October 1, 1997

Letterbox
Solidarity
UAW
8000 E. Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48214

Dear Editor:

As a working freelance writer with 30 years’ experience in my chosen field and a founding member (and member in good standing) of the National Writers Union, a UAW affiliate, I must tell you that the bias reflected in your September ’97 Frontlines article on "Non-Standard Jobs" offends me, and many others among the self-employed as well, I’m sure.

Let us begin with your obvious distortion of the facts. "Nearly a fourth of all ‘non-standard’ job-holders would prefer ‘standard’ jobs," you report. But, of course, there’s another way to view that same statistic: More than three-quarters of 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. But skewing the numbers in order to grind your axe constitutes editorial dishonesty, whether it’s done by management or by labor.

You also state 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?

The notion that there are other standards by which work might be judged evidently hasn’t crossed your minds – or, if it has, you’ve decided to keep that from your readers as well. Significantly, nowhere in your report do you allow the voice of anyone who’s opted 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." 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 ’68. 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 be theirs by law. Instead, I’ve got 30 years’ worth of writing that I own outright and can treat as inventory, reselling use of it to anyone I please, entitled to keep all revenues therefrom for myself. Between 1988 and 1996, that brought in close to $66,000 – money I wouldn’t have any right to as an employee of a publication, for republications in books and periodicals and Internet sites on which I have the final say. Those are among my fringe benefits, and that money from resales out of inventory is part of my retirement plan.

Some of the other benefits I/we enjoy: 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 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. Do you feel no obligation at all to speak of such matters when painting your denigrating picture of "non-standard jobs"? We have a name for that in my profession: irresponsible journalism.

I believe in unions. 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 the UAW’s inevitable prejudice against freelance workers and in favor of homogenized "standard" employment. That prejudice is manifest in your ill-considered and insulting misrepresentation of "non-standard" employment. I believe you owe those of us who choose such work – and all your readers – an apology, along with a follow-up article in which NWU members and others who favor "non-standard jobs" (according to the numbers you cite, the overwhelming majority of those who do such work) get to speak their minds.

/s/ A. D. Coleman

P.S. You also owe an apology to the spirit of the late Hoagy Carmichael, who actually composed "Georgia On My Mind" – the song you referred to several times as "the Ray Charles standard" in the same issue’s article titled "Stepping’ Out with S.H.A.P." Seems your fact-checkers were asleep on the job when that one came along. Lucky for them they’re union, huh?

Needless to say, the editor of Solidarity made no response to this letter, and refused to publish it in the magazine or post it at the UAW's website. So much for the UAW's commitment to open debate.

(The illustration on the tearsheet reproduced above, © copyright 1997 by Rick Flores, appeared in the next issue -- October 1997 -- of Solidarity.)