Re: Working Wages (getting long)

[Andrew Plato <aplato -at- EASYSTREET -dot- COM>]

See responses below.

John's, ideas are very popular in some circles.  I think they have a fundemental
flaw - they ascribe to the notion that labor has some set, universal value.
This is what our buddies Marx and Engles thought.  And we know how well their
ideas worked out.

Labor is worth what the markets will bear.  Moreover, as more and more cheap
labor floods a market - there is less and less room for the expensive people.
This is why so  many unions feared NAFTA.  They did not want companies to have a
steady stream of cheap, Mexican labor.

Tech writing is no different.  For each 10.00 an hour writer, the rates for the
rest of us get depressed.  Especially as the supply of writers increases.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Posada <posada -at- faxsav -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>; 'Andrew
Plato' <aplato -at- easystreet -dot- com>
Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 8:01 AM
Subject: RE: Working Wages (getting long)


>Andrew:
>
>I disagree.
>
>Too many clients and agencies still believe that technical writers are
>high-paid secretaries. Until employers and clients understand that tech
>writers cannot be gotten inexpensively, then those that ask for and deserve
>acceptable rates will continue to be chiseled down by those employers that
>believe they can get someone cheaper.
>

Companies look at tech writers as high-paid secretaries because many of them
are.  Too many tech writers do not contribute technical skills to a team and as
such get the rap as secretaries.  This rap has filtered out to the agencies.  I
interview lots of writers and consistently I see a glut of people with no
technical skills whatsoever selling themselves as tech writers.

Eventually, these writers dilute the whole profession.  Ever wonder why lawyers
are all thought of as sleazeballs?  Well, a sizeable enough percentage of them
are sleazeballs.  Unfortunately, the good lawyers are stuck with this image.
Stereotypes often have basis in fact.

>Tech writers don't have a lock on "goofballs"...every field has them.


Yes, that is definately true.

>
>> The rates people get for their work is, quite bluntly, no one's business
>> but their own.  "Campaigns" to keep rates high will only give those that
>> do not deserve higher rates the courage to ask for more.  While those that
>> do deserve more get shafted.
>>
>I don't follow that logic.  Someone can be good after only a short time, so
>they don't have the industry exposure to know what rates are being gotten,
>but deserve the rate anyway. Therefore, if they don't know that they should
>be getting $40 or $50 per hour, then they may believe that they should only
>be getting $20 or $30 (or $10, god-forbid).


You're ascribing to the notion that labor has some set, objective value that all
people should recieve.  That is communism, which is a failure.  In this
capitalist nation, your labor is worth exactly what you will sell it for.  Those
people are not "entiled" to more money.  No one is "entitled" to anything.  It
is purely what the market will pay.  You either accept that rate or reject it.

We're not talking about skills here.  Skills are irrelevant.  This is simple
economics.  Labor is worth what the market will pay and what the laborers will
accept.  This is why unions were created, to have a collective voice in
negotiating labor wages.  Tech writing along with most professions in the United
States is not unionized and therefore it is a free market.  If a person will
take a job for $10.00 an hour -- then that is what he/she is worth.  YOU decide
your worth along with the market.  Just because the market will bear $50.00 does
not mean that everyone working is worth $50.00 an hour.

>
>I believe it is our responsibility to educate those working in and working
>with tech communicators that higher rates are deserved.
>

Nothing is "deserved".  You get what you accept.  Nobody "deserves" anything
except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Last I checked, this was
not amended to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and $50.00 a hour for
writing a Windows NT manual."



>> You want to know what technical writers get paid less then other technical
>> professionals.  It's real simple:
>>
>> Demand:  The demand for writers is less then that of other professions.
>>
>I know of LOTS of other professions that have less demand.


Yes, this is true.  Sheep castrators and buggy whip makers are in less demand.

>
>> Supply:  The supply of writers is exceedingly high in some areas.
>>
>You aren't talking to the agencies on the east coast.


I live on the west coast.  There are lots of writers here.

>
>> Incompetence: Every time an incompetent goof-ball blows a job, he/she
>> depresses the rates and salaries for the rest of us.  If anything, we
>> should
>> "campaign" to keep the incompetent goof-balls out of the profession and
>>
>That's not practical. What is the standard that "we" would apply to
>determine who is incompetent? Let the employers do that. In fact, if
>employers know that they can find writers at low rates, they will be prone
>to accept low competence. However, if they are paying higher rates, they
>will be less understanding and will dispose of the inferior writer that much
>faster.
>

9 times out of 10 these companies are stuck with a goof-ball.  Labor laws now
make it very difficult to fire people, even contractors.  As people litigate
more and more, companies are extremely leery about hiring anyone.  Moreover,
every time a goof-ball sues and rapes a company for thousands, the rest of us
suffer.  It is like stealing from a store.  The more people steal, the more
money the non-criminals must pay to cover the loss from the theives.

Of course there is no standards and there probably can't be.  I am not proposing
a standard.  All I am saying is that goof-balls ruin the rates for the rest of
us.