, from volunteer to illegal below minimum wage, up to a good professional wage, while still volunteering, about half time each. I have some more thoughts on just and unjust wages.
When I was nineteen, one of my many temp jobs was retouching photos for a professional studio. We were paid three dollars an hour, or about $3.00 for a full set of retouched photos, which cost the photographer about the same to print and then were marked up to about $100 for sale. All the perfecting of people's smiles, removal of wrinkles (or unwanted spouses) etc. was done by people like me, going blind staring at a brush with about ten hairs in it while dotting the print.
Volunteering my writing, I have had an article stolen, reworked, my byline removed and then published for pay by a guy who is a "professional" writer in my field. My husband saved his last company megabucks by reproducing a manufacturing line that was then shipped overseas, along with his job, the day after it was done.
Recently, I went to my first two local writer's group meetings, and there was a roomful of hopeful faces and many stories of having things published, for free. I have had a few things published, but it would never occur to me to submit work that I had slaved over for weeks to someone for nothing, except for that one unfortunate article mentioned above. I realized that although I had not had much published at all, partly because had insisted on working only with people who would pay something decent for the work.
In my part of the country, one large employer was once union. Through gradual union-busting and apathetic employees (in a process I never understood well), new hires were given the chance to opt out of the union if desired. Over the years, the union disappeared, and all part-time employees suddenly were booted out, along with their benefits, the moment of its demise. Unknowingly, I worked for another employer who had busted his employees' union by infiltrating the staff and fooling the more gullible and trusting employees into believing nothing would change, except they would pay no union dues. Their jobs continued at the same sweatshop pace, without benefits and I left when I heard the story for myself.
When I am paid a just wage, I may voluntarily work less than full time, and choose to donate the rest of my hours, which I have done most of my adult life. When I am paid a slave wage and must live on it, I have had to forgo health insurance and other essentials, and have often helped someone else become wealthy in the process.
Everyone can be quite righteous about working for free when he or she does not have to earn an income; this includes me. And we can stick up for common sense by insisting on decent wages, when we have enough to eat everyday and have the time to complain about it. This helps our neighbor who may not be able to spend time lobbying for decent wages.
We can decide to shop where everything is made overseas, and crow about our bargains, even as our neighbor's house is sold after his company ships the plant overseas.
One final parable: in the early '90's, NAFTA began, and Mexicans began watching TV and working in displaced American factories across the border. As the years rolled by, Mexicans (who are very quick to learn and adapt), said "Hey, look at what American factory workers get for their day's work!" and began asking for more from their employers. Outsourcing companies realized they couldn't keep Mexicans down on the farm forever, so they just shipped the jobs and factories to China, where the population is less aware of the outer world and desperate for work.
As Linda Ellerbee would say, and so, it goes.
Amy Florian writes:
I face the question of a just wage on a regular basis. Unlike many others, I do not speak and write as a sideline for which I really don't need the money. My family counts on my income from speaking and writing. Yet every time I accept an engagement, money is an issue.
I am involved in speaking, training, and writing because I believe that is my gift, and that God uses me to help and challenge people. I feed parish ministers and "pew people" who are starving for information and affirmation. Many times I have been told to simply charge a just wage in a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Yet many of the parishes and groups that most want and need me to speak honestly cannot afford a large stipend. If I charge what I need to make, I cut out many of the people I am called to serve.
I struggle with the balance between making the money that my expertise and ability can command versus charging a fee that those I serve can afford to pay. I also struggle with knowing what those numbers are. I have experienced negotiating with an out-of-state parish for my stipend and travel costs, only to be told on the side after I arrived that those in charge were delighted I was so cheap. On the other hand, despite the fact that the stipend I received was almost identical, at another event I was told they almost cancelled my engagement because I was so expensive. It is a constant source of tension for me, and I have not yet found the answer.
For now, I do the best I can, constantly juggling, constantly trying to determine the best course of action. I don't make what I should many times, but I have the privilege of serving people who need what I can offer. Justice, it seems, is not a one-sided proposition.
|
