Pay

[Mystery_Meat]

One thing about the teacher-journo comparison that hurts it: don't most if not all teachers nowadays have to have a master's degree to get a public school job? Or a private one for that matter? I know there's a lot of school districts out there with programs that allow you to get your master's while you teach, but you still need one at some point. So in that respect, they should make a little more money than us, I'd think.

 

[Gold]

All right, so we've well established that pay -- especially entry-level pay -- is going to be fairly low in this profession. However, because this is a skilled profession, and because employers can't just hire any Joe Schmoe from off the street to do our jobs at an acceptable level ...

Other than joining a union shop, what sort of ways could we go about raising the entry-level pay scale so that we're not all eating Top Ramen and living out of cardboard boxes when we start out in this business? Or at least setting some kind of pay standard -- dependent upon responsibilities, location/market and paper size -- that's perhaps comparable to what teachers make?

I'm not talking about a full-on labor revolt ... yet. But it seems to me that plenty of other workers in plenty of other fields have taken more control of their industries when it comes to pay.

Why can't we?

In the late 60s or early 70s during the women's movement, one of the buzzwords was consciousness raising. While that might seem a period marker like tie-die jeans or the peace symbol, I think the idea of consciousness is the first step. Exchanging ideas on this board and being aware of things.

Buck Weaver, management thinks they CAN hire any Joe Schmoe off the street to do the jobs. That is the problem. And the lower the salaries they pay people, the more that is the truth - there are plenty of people on the board who used to work in journalism and left because of the lack of respect which mainfests itself in low pay, lack of security, lack of opportunity. It's easy to say that it's corporate suits in some distant city which is responsible, but it's people in the building where you work who are also responsible.

A lot of it comes to customs and unwritten rules.

Example - you aren't supposed to tell anybody what your salary is. Who benefits from that code? Management. The more you know, the more ability you have to do better.

A salary survey for each paper and ownership group which would be readily accessible would be a big benefit - and put the salaries in comparison to local teachers salaries and housing costs. It wouldn't really work for something like the New York Times because those are really big jobs, and wouldn't work for 5,000-circulation daily newspapers because those are, in effect, temporary apprenticeships.

Take a place like Midland, Texas or Rochester, New York - two places which are substantial cities and not real close where a large daily would be much of a factor. You take an entry level salary and compare that to what a beginning teacher would make. Then you take somebody with seven years experience and compare that to what a 7-year teacher with a Masters would make. Take rental costs what it would take to get an apartment in a modest but reasonably safe neighborhood, and the average price of a house.

The pressure would have to come from people who have the lowest authority to hire people - a sports editor, city editor, whomever. They need to say - "hey, I can find somebody who will take this job but I can't hire a competent professional and pay them $7,000 less than a starting teacher is going to make. We have to do better than this" That's where management has to provide leadership.

With this salary survey, this will place responsibility on the sports editors. Oh, I know they'll say, that's the way it is - but a sports editor who has salaries well below starting teachers salaries and unable to afford rent will look like an NFL coach with a record of 4-12 - maybe it's not all their fault, but the line shows the year, coach and record.

 

[JackS]

No offense, but I don't think this whole "age gauge" means much. I did way worse than my age for the first 5 years of my career, was around my age for awhile, and do way better now.

 

[Lollygaggers]

And, for the record, you definitely do NOT have to have masters to get a public teaching job. You make a lot more if you do, but it is far from being a requirement.

 

[trounced]

And, for the record, you definitely do NOT have to have masters to get a public teaching job. You make a lot more if you do, but it is far from being a requirement.

That depends on the state. There are a number of states where it is a requirement.

 

[writing irish]

All right, so we've well established that pay -- especially entry-level pay -- is going to be fairly low in this profession. However, because this is a skilled profession, and because employers can't just hire any Joe Schmoe from off the street to do our jobs at an acceptable level ...

Other than joining a union shop, what sort of ways could we go about raising the entry-level pay scale so that we're not all eating Top Ramen and living out of cardboard boxes when we start out in this business? Or at least setting some kind of pay standard -- dependent upon responsibilities, location/market and paper size -- that's perhaps comparable to what teachers make?

I'm not talking about a full-on labor revolt ... yet. But it seems to me that plenty of other workers in plenty of other fields have taken more control of their industries when it comes to pay.

Why can't we?

In the late 60s or early 70s during the women's movement, one of the buzzwords was consciousness raising.  While that might seem a period marker like tie-die jeans or the peace symbol, I think the idea of consciousness is the first step. Exchanging ideas on this board and being aware of things.

Buck Weaver, management thinks they CAN hire any Joe Schmoe off the street to do the jobs.  That is the problem.  And the lower the salaries they pay people, the more that is the truth - there are plenty of people on the board who used to work in journalism and left because of the lack of respect which mainfests itself in low pay, lack of security, lack of opportunity.  It's easy to say that it's corporate suits in some distant city which is responsible, but it's people in the building where you work who are also responsible.

A lot of it comes to customs and unwritten rules. 

Example - you aren't supposed to tell anybody what your salary is.  Who benefits from that code?  Management.  The more you know, the more ability you have to do better.

A salary survey for each paper and ownership group which would be readily accessible would be a big benefit - and put the salaries in comparison to local teachers salaries and housing costs.  It wouldn't really work for something like the New York Times because those are really big jobs, and wouldn't work for 5,000-circulation daily newspapers because those are, in effect, temporary apprenticeships.

Take a place like Midland, Texas or Rochester, New York - two places which are substantial cities and not real close where a large daily would be much of a factor.  You take an entry level salary and compare that to what a beginning teacher would make. Then you take somebody with seven years experience and compare that to what a 7-year teacher with a Masters would make.  Take rental costs what it would take to get an apartment in a modest but reasonably safe neighborhood, and the average price of a house.

The pressure would have to come from people who have the lowest authority to hire people - a sports editor, city editor, whomever. They need to say - "hey, I can find somebody who will take this job but I can't hire a competent professional and pay them $7,000 less than a starting teacher is going to make.  We have to do better than this"   That's where management has to provide leadership. 

With this salary survey, this will place responsibility on the sports editors.  Oh, I know they'll say, that's the way it is - but a sports editor who has salaries well below starting teachers salaries and unable to afford rent will look like an NFL coach with a record of 4-12 - maybe it's not all their fault, but the line shows the year, coach and record.

Thanks, Gold. Any ideas on how we could get the ball rolling on something like that? I'm ready to put words into action.

 

[Birdscribe]

And, for the record, you definitely do NOT have to have masters to get a public teaching job. You make a lot more if you do, but it is far from being a requirement.

And, BTW, sometimes, it can come back to kick you in the ass.

My wife is a teacher who has a Masters in history. Some school districts look at that and freak out, figuring they'll have to pay you more.

Switching gears, brilliant take, Gold. The indentured servitude attitude in this business makes me sick.

 

[Bump_Wills]

As it's my first post, I'd be remiss if I didn't start with this: Beers for everybody, on me.

Now then ...

There's a lot of value in knowing what your colleagues are making, in a general sense, if you can get that information without being terribly nosy. At a paper I worked for in the mid-'90s, the frontline editorial employees took part in an anonymous salary survey, administered by one of our business reporters. The results were illuminating, in good ways and bad. But we were able to establish, among other things, that salaries in the newsroom stacked up fairly well in the community and that women weren't compensated less than men. Good news in that particular newsroom. I imagine you could find more harrowing results in other places.

 

[buckweaver]

Thanks, Gold. You definitely raised my awareness about it.

As far as solutions, Irish, well, that seems like something that an org. like SPJ can get involved in. I believe there are a few niche surveys out there now, but nothing that substantially raises awareness in the profession, especially among entry-level applicants.

I think this is something that does need to be discussed openly. It's disheartening to see so many people apply for (and willingly accept) a skilled job for $19-, $21-, $23,000 in a locale where you can barely make ends meet but your only hope for advancement is to build up enough clips to escape to a different locale. I know it's a little tough to ask someone who does need a job like this to hold out for something better, but the more we accept these conditions, the harder you make it for yourself and the harder you make it for everybody else.

I'd be interested in finding out what SPJ's role could be in this and how, if anyhow, they've tried to get the ball rolling in the past. Perhaps others can help come up with some alternative sources to educate the masses ...

 

[busuncle]

And, for the record, you definitely do NOT have to have masters to get a public teaching job. You make a lot more if you do, but it is far from being a requirement.

That depends on the state. There are a number of states where it is a requirement.

I'd be curious to know which states. I've never heard of anything like that before.

 

[daemon]

And, for the record, you definitely do NOT have to have masters to get a public teaching job. You make a lot more if you do, but it is far from being a requirement.

That depends on the state. There are a number of states where it is a requirement.

I'd be curious to know which states. I've never heard of anything like that before.

I know there are states where working toward a master's is a requirement to keep one's teaching certificate, but I can't imagine there are too many out there that require it for an entry-level job.

 

[cranberry]

Thanks, Gold. You definitely raised my awareness about it.

As far as solutions, Irish, well, that seems like something that an org. like SPJ can get involved in. I believe there are a few niche surveys out there now, but nothing that substantially raises awareness in the profession, especially among entry-level applicants.

I think this is something that does need to be discussed openly. It's disheartening to see so many people apply for (and willingly accept) a skilled job for $19-, $21-, $23,000 in a locale where you can barely make ends meet but your only hope for advancement is to build up enough clips to escape to a different locale. I know it's a little tough to ask someone who does need a job like this to hold out for something better, but the more we accept these conditions, the harder you make it for yourself and the harder you make it for everybody else.

I'd be interested in finding out what SPJ's role could be in this and how, if anyhow, they've tried to get the ball rolling in the past. Perhaps others can help come up with some alternative sources to educate the masses ...

There will always be a steady crop of j-school grads who will gladly accept your job for far less than you are making. It's the way the industry works and how publishers continure to make obscene margins. It boils down to the fact that there is little demand for excellence among consumers and less competition than ever. People care whether the local ballclub has a good third baseman but don't even look at bylines. Publisher's have very little incentive to hire the best people and keep them.

 

[scalper]

I agree with Gold that this is how it should work, but agree with Cranberry that people don't look at bylines and so there really is no way to pressure management into paying a fair wage. Remember, management isn't actually paying you to write well or to be a great reporter. They're paying you to help the company make money. And the best way for you to do that is to fill the paper every day while not making much money. They'll gladly accept your brilliant ideas to make the product better -- more profitable -- but they won't pay you a bonus for that.

And last but not least, we've got to face the fact that our business is like working directly in sports as a pr person or whatever for a pro sports team. A lot of people would like to have our jobs. It's supply and demand. There's enough supply to keep us from being able to demand better salaries. And if the guy or gal who replaces you only writes 70 percent as well as you did, do you honestly believe John or Jane Doe will notice?

They won't. Therein lies the problem.

 

[buckweaver]

There will always be a steady crop of j-school grads who will gladly accept your job for far less than you are making. It's the way the industry works and how publishers continure to make obscene margins. It boils down to the fact that there is little demand for excellence among consumers and less competition than ever. People care whether the local ballclub has a good third baseman but don't even look at bylines. Publisher's have very little incentive to hire the best people and keep them.

You're right, cran. And I don't think that will -- or can -- change anytime soon.

What I do think can -- and should -- change is, say, the minimum standard at which these people are getting hired. Yeah, it's going to be cheaper than somebody with experience or at a smaller paper or cheaper place to live. But some of these jobs that are offering $17-20K? Fuuuuuuck, man. I don't care where you're at, that's **** wages.

The wage ceiling will never be high, we all understand that, but there's got to be a wage floor that gives beginning journalists and those at small rags some semblance of quality of life, you know? Even if a publisher is not striving for the highest quality of journalism -- and if they've got even a blink of an eye on profit margin, they're not -- you can at least establish a better kind of quality of living standard than the one we've got in place now, that's all.

 

[Gold]

Thanks, Gold. You definitely raised my awareness about it.

As far as solutions, Irish, well, that seems like something that an org. like SPJ can get involved in. I believe there are a few niche surveys out there now, but nothing that substantially raises awareness in the profession, especially among entry-level applicants.

I think this is something that does need to be discussed openly. It's disheartening to see so many people apply for (and willingly accept) a skilled job for $19-, $21-, $23,000 in a locale where you can barely make ends meet but your only hope for advancement is to build up enough clips to escape to a different locale. I know it's a little tough to ask someone who does need a job like this to hold out for something better, but the more we accept these conditions, the harder you make it for yourself and the harder you make it for everybody else.

I'd be interested in finding out what SPJ's role could be in this and how, if anyhow, they've tried to get the ball rolling in the past. Perhaps others can help come up with some alternative sources to educate the masses ...

There will always be a steady crop of j-school grads who will gladly accept your job for far less than you are making. It's the way the industry works and how publishers continure to make obscene margins. It boils down to the fact that there is little demand for excellence among consumers and less competition than ever. People care whether the local ballclub has a good third baseman but don't even look at bylines. Publisher's have very little incentive to hire the best people and keep them.

Here's the thing. They can't do that with accountants, advertising sales people, human resources people, etc. Those people have to be paid something reasonably close to a market rate or they would have constant turnover and wouldn't have people to perform those functions. Supply and demand works both ways - if you can't find enough people to do the work, you have to raise salaries. Showing a deskful of resumes is one thing, having skilled people is another. My guess is that right now, there is at least one person where you work who doesn't have the skills to be very good.

Supply and demand is something that might work in economics class and it's great to say "the market will take care of it"... except it doesn't and people manipulate markets all of the time. Boards of educations work in concert or with the same mindset to limit teachers' salaries, and the NEA works to counteract that. Hospitals get special permission to bring in nurses from places like the Philippines, and that holds down nursing salaries. Ray Kroc gave $100,000 to the Nixon campaign in 1972 to delay an increase in the minimum wage.

If the supply of sportswriters is bottomless, why isn't sports writing a lot better than it is? The wage ceiling is higher for sportswriters than it is for nurses and teachers, there just aren't a lot of people in sportswriting making that and a lot more earn below starting teaching salaries.

This happens because editors buy in and writers accept it as "the way it is"... think about some of the things you read on this board - "You're not going to get rich in Journalism" "you shouldn't do this for the money" or my favorite, "this is a good job for a beginner". Heck, half of the jobs available aren't fit for anybody who isn't a beginner.

well, if you are going to take a vow of poverty, there are plenty of Catholic religious orders who will accept priests and nuns and look out for their colleagues a lot better than journalists do (I'm being somewhat sarcastic, I know, but there is a point).

If I were to say one thing - I would say look out for the person you work with. That is what is missing at newspapers today.

What to do? Maybe any time anybody gets a salary at $8,000 less than the local starting teaching salary, the paper should be noted here and places like Poynter. Another idea is that somebody going for a masters or doctorate in economics study this and get information.

How are things going to change? Don't look for other people to do something - webby has provided this forum for us and that's why I donated to keep this going. This change isn't going to come from the top down - if it's going to change, it will change from the bottom up. The change starts with you and your own mind and your own attitude and looking out for colleagues.

 

[JackS]

If the supply of sportswriters is bottomless, why isn't sports writing a lot better than it is? 

I hate to have to be blunt about this, but I'm sure at least part of it is because the large masses of people who want to become sportswriters generally don't reflect the smartest and most talented members of society. If those people want to become writers at all, they usually don't want to write about sports.

And for that, we should all be thankful. We don't need our potential top scholars, scientists and doctors forgoing more important matters for sportswriting.

 

[buckweaver]

Bravo again, Gold. And Jack, this isn't just a *sports* journalism problem. This is a problem in journalism as a whole. This is a profession-wide issue.

So again, I ask: Is SPJ (or any other group) currently involved in "red-flagging" papers like this? Or do we need a salary survey first? Are there no salary surveys out there that are credible and/or current?

(I'll do my own research later. Just wanted to ask around first, so I'm not reinventing the wheel.)

 

[JackS]

Bravo again, Gold. And Jack, this isn't just a *sports* journalism problem. This is a problem in journalism as a whole. This is a profession-wide issue.

Nor did I mean to imply it was. But it's more pronounced in sports.

 

[Gold]

If the supply of sportswriters is bottomless, why isn't sports writing a lot better than it is?

I hate to have to be blunt about this, but I'm sure at least part of it is because the large masses of people who want to become sportswriters generally don't reflect the smartest and most talented members of society. If those people want to become writers at all, they usually don't want to write about sports.

And for that, we should all be thankful. We don't need our potential top scholars, scientists and doctors forgoing more important matters for sportswriting.

I remember a story that a sportswriter got a letter or a call from a kid asking him how to become a sportswriter. The kid was smart, so the sportswriter told him to become a doctor - more money, more value to society. The kid did become a doctor, but he told the sportswriter there were a lot of days he wished he had become a sports writer.

I think things find their own level and things seem to work out. I was good with numbers and, while having the knowledge of sports and am a good writer, I probably don't have the sort of temperment that can deal with the problems newspaper people have to deal with - I get too frustrated. So I earned a degree in Finance and have a decent job in that field, but I often think maybe it would have been better if I had tried a little longer.

 

[JackS]

If the supply of sportswriters is bottomless, why isn't sports writing a lot better than it is? 

I hate to have to be blunt about this, but I'm sure at least part of it is because the large masses of people who want to become sportswriters generally don't reflect the smartest and most talented members of society.  If those people want to become writers at all, they usually don't want to write about sports.

And for that, we should all be thankful.  We don't need our potential top scholars, scientists and doctors forgoing more important matters for sportswriting.

I remember a story that a sportswriter got a letter or a call from a kid asking him how to become a sportswriter. The kid was smart, so the sportswriter told him to become a doctor - more money, more value to society.  The kid did become a doctor, but he told the sportswriter there were a lot of days he wished he had become a sports writer.

I think things find their own level and things seem to work out.  I was good with numbers and, while having the knowledge of sports and am a good writer, I probably don't have the sort of temperment that can deal with the problems newspaper people have to deal with - I get too frustrated.  So I earned a degree in Finance and have a decent job in that field, but I often think maybe it would have been better if I had tried a little longer.

That's fine. On an individual basis, maybe a smart kid will be better off as a sportswriter. But I wouldn't be too happy if it was a general trend of the smartest going into the profession just so that sportswriting would be better than it is.