Freelancers are precarious. When should they push back? | Hacker News Reader

Freelancers are precarious. When should they push back?

cjr.org

90 pointsJerry219 comments

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.

> 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.

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.

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

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

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"

Teachers want enthusiasm from students so they encourage them to do things they're enthusiastic about. They don't share the pain if their student who follows their passion for music or poetry becomes indigent in the future.

The market often rewards work that is difficult, boring, risky, straining on personal relationships, and physically dangerous.

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.

yeah. i think it is probably healthier for most people to aim for work that is in relatively high demand, and hence has relatively good working conditions / pay / career options, and then decouple the "do what you love" activities from work activities. to quote a programming blog, "work expands until it exceeds your capacity for stress". if you are in the luxurious position to do so (i.e. you have a few options for work and so can avoid working for horrible organisations with bosses or colleagues or clients that dont respect your free time), set up strong boundaries between your job and the rest of your life, and keep work contained.

a few people are lucky enough to be able to make a decent living out of doing what they love, or are in the position of not needing to work, and are free to do what they love. for the vast majority of people this is not realistically achievable (this is not necessarily a question of ability, etc, lots of people are born into contexts where they have very little opportunity to develop their inherent potential) and they should not be judged by society from finding dignity in doing what is economically necessary to pay the bills.

here's a slightly different but complementary perspective from an investment blog i follow:

> Part of the problem is not having or developing an attitude of service. There is no shame in helping others. In one sense, compensation derives from how many people you help, times how valuable your contribution to that good or service is.

> So, rather than “following your bliss,” the best work comes from enabling the bliss of others.

http://alephblog.com/2015/07/25/the-school-of-money-first-gr...

Depending on her interests, "not remotable" might be more significant than "more demand than supply." If there's a persistent long-term supply/demand imbalance then something will change that, be it a change that eliminates or drastically reduces the demand or something that changes how the supply is provided (e.g. automation).

It has been identified as a new economic class : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

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.

Michael O'Church, is that you?

I'm a fan of his work, yes.

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

I'm not sure I understand why this comment is being downvoted. It's got a minor preachy tone, but I'm not convinced the game theoretic logic is unsound. There are benefits for both sides to being freelance, but that doesn't negate the general power dynamic which is the person with the most power dictates better terms in a contract, and if you're providing a commodity service you can't expect to have any bargaining power at all.

The author of the article was in a very privileged position to be able to, both, afford to speak out, and have available outlets for it to make even a minor difference.

I deserve my down votes. This is explicitly designed not to be a political forum. I have come to the conclusion that there is no neutral pursuit of technology and my participation here is thus a contradiction. Still I want to get to 400 karma for that juicy downvote button. Thanks for the commentary I will work on being less preachy.

I’ve had the opposite experience. If you have a specialized, valuable skill and are a decent communicator with the client, it’s much more painful to replace you as a freelancer than to keep you happy.

Of course there are tons of nuances depending on client, profession, location, project, etc.

If client has paid you your 50% deposit on the project, you’re halfway through, and there’s a critical deadline, there’s no way in hell they’d want to jeopardize replacing you the freelancer!

I’m not a developer, but I’d imagine it’s even more true for great developers on important projects.

"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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com