Island
Living 48: Temp Nation
by A. D.
Coleman |
|
I’m not
a joiner. But I am a founding member (and member
in good standing) of the National Writers Union,
which has for some years operated as a United Auto
Workers affiliate. As one benefit of that affiliation,
I get the UAW’s house organ, Solidarity,
which provides me with a regular dose of the labor
perspective on current events. I’ve also subscribed
for years to the oldest left-wing periodical in
the country, The Nation -- partly for its
fine muck-raking investigative journalism and partly
for its rabid columnists (I enjoy checking in at
feeding time to watch the left eat its young, whenever
it’s not busy chewing on itself). But in recent
years I’ve ended up writing cantankerous letters
to the editors of both publications, provoked by
editorial policies that include periodic attacks
on people like me -- a working freelance writer
with 34 years’ experience in my chosen field.
(Needless to say, the editors of both magazines
made no response to these letters, and refused to
publish them in their print editions or to post
them at their respective websites. So much for a
commitment to open debate.)
The issue at
stake? Temp work, free-lancing, self-employment,
or what some define as "non-standard jobs."
From reading these publications and others from
that side of the spectrum, it seems clear that the
left has begun to mount a calculated propaganda
campaign demonizing anyone and everyone who works
free-lance and/orpart-time -- including (though
not specifying) the thousands of writers such as
myself who are now UAW-connected through their own
union. Both Solidarity and The Nation
exhibit a pattern of ill-considered, hostile and
derogatory commentary on temp work, and a willingness
to skew statistics deliberately to make their case
against anything classified as “non-standard
jobs.” These disturbing tendencies need to
be pointed out, and corrected if possible.
Let’s look
at two cases. In a September 1997 “Frontlines”
article on "Non-Standard Jobs," Solidarity
reported that "[n]early a fourth of all ‘non-standard’
job-holders would prefer ‘standard’ jobs."1
But, of course, there’s another way to view
that same statistic: “More than three-quarters
of all ‘non-standard’ job-holders prefer
their working situation to ‘standard’
jobs.” In other words, by something approximating
a democratic vote (the answers to a poll conducted
by the Economic Policy Institute), among "non-standard"
job holders the vote in favor of "non-standard
jobs" is somewhere between 3 to 1 and 4 to
1.
One can understand
why a union’s house organ would hide that provocative
and perplexing fact from its membership. However,
slanting the numbers in order to grind one’s
axe constitutes editorial dishonesty, whether it’s
done by management or by labor. The Solidarity
story also stated that "all types of these
non-standard jobs are typically inferior to regular
full-time work," according to the EPI, because
they’re of shorter duration, rarely provide
health care or pension, and "pay less than
regular full-time jobs with similar characteristics."
The implication, clearly, is that those of us who
voluntarily choose such work are idiots; who else
would take on such labor willingly? The notion that
there are other gauges by which work might be judged
apparently never crossed the EPI’s minds, or
the minds of Solidarity’s editors –
or, if it did, the latter decided to keep that from
their readers as well. Either way, both the bias
and the obvious distortion of the facts reflected
here are self-evident.
A similar line
of reasoning manifests itself in a more recent cover
story for The Nation by Christopher Cook,
titled "Temps Demand a New Deal."2
Cook points out that "[n]early one-third of
America's workers -- about 30 million -- toil in
temporary, contracted, self-employed, leased, part-time
and other 'non-standard' arrangements, according
to a 1998-99 study by the Economic Policy Institute."3
He adds, further on, that "[g]overnment and
industry studies show 60-70 percent of contingents
wish for something more stable."4
This demonstrates yet again that statistics can
be made to do pretty much whatever one wants them
to, because it begs an important question: What
of the remaining 30-40 percent of “contingents”?
Surely there's
some news value, and some data fit for left analysis,
in the fact that about 10 million people in the
U.S. work in "non-standard" arrangements
by choice, prefer to "toil" that way,
and don't "wish for something more stable."
Imagine reversing Cook's emphasis: "Government
and industry studies show 30-40 percent of contingents
don't wish for something more stable." Does
that story not merit some attention from the intrepid
(and presumably salaried) reporters from Solidarity
and The Nation?
Significantly,
nowhere in either report did these writers and editors
allow the voice of anyone who’s opted voluntarily
to work a "non-standard job" to be heard.
So here are a few facts:
-
Many of the self-employed
have occupations for which there are no "regular
full-time jobs with similar characteristics."
Not all jobs are, could be, or should be “standard.”
For example, I’m a self-syndicated working
photography critic, with no full-time staff
slot anywhere but a chain of regular clients
in this country and across Europe. It’s
an occupation I invented back in 1968. Nowadays
I have many colleagues, but none of them has
a staff position; our specialization is too
narrow for that.
-
True, I have no pension
or job security. On the other hand, were I
on staff at, say, the New York Times
– where I freelanced for 4-1/2 years,
after turning down their offer of a full-time
staff position – all my writing for them
would be considered work made for hire, and
copyright for it, and all decisions regarding
its republication and all subsequent revenues
derived from it, would belong to the Times
by law. Instead, I’ve now got 34 years’
worth of writing that I own outright and can
treat as inventory, relicensing use of it
to anyone I please; I’m entitled to keep
all revenues therefrom for myself. Between
1988 and 1996, that alone brought in close
to $66,000 – money I wouldn’t have
any right to as a salaried employee of a publication
-- for republications on which I have the
final say, in books and periodicals and posted
at Internet sites. Those are among my fringe
benefits, and that money from resales out
of inventory represents a good part of my
retirement plan.
-
Some of the additional
benefits I and others enjoy as “non-standard”
workers: flexi-time; working from home; being
our own bosses; doing work of our own choosing;
redefining our occupation, and our work, whenever
and however we feel the need; picking our
own health plan; selecting (and firing) our
own clients; setting our own rates and fee
schedules; evaluation and advancement based
primarily on merit; freedom from forced or
mandatory retirement; not having all our economic
eggs in one basket.
Obviously, neither
the writers nor the editors at Solidarity
and The Nation felt any obligation at all
to speak of such matters when painting their patronizing
and denigrating picture of "non-standard jobs."
This disturbs me deeply, because I consider myself
as of the left and also because I believe in unions,
in the overall value of professional organizations,
and in the power (and the imperative) of collective
bargaining. My parents were union organizers once.
I voted for the formation of the NWU, and have been
a member ever since. I also voted for our merger
with the UAW, though I was concerned then -- as
I am now -- about what I saw as the UAW’s inevitable
prejudice against free-lance workers and in favor
of homogenized "standard" employment.
That prejudice is manifest in this ongoing, ill-considered,
and insulting misrepresentation of "non-standard"
employment.
The free-lance
life is not for everyone, and shouldn't be forced
on anyone. Certainly there’s cause for concern
in the nationwide trend toward staff reduction and
the increased outsourcing of all kinds of work --
the emergence of what some refer to as “Temp
Nation.” All the same, the left media's persistent
slighting and/or ignoring of the millions of us
"second-class workers" (Cook’s term)
who work “non-standard” jobs by choice
is both journalistically irresponsible and offensive.
We’ll know that the left’s response to
this development constitutes something more than
mere mindless, doctrinaire, knee-jerk reflexive
response when we see follow-up articles in which
NWU members and others who favor "non-standard
jobs" -- according to the numbers they themselves
cite, somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent
of those who do such work -- get to speak their
minds.
1
No author indicated, vol/issue?, September 1997,
p. ??
2
March 27, 2000, Vol. 270, no. 12, pp. 13-19.
3
Ibid., p. 15.
4
Ibid., p. 15.
back
to top
back
to journal index
©
Copyright 2001 by A. D. Coleman. All rights reserved.
By permission of the author and Image/World
Syndication Services,
P.O.B. 040078, Staten Island, New York 10304-0002
USA.
