Stringer blues

[Bob Smith]

What is a way around the new law in California as a result of AB5, limiting stringers to 35 stories per year? Any advice?

 

[SoloFlyer]

What is a way around the new law in California as a result of AB5, limiting stringers to 35 stories per year? Any advice?

To be clear, it's 35 stories per outlet.

If you're writing more than that for an outlet, it's time for them to either add you on staff or at least pay you part-time for the amount of work you're providing.

I believe there's also been talk that if you can set yourself up as an LLC or corporation, you might be able to get around it.

But the idea behind this law is to force companies to pay up instead of abusing freelancers. If companies value your work so much, they should provide you with the appropriate salary and benefits.

 

[Roscablo]

To be clear, it's 35 stories per outlet.

If you're writing more than that for an outlet, it's time for them to either add you on staff or at least pay you part-time for the amount of work you're providing.

I don't know. That's not even a story a week. Is 35 a lot for one outlet? Maybe longer form for magazines or something of the like, but in my stringing days for a daily newspaper I certainly went over that with a single outlet and honestly would have never considered myself to be doing enough there to be doing part time. Sort of ebbed and flowed how often it was anyway. I know times have changed and who knows how you quantify anything any more, online, print, whatever, but 35 doesn't seem a lot in a daily or shorter publication sense (if those even exist any more!).

 

[SoloFlyer]

I don't know. That's not even a story a week. Is 35 a lot for one outlet? Maybe longer form for magazines or something of the like, but in my stringing days for a daily newspaper I certainly went over that with a single outlet and honestly would have never considered myself to be doing enough there to be doing part time. Sort of ebbed and flowed how often it was anyway. I know times have changed and who knows how you quantify anything any more, online, print, whatever, but 35 doesn't seem a lot in a daily or shorter publication sense (if those even exist any more!).

In my opinion, freelancing was best served as a way for longform magazine writers to contribute to multiple publications. Similar to how short story fiction authors and poets would submit their work to various outlets depending on the format or content.

Daily publications took it and abused it. It happened throughout the country.

This is the chickens coming home to roost in an industry in which major outlets are still trying to get by with $50 for a substantial story and Podunk places are paying a laughable $25.

Enough.

 

[Danwriter]

The IRS rules around what constitutes a freelancer (a club I'm a lifetime member of) have been in place for years and are still applicable. What AB5 does is put the onus on the corporation to prove that the writer doesn't qualify for employee status. This would have been a great thing to have had in place 20 years ago when magazines and newspapers began putting those damned WMFH clauses in their contracts. Now, it's just ironic, since many journalists have been compelled to resort to ride-share driving to make ends meet, the very cohort that prompted AB5.

 

[SFIND]

If companies value your work so much, they should provide you with the appropriate salary and benefits.

That's a pipe dream. They'll choose to go without instead of adding a new position.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

We have a retiree freelancer who averages about 2.5 stories a week. If we told her she has to come to the office to be paid part time because “we value her service” she’s tell us to pound sand. Some people actually do want to work at their own pace/location.

 

[sgreenwell]

We have a retiree freelancer who averages about 2.5 stories a week. If we told her she has to come to the office to be paid part time because “we value her service” she’s tell us to pound sand. Some people actually do want to work at their own pace/location.

At least in Rhode Island, where I used to live, you could be part-time and still not work at the office. I worked as a part-time cops and courts reporter - 25 hours a week, basically five hours a weekday to scoop up the daily logs. I'd pop in once or twice a week.

 

[SoloFlyer]

We have a retiree freelancer who averages about 2.5 stories a week. If we told her she has to come to the office to be paid part time because “we value her service” she’s tell us to pound sand. Some people actually do want to work at their own pace/location.

Why would she have to come into the office? Digital time cards exist. She can clock in if she knows she'll be working on a story. It'd be no different than someone working in retail.

That's a pipe dream. They'll choose to go without instead of adding a new position.

At times, the certainty of no work is better than being abused for low pay.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Why would you pay someone hourly as opposed to per story if they werent working on site?

 

[SoloFlyer]

Why would you pay someone hourly as opposed to per story if they werent working on site?

Reporters work away from the office and collect hourly pay all the time.

 

[sgreenwell]

Why would you pay someone hourly as opposed to per story if they werent working on site?

If you're an employer, of course you don't want to pay hourly. If you're a reporter, well, hourly is usually better because it accounts for the actual time you spend on a story. It's not like editors volunteer to pay you extra because a game went to double overtime, or because the losing coach spent an extra 30 minutes in the locker room with their team, and so on. I'm not sure why on-site vs. off-site matters - It's 2020, almost everyone has the ability to file off-site. All full-time reporters did it at my last stop, because you wanted the copy into the editing pipeline ASAP.

 

[justgladtobehere]

If companies value your work so much, they should provide you with the appropriate salary and benefits.

Or maybe paying people like you would like doesn't make economic sense. I don't see how increasing the costs of operating a business is beneficial to employing people.

 

[SoloFlyer]

Or maybe paying people like you would like doesn't make economic sense. I don't see how increasing the costs of operating a business is beneficial to employing people.

Because by being forced to pay hourly wages instead of a freelance rate, employers are now no longer able to try to guilt reporters into accepting ridiculously low rates for a story.

A reporter will spend at least 5 hours on a Friday night covering a high school football game. There are still shops out there paying $25 for that. That's $5 an hour, sub minimum wage. You can make more than $10 an hour working at a lot of retail places.

It's time for the industry to stop lowballing the help and paying better. It's not the 80s anymore.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Because by being forced to pay hourly wages instead of a freelance rate, employers are now no longer able to try to guilt reporters into accepting ridiculously low rates for a story.

A reporter will spend at least 5 hours on a Friday night covering a high school football game. There are still shops out there paying $25 for that. That's $5 an hour, sub minimum wage. You can make more than $10 an hour working at a lot of retail places.

It's time for the industry to stop lowballing the help and paying better. It's not the 80s anymore.

"Ridiculously low rates for a story" and "lowballing" are subjective characterizations. What you find ridiculously low, someone else might find acceptable for their circumstances.

If nobody who can do the work satisfactorily was willing to work for those "lowball" rates, then those media outlets would have to pay more. ... without your notions of what is fair being forced on everyone. Or they would have to go out of business, because they wouldn't be able to find workers.

When you string or freelance for someone, you aren't forced to take the work. If you find the pay ridiculously low, you don't have to take the work. You can hold out for someone who will pay more, or choose to do ohter work that commands more money.

But if there are others who do decide to take the gig, it shows that that is the market rate for it. ... what it commands in a free labor market.

If you force a business to pay more than that market rate, one of several things is going to happen, with the extremely likely outcome being that at least some people who had work. ... are no longer going to have it. It is entirely predictable, yet, when that is the outcome, it's always an "unintended consequence."

In the wake of that AB5 law going into effect, Vox Media is ending contracts with hundreds of freelancers who wrote for SB Nation sites. And they will try to get by with only a handful of full-time employees doing all of the work. Many of those freelancers actually liked the flexibility of being able to freelance. Others found that with some hustle, they could outearn what they could make in a crappy-paying, full-time journalism-related job. That ability was taken away from them, though.

 

[justgladtobehere]

"Ridiculously low rates for a story" and "lowballing" are subjective characterizations. What you find ridiculously low, someone else might find acceptable for their circumstances.

If nobody who can do the work satisfactorily was willing to work for those "lowball" rates, then those media outlets would have to pay more. ... without your notions of what is fair being forced on everyone. Or they would have to go out of business, because they wouldn't be able to find workers.

When you string or freelance for someone, you aren't forced to take the work. If you find the pay ridiculously low, you don't have to take the work. You can hold out for someone who will pay more, or choose to do ohter work that commands more money.

But if there are others who do decide to take the gig, it shows that that is the market rate for it. ... what it commands in a free labor market.

If you force a business to pay more than that market rate, one of several things is going to happen, with the extremely likely outcome being that at least some people who had work. ... are no longer going to have it. It is entirely predictable, yet, when that is the outcome, it's always an "unintended consequence."

In the wake of that AB5 law going into effect, Vox Media is ending contracts with hundreds of freelancers who wrote for SB Nation sites. And they will try to get by with only a handful of full-time employees doing all of the work. Many of those freelancers actually liked the flexibility of being able to freelance. Others found that with some hustle, they could outearn what they could make in a crappy-paying, full-time journalism-related job. That ability was taken away from them, though.

I cannot like this enough. Attacking a business by outlawing the economic and legal premises that makes it viable is futile. There is no benefit to anyone.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

If someones not punching a clock (ie in the office) how do you know how long it takes to do anything? Negotiate a price for your feature or gamer that’s worth it. If its $5/hour, dont take it.

Outlaw per story pay and make people part time hourly employees. Stringer A covers a 7 pm game and files 45 minutes late at 11, gets paid for 4 hours. Stringer B covers a different 7 pm game, files by 10. Gets paid for 3. Did a better job, gets paid less.

 

[SoloFlyer]

"Ridiculously low rates for a story" and "lowballing" are subjective characterizations. What you find ridiculously low, someone else might find acceptable for their circumstances.

If nobody who can do the work satisfactorily was willing to work for those "lowball" rates, then those media outlets would have to pay more. ... without your notions of what is fair being forced on everyone. Or they would have to go out of business, because they wouldn't be able to find workers.

When you string or freelance for someone, you aren't forced to take the work. If you find the pay ridiculously low, you don't have to take the work. You can hold out for someone who will pay more, or choose to do ohter work that commands more money.

But if there are others who do decide to take the gig, it shows that that is the market rate for it. ... what it commands in a free labor market.

If you force a business to pay more than that market rate, one of several things is going to happen, with the extremely likely outcome being that at least some people who had work. ... are no longer going to have it. It is entirely predictable, yet, when that is the outcome, it's always an "unintended consequence."

In the wake of that AB5 law going into effect, Vox Media is ending contracts with hundreds of freelancers who wrote for SB Nation sites. And they will try to get by with only a handful of full-time employees doing all of the work. Many of those freelancers actually liked the flexibility of being able to freelance. Others found that with some hustle, they could outearn what they could make in a crappy-paying, full-time journalism-related job. That ability was taken away from them, though.

By devaluing the worth of content creators, news organizations have kept overall pay ridiculously low in this industry. Either you accept the low freelance rates, or you don't work in journalism. Either you accept the pitiful salary and benefits, or you don't get a full-time job in news. I'm sick and tired of being told that's what the market dictates when other industries are willing to be more aggressive to keep employees with more competitive pay.

Journalists are more likely to make less than their PR peers (The growing pay gap between journalism and public relations) and the gap is growing.

If you're living in the Bay Area and want to work as a freelancer because you like the flexibility, you have options. You can pit news outlets against each other to try and get a better rate and you have the freedom to walk away from a bad deal. That's not the case for many aspiring journalists in college towns and smaller cities throughout the nation. As more newspapers cut staffs or close completely, there are fewer options. Which means the freelancer can't shop around and is stuck either accepting a ****ty rate or not working in the industry at all.

If you are contributing more than three articles per month to a single outlet, you deserve the labor protections and other benefits typically awarded to part-time and full-time employees. Places like Vox and SBNation will never value writers. That's why they should be shunned, with support going to those outlets who are willing to treat contributors fairly.

We've hit a breaking point in this industry. A handful of corporations own most of the news outlets in this country. If journalists are going to protect themselves and their financial well-being, there needs to be a push to unionize in newsrooms across the country and to support better pay and treatment of freelancers and part-timers. Simply accepting what the market dictates without trying to enact change is what got us here in the first place.

 

[The Big Ragu]

By devaluing the worth of content creators, news organizations have kept overall pay ridiculously low in this industry. Either you accept the low freelance rates, or you don't work in journalism. Either you accept the pitiful salary and benefits, or you don't get a full-time job in news. I'm sick and tired of being told that's what the market dictates when other industries are willing to be more aggressive to keep employees with more competitive pay.

Journalists are more likely to make less than their PR peers (The growing pay gap between journalism and public relations) and the gap is growing.

If you're living in the Bay Area and want to work as a freelancer because you like the flexibility, you have options. You can pit news outlets against each other to try and get a better rate and you have the freedom to walk away from a bad deal. That's not the case for many aspiring journalists in college towns and smaller cities throughout the nation. As more newspapers cut staffs or close completely, there are fewer options. Which means the freelancer can't shop around and is stuck either accepting a ****ty rate or not working in the industry at all.

If you are contributing more than three articles per month to a single outlet, you deserve the labor protections and other benefits typically awarded to part-time and full-time employees. Places like Vox and SBNation will never value writers. That's why they should be shunned, with support going to those outlets who are willing to treat contributors fairly.

We've hit a breaking point in this industry. A handful of corporations own most of the news outlets in this country. If journalists are going to protect themselves and their financial well-being, there needs to be a push to unionize in newsrooms across the country and to support better pay and treatment of freelancers and part-timers. Simply accepting what the market dictates without trying to enact change is what got us here in the first place.

Welcome to the reality people have lived since the beginning of time. You don't have an inherent right to do the work you want to do at the compensation you think you deserve. Not if your value to someone else doesn't merit that compensatoin.

Your economic value to a news organizations is a simple matter. News organization haven't "devalued" the worth of content creators. The market for what those content creators produce did that. If consumers aren't buying the content the way they once did, or they are not willing to pay a lot for it, the value of the person who creates it loses value. It's common sense, even if it is a ****ty reality for a lot of people who love newspapers.

What magical thing do you think that unionization does that it creates economic value? If you don't "accept" what the market bears for the work you want to do, where do you think the additional pay you want to protect yourself with is going to come from?

I am sorry, but saying that you aren't going to accept what the market dictates as your worth sounds as ridiculous to me as telling me that you are going to sell ice cream cones for $10 a pop when the market equilibrium price (where demand equals supply) is $5. You might as well be fighting windmills. Why would anyone who wants ice cream pay you the $10 you think you can demand by fiat, when there are dozens of other people willing to sell it to them for $5?

 

[SoloFlyer]

What magical thing do you think that unionization does that it creates economic value? If you don't "accept" what the market bears for the work you want to do, where do you think the additional pay you want to protect yourself with is going to come from?

No one is expecting a miracle cure, but unions have a clear impact on wages for those both inside and outside of the organization.

From a 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute:

Union decline has exacerbated wage inequality in the United States by dampening the pay of nonunion workers as well as by eroding the share of workers directly benefitting from unionization. Earlier research (Western and Rosenfeld 2011) shows that union erosion can explain about one-third of the growth of wage inequality among men and about one-fifth of the growth of wage inequality among women from 1972 to 2007. At least for middle-wage men, the impact of the erosion of unions on the wages of both union and nonunion workers is likely the largest single factor underlying wage stagnation and wage inequality.

Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers: The overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing