Pay

I'm not getting into it between you and Gold, Meat, but here's the one part I disagree with:

Getting both sides of the story is one thing when you're a dispassionate observer. When you're an objective journalist. That's your job. Absolutely.

But how could -- and more importantly, why would -- you be a dispassionate observer when it comes to your career? That's not "getting both sides"; that's "not looking out for yourself." And, for the purposes of this discussion, not looking out for your professional colleagues, either.

I think we both agree as to the heart of the issue, so I'm sure you understand that I'm not "whining" about anything being "unfair" in regards to low wages in this business. If you accept the salary, it's not unfair. My position is: what we do *is* important, and I would argue that, again, journalists as a whole (not just sports) play just as important a role in society as teachers do, and perform just as crucial a community service.

Treating either one of our professions as even the slightest bit nonessential strikes at the heart of a lot of idealistic values that we easily tend to get away from. And no, I'm not overstating it. Once you give up those values, then yeah, we lose a lot of importance. (Again, this is journalism as a whole, not just sports. Because again, this isn't just about sports. This issue affects the entire profession.)

I understand your point about the "business model" and the "economics" of it, because of course it doesn't make sense for a businessman to pay someone $40K when they can pay someone else $25K to do the same job. And, make no mistake about it, this is a business. No doubt.

But it's also a valuable community service. Freedom of the press is in the fucking Constitution, it is that important.

So working to better our conditions and raise the standards of this profession -- regardless of the business side of it -- is something that we should maybe work harder at. In my mind, at least. I think that's a worthy fight. I think that's what this thread's about, and maybe coming up with some ideas on how we can go about doing that, because, as we've well established, it's not going to just fall in our laps.

Sure, I'm being idealistic, I know this. But again, it falls back to: why would you be dispassionate about something like your career? Why would you be objective about that? And why *shouldn't* we work for this?

 

Mystery Meat, you are not an honest person. I think you have listened to too much talk radio judging by the tone and illogical argument. To take what I said and say I would pay you $20,000 for a car you probably paid too much for is ridiculous. You can't really believe that, do you? I make good deals and get good value for my money. In fact, I just made a real good deal on a car last month.

And, by what you said, you are looking for a better job. You have had two jobs which, from looking at what you posted, haven't paid a satisfying wage. Good luck with your interview - I mean that. You need a wider vision and more experience.

You present a hypothetical with no details, and demand an answer. Then you are offended by my answer. You mix the worst of right-wing newspaper moguls seeking to control and squeeze employees, and left-wing people who demand political correctness.

Then, you saiy you made a decision when you were at a daily newspaper. You say two people were equal. Two people are NEVER equal. You choose one or the other. The one you chose wasn't satisfied with the salary you offered. I think that is your problem and you've spent all these words trying to rationalize and justify what you did. You should have given us the facts in the first place. You should have given information. It's like you ask a question, and say I was wrong because you throw in a fact that could change the analysis. If it was a weekly paper, $40,000 is probably not a good value. If it is a medium-sized daily, $25,000 is too low.

Let's look at your career from the information you have given us. You were the editor of a small daily, had a situation where your first choice rejected your salary offer, and hired your second choice. You rationalize that the second person was just as good. OK, but then you leave that position for a weekly, which is just what I said - I said if I were in that situation, I'd look for another job. That is what you did in job reality, not economic theory.

You take the weekly job, and now are interviewing for another job because you want to be higher on the food chain - again, that is just what I said.

If you're smart, you will know what the local teachers make and use that as somewhat of a guide. I didn't say journalists deserve more than teachers, and I say that is a guideline because teachers are regarded as being underpaid.

I have a degree in Finance and know hard numbers as well as anyone on this board. Salary offers usually aren't set in stone and I hope you will be smart and a good negotiator to get an extra thousand or two. Which means you are defending publishers who are looking to chisel you and make it a proud newspaper tradition, and I am saying if you have knowledge I hope you can use that to better yourself - and I think the teacher guideline is a good tool.

 

I think you have to be -- well, maybe dispassionate isn't the word so much as disinterested -- in the way your job works. A stupid example, but I'm convinced when I play NCAA 07 that I lose possession of most of my fumbles, while the computer retains most of theirs. At least in the heat of the game. If I step back and look at the stats, usually I find that I'm more pissed off that I was playing poorly (though they really need to fix the tuck motion for the QB because I've had a couple forward shovel passes ruled fumbles, but that's another story for another thread). When it involves me in the heat of the moment, I can't trust myself to take a fair view of the entire situation. That's when I step back and try to picture it from those differing perspectives. Usually I'm hardheaded enough to think I'm right anyway, but sometimes I'm not.

The problem is that once we accepted the job at which we're employed, we have no leverage other than to say "whoa, this salary sucks!" becuase we accepted it. I don't think it's quite this extreme, but in a sense we're like telegraph senders or elevator operators as their usefulness was on the wane. Not that there's going to be a world in 5 or even 50 years where legitimate journalists at every level aren't going to be needed, but the trend is fewer jobs and more competition for it, combined with a world where I can Google, Wikipdeia and hit a bunch of websites in the time it takes to read one section of the Daily Bugle.

Unfortunately, the momentum meter is squarely on the side of management, and it sucks, but I don't see how it's going to change if we choose to stay in the profession. Maybe it'll get better, maybe it's time for the men to put on wigs and dresses and try to get on one of the lifeboats. Industry-wide change isn't going to happen with dialogue because I'm sure managers get it directly and indirectly from their employees that they aren't happy with their pay now and their prospects for better pay. It sounds Darwinian, but with the market being what it is, well, to quote Stabbing Westward -- "I can not save you ... I can't even save myself". Figure out the way that makes you worth the money you want. If that isn't possible, whether it's out of your control or not, then you reevaluate everything. Not a hopefully answer, and maybe I'll be called a dishonest jerk with a loser's mentality, but it's probably a fair one given the circumstances.

 

Heavens to Murgatroid, if you're going to compare me to like Glenn Beck and Dr. Laura, I don't see a bright future for this dialogue. Calling me a liar isn't helping either, to be honest (which I can do, see?)

Good. You should try to get the best deal. Everyone should. Thing is, businesses do that all the time. If they can get a person to do a job equally as well for $15,000 less than another candidate, that's who they're going to take. Now note, this is a far different beast from paying someone $15,000 less than everyone else who applied and ISN'T equally able to do the job. That's just stupid and short-sighted. And probably too common.

I think I have okay experience, but thanks for the good wishes. The wage paid is probably okay for the position, but a combination of circumstances and mental retardation on my part means I've got a Jason Whitlock of credit-card debt on my shoulders.

How much detail do you need? If three people can do the job equally well, that means they're equal. If you start getting into specifics, then the conversation is going to devolve into a debate over details -- Jim has three years of D-I basketball beat experience, but Jane covered the national championship basketball team for two years at the school paper where she won national awards, and Jessica has six years of I-AA football duty at a paper three times our size. In most cases, when you get to a pool of finalists, it's minutae and the last page of tiebreakers that tell them apart. If one person is heads and shoulders above everyone else and he/she warrants the extra money, then it's all a moo point. </joey>

I'm not trying to control anything or demand anything. I'm just anti-simplistic logic.

No, two people are never IDENTICAL. There's a difference. Two people can bring different attributes to the table and in the sum, still be equal. Okay, you could create a scoring system and somehow tangiably rate everyone and create a grand total and from THAT say Jenny is better than Jeffy, but if the score is 135.4-135.1, you're talking about a wash.

You're flummoxing me here. I gave you the information pertinent to the decision. They were, in essence, equal. One was not a runaway decision over the other. But you have to choose someone, since I doubt either would be interested in taking a 20-hour job out of the full-time gig I split so I could have them both. What's to rationalize? I (and the ME, more so) made a decision on who to give the job offer to, then after rejection it went to the second person. What in fuck all does that have to do with this thread?

 

No, I say you're wrong because your answer to the initial question was apparently "walk out because of the way the publisher wanted to handle the money". This is why I wanted to be as vague as possible. I shouldn't have used a frame of reference other than "Jamie wants $15,000 a year more than Joseph and Jojo" so we don't get sidetracked into "well what kind of job is this, what city is this, what color is the carpet in the newsroom" details that don't add to the discourse.

Not that this is ANY of your business, but I left that job because I didn't think I was working out and it was agreed that I was better off elsewhere. Have fun with that; I fail at life, okay? But I didn't quit because I was upset about how the job decision took place. I took the job at the weekly because hey, any port in a storm. Luckily I didn't take much of a pay cut and the people here have been great, and now I'm ready to get back into daily newspapering.

But it's not a fair comparison because our jobs are different. Apples and oranges. I make more than the garbage collectors and less than the CFOs, but there's no point comparing what we do. Even if we make the same money, our jobs are too disparate. The only faithful juxtaposition you can make is with other journalists.

A huh huh, huh huh. Hard. Huh huh, huh huh.

I don't disagree with the negotiation and the idea the salaries aren't set in stone. (I don't think you can do much with teachers salaries other than a rough rule of thumb). I think everyone should do their best to get everything they can. But "defending publishers" just because I happen to bring a different perspective? Please. Again, allll I am is anti-simplistic logic, which apparently runs rampant on the board. You claim a degree in finance. Surely you can tell me what happens when there's more applicants than there are jobs?

 

Meat: Show me where I called you a liar. You obviously are very good with the quote function. Show me where I called you a liar. To judge by what you wrote here, you are not a very good journalist.

 

that's right, I said you are not an honest person. I didn't say you were a liar. If you would stop foaming at the keyboard, you would understand the difference.

The person you aren't being honest with is yourself. You've threadjacked this and it's all about you rationalizing and justifying yourself..

I didn't say you were a failure. You're just young and think you know a lot more than you do. I'll just refer to the title of Earl Weaver's book - "It's What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts."

 

Tell you what, why don't you tell me what the difference is between being "not a honest" person and being a liar. I have to go to Job B.

 

If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be earning money for writing. I've wasted enough time with you.

 

I think the word you're actually looking for is "detached." But I also think your premise is completely wrong.

It's a very good thing to be able to detach yourself from specific aspects of your job sometimes, maybe to step back if you're stuck in a rut and want to get back on track, or if you can't figure something out and need some distance from the situation to gain perspective, or if something's confusing and you need to figure out another way to get some clarity, or if you want to re-evaluate/re-assess where you stand in your career and your goals for the futre, etc., etc., etc.

And if that's all you mean, is to detach yourself from what kind of salary you can or can't get, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But if you mean to detach yourself from "the way your job works," then maybe you're the one who should think about re-evaluating because obviously you're not getting very much out of your job if you think you have to be "dispassionate" or "disinterested" about it. Those are two words that make me cringe.

I know this: If anyone can ever describe me as "dispassionate" about my job (other than normal ebbs and flows of motivation in the course of a career) ... I don't want to do it anymore.

You know how they used to say about the powerhouse Yankees of Mantle and Maris and Berra that they used to beat some teams just by throwing their gloves on the field? That, you know, the game was already won in batting practice because the other team was defeated before they even stepped between the lines? Yeah.

 

Had a response. Erased it. Life's too fucking short (probably really short in my case) for shit like this.