
Freelancers are precarious. When should they push back? - Jerry2
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/washington-post-twitter-apology.php
======
tptacek
This is a super interesting little story about the dynamics of freelancing in
print journalism. Print journalism is interesting in the same way college
teaching jobs are interesting: a great deal of the work is done by an
underclass of marginally employed people (freelancers with no contract in
journalism, adjuncts with no tenure in academia). The "fully employed" level
(staff reporter, tenured professor) is extraordinarily difficult to obtain.

In that environment, buyers/employers have extraordinary coercive power over
labor. Here, it was used to punish someone simply for RT'ing a critical thread
on Twitter.

Freelancers in our field do not as a rule have this problem: competent
freelancers command higher rates than full-time staff, and most freelancers
(at least in mainstream markets like major US metros) are freelancers by
choice.†

Obviously, we all face coercive power from buyers and employers, even in our
supremely privileged field. We should organize to deal with that. But as a
consultant, my advice to economically insecure freelancers worried about
pissing off clients is to _raise your rates_ and move as quickly as you can to
a career steady state where you're not overly alarmed by the irrationality of
any one client.

† _Heading off a super-unproductive argument: being a freelancer because it 's
the only way you do personally meaningful development work rather than being a
back office line of business maintenance programmer at a regional insurance
firm is, compared to the predicament of a freelance journalist, a choice; the
choice a journalist gets is whether to remain a journalist at all, or whether
to transition to an entirely separate field like PR._

~~~
whatyoucantsay
> Print journalism is interesting in the same way college teaching jobs are
> interesting: a great deal of the work is done by an underclass of marginally
> employed people (freelancers with no contract in journalism, adjuncts with
> no tenure in academia). The "fully employed" level (staff reporter, tenured
> professor) is extraordinarily difficult to obtain.

This is no different to becoming an actor, a novelist, a rapper or "making it"
in any profession that is a tournament game. Perhaps there was a time when
journalism was not a tournament game, but with the decreasing importance of
local distributions and the aggregating effects of the internet, it is one
now.

------
rossdavidh
Freelancers are precarious...in the writing business (which, it is clear, is
what they meant). More fundamentally, freelancers are exposed to the current
balance of supply and demand for their profession, in a more direct way. If
there is a shortage, you feel the way you are treated improve more quickly
than if you were full-time, and you can definitely increase your pay more
quickly. If there is a surplus, it works the other way.

Unfortunately, the real lesson here is: you need to enter a different labor
market. Change your profession (or, in some cases, location). This is, I
freely admit, way easier said than done. I'm sure any retired steelworker or
coalminer can guess what that's like.

I am trying to make sure my daughter, currently junior high age, understands
how important it is to have a profession for which there is more demand than
supply. I find that the messages she hears from society are quite the
opposite. But, if you want to be able to demand that you are treated with
respect and dignity, it helps a whole lot if what you are doing is something
for which there is currently more demand than supply.

~~~
mixmastamyk
> I find that the messages she hears from society are quite the opposite.

Curious about this statement, what are some of these messages?

~~~
secabeen
Not the OP, but I think what they're referring to is the "follow your
passion", "do what you love", "if you love your work, you don't work for a
single day" messages that imply "it's not important to [select] a profession
for which there is more demand than supply"

~~~
rossdavidh
That is precisely what I was talking about. "Do what you love" is fine,
"expect to get paid for doing what you love" is not. If you love singing, for
example, by all means do it, do it a lot, but don't let the market turn what
you love into a grind by making it your profession if the market has 100
people trying to get that career for every job opening. Pick something you are
ok with, that others want to pay for, and it's ok if what you love is a hobby.

There is some programming I love doing; it's not generally the stuff I am
getting paid to do. That's ok, as long as I realize that it's ok.

------
the-dude
It has been identified as a new economic class :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat)

------
haskellandchill
If they do push back they will be held out. Freelance labor has little to no
power, even at the rockstar level. Perhaps only at the celebrity and political
level is there power. Certainly if you have open side channels with actual
decision makers you will have some power, but it is a very soft and fickle
one.

Parallel work contracts are the most nefarious tool, these days you can pretty
much assume someone else is working on a something that can stand in place of
what you're working on, ostensibly in case you fail, but also as a power
asymmetry that makes all freelance work completely disposable.

More broadly the business can fail, and there are similar business out there
to pick up the slack. Stop working and watch your company fall apart, it
doesn't really matter and is perhaps the intended function of competitive
capitalism.

~~~
JCDenton2052
Michael O'Church, is that you?

~~~
poulsbohemian
Oh man! I miss that guy! Yeah he could be verbose and preachy, but at least he
made interesting arguments.

------
analognoise
"Freelance journalist" is a trust fund baby job.

It might be a real job, but it isn't something for non-privileged class.

I have zero empathy for anyone stupid enough to choose a career with no
leverage, no consistent pay, that requires training and serious schooling. You
made the choice, and then spent the years to work at it.

You want young people and minority voices in reporting? Offer them full time
positions with pay and benefits. Nobody offers that? Then having the work done
by "powerless" people with self supporting financial situations is apparently
good enough.

Is anyone seriously hoodwinked by this trash? Theres this false narrative that
"well these people can be de-platformed!" Hi. Welcome to reality. Glad you
could join us. Nobody owes you a platform, and demanding that they care is
ridiculous.

Framing it as "what about women and minorities" is so disgustingly
disingenuous that it makes me puke.

It's like people who get an MFA. They need the qualifications, sure. But it
scratches an intellectual itch because they can afford to - you think
minorities want to fight for bullshit qualifications so they can be underpaid?
They're not stupid. Theres no "magic key" that allows people to knowingly take
no leverage jobs _and_ get a voice. "McDonald's fry cooks 'silenced', must
return to family's second vacation home on the East coast before decompressing
in Spain" isn't as emotionally impactful.

"Theres so few minority freelance SE Asia correspondents!" \- Because thats
not a real job, you twat. You want to fix it? Give them a full time post with
pay and benefits.

But don't get up there and start talking shit about how powerless you are when
you can wait a year for $500. Boo. Hoo. You think minorities and young people
_can afford_ that shit?

This is outrage machine bullshit with a side of "live your truth" fantasy
bullshit shrink wrapped in a "minority silencing" lie.

The internet was better when everyone was a scientist, engineer, or dedicated
hacker. We had better do something, or these idiots are going to seriously
damage the future more than they already have.

------
DoreenMichele
This is why suggestions that women should hide their gender in online forums
etc to avoid online drama are such BS. This woman could only give push back at
all because she has a public reputation in her own name. If women have to hide
their identities to avoid sexual harassment and other drama, they are denied
this entirely. As this example shows, a public professional reputation has
real value and real power.

