sure, 70% is impractical. and what I said was, you deserve 70%, and you're getting around 50%, if you're lucky.

a lot of new ideas are impractical at first, but then they get honed down and made workable.

the people who make these ideas workable are those who are willing to accept the basic merit beyond the impracticalities, which, in this case, is better treatment for you. maybe you are satisfied... only you know for sure.

the modern factory is set up so that the workers don't control the means to production, because of division of labor.

as a writer, however, you have full control over 100% of your product.

to extend your factory metaphor, it's as if you, one person, were making entire cars at an automotive plant (rather than making one weld on each, etc. on an assembly line).

I have no idea what percentage you're getting, but I would suggest that if it is under 70%, you are being a willing tool in your own exploitation. it's fine to be a victim of the status quo; it's entirely another thing to be proud of it.


this is like arguing that company should be excused for downsizing because they have to stock the water cooler. do you know how much your boss takes home?

I don't know what companies you work for specifically, but I'm sure that they can pay you a more realistic part of the cut (~50%) they're taking, while you complete 100% of their product for them.

the bottom line is that the people who carry these companies on their shoulders deserve better treatment. if you don't agree with that, you either have serious self-esteem issues, or interests to protect.

its relative nonexistence is perhaps supported by the fact that I'm not here to argue.

you shouldn't just accept what I say. but if you're going to take pot-shots, I expect you to
come up with something better.

there is also something called "word of mouth advertising," which cuts both ways.


the fact that you have done nothing but snipe at these ideas is not surprise-inspiring.


I'm not sure-- I'm not here from the mountain, you know. I could use some help piecing this all together. I would imagine, though, that a professional organization would not necessarily have to be a ball and chain.


smh; I keep asking myself this same question.

I don't think that this is true at all, nor do I think that you can speak for all writers in this industry. such an organization would not impinge upon your valued freedom, and could stand to improve your quality of life. just because something is good enough, doesn't mean that it can't be better.


is there ever a day when you get up on the right side of the bed? specifically, I was accusing WRT of trying to warp the idea of a regulatory organization of writers (an idea about which I feel little territoriality, and would actually like help in honing down) into a regulatory organization of owners, while employing similar rhetoric about oppression and rights.


I agree, and as a result, I would expect these companies' client bases to shrink exponentially.

WRT: I am really not this person you keep accusing me of being. besides saying that, there isn't much I can do. as a result of your stubbornness, I have no point of relation to any of those accusations you mentioned above, and can't respond to them. I was born in Ohio. I've never been to India. this bogeyman you've created, however, seems quite powerful; I can only hope, for the sake of what appears to be your tenuous hold on sanity, that they do not truly return.

indeed, and let's also watch out for company owners who are hijacking the idea of writer organization in order to adversely impact their competition, and further enhance their own financial bottom line, without even being willing to consider the possibility that their own organizations may not be perfect re: treatment of writers. the accountability proposed should be universal, not targeted.

once again, let me say I have no interest in starting my own company, or immediately making an international union appear out of nothing. I have an interest in getting people to communicate and discuss thoughtfully about making a general situation that is better for writers. the process has been fitful at best, so far, and has caused no end of reactionary paranoia and outright rage among the company owners posting on these boards. I am not sure whether to be encouraged or disgusted.

you should stop embarrassing yourself. I'm not Batul or centralpark. how many times do I have to say it?


what are you going to do in your meetings, count money?


once again, we see the owners disparaging and insulting their own employee base.


this is a great idea for the short-term future.


OK, Sen. McCarthy, but I'm not talking about nationalist ideologies. I'm talking about a professional organization of empowered writers.


I think this is a good idea.


now you're talking!

writers can withhold work on a mass scale only if they are writerS. one writer picking and choosing is nothing; the company doesn't care. the status quo continues.


I'm losing my patience about this-- you are hyper-critical, and contribute zilch. I'm not "Batul," and I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm asking if we can agree on some minimum standards for writers, so that they might achieve better working conditions through the establishment of a standard, and, in time, form a group capable of forcing management to adhere to this standard. to say such an idea is an automatic failure seems to indicate that you're either extremely cynical, or protecting your own interests.

it is unnecessary to divide writers along lines of the order in which they learned English. quality and professionalism are the main markers of proficiency here. I am worried about writers who are looking to make money, but cannot actually write in the English language in a professional manner. I am not worried about them becoming a drain on the proposed organization (which, again, is to be made of professionals). I am worried about unprofessional, non-proficient writers acting as scabs, if writers really get together to the extent that work can be withheld on a mass scale in order to meet demands. however, I believe that the ensuing dip in quality would ultimately be a situation that would work to the organization's advantage.

it's actually fairly difficult to prove that the earth is round, unless you've been in orbit or personally circumnavigated the globe. otherwise, you're just repeating what you've heard and seen on TV.

anyway, since I'm trying to get some people interested in new ideas, and there has been a deafening roar of opposition from industry authorities and powers that be re: these new ideas, your metaphor appears to need switched around a bit. I think if WritersBeware and WRT could track me down and burn me for heresy, they would.

as it is, the world is round, and writers are dotted all over its surface, united by the internet, but kept separate by their overseers. the writers of this industry can do better, and should demand more. content and satisfied are not the same thing. unity is not a burden; it's a source of power.

sorry, Major, but I don't believe you. if no one cared, this thread wouldn't be pushing 6 pages.

what I wasn't anticipating was this site being a hornet's nest made up of mostly company owners. I ignorantly and naively assumed that more people here would be interested in talking productively and intelligently about improving conditions for writers.

WRT-- I've made my mind up, and apparently, so have you. I have no choice but to continue to be amused by your bungling.




with friends like you, who needs enemas?

no; as the status quo shows us, one writer has no power at all.


this is alarmist and unlikely.


the free market takes care of nothing but profit. it does not ensure good treatment of employees, social responsibility of companies, etc.


quite the opposite: I would have them uncaged, and I would also have them break the bonds of slavery through organization.

as to who you are, apparently, you're a paranoid person. you and WritersBeware seem obsessed with foisting the identities of your former nemeses upon me. it's sort of funny, but I don't want to get other people in trouble. I'll tell you the same thing I told WritersBeware.

WRT, I had a teacher named Ms. Watson who once accused me of plagiarizing an essay in high school, because it had the word "obsequious" in it, and Ms. Watson refused to believe that I knew what obsequious meant. it was really a great experience getting high-toned and effectual with my subsequent verbiage during that quorum. she wound up apologizing.

there are similarities between the two of you: jumping on bandwagons, going into hysterics, mirroring others irritatingly, etc. however, I'm not going to go on this board and say, WRT... I know who you are... you're Ms. Watson! why? -- it's because that would make me look like a complete loon.

1. as I repeatedly stated, I'm not looking for dues. I'm not even suggesting unionization yet, in the way people think of that word. I'm saying that collectively, writers need to start to talk about establishing some minimum standards, which can be instituted industry-wide. they also need to have more power to collectively bargain with owners.

2. comparing unions and condo associations is a real stretch. this forum is more like a condo association than the entity I'm suggesting, which, like Amons points out, isn't really a union as much as it is a loose confederation of like-minded professionals.

3. I realize that this entity, if it does become reality, will have cons as well as pros. can we stop getting ahead of ourselves, here? can we talk about minimum standards first, instead of condo associations, the sub-continent, dues, my identity, etc.? it really is more important.

you're right: I'm leaving. I have a New Year's Eve party to attend. don't wait up!

WritersBeware: I hope you work out your issues with control and aggression. once again, this isn't "guess who I am." this is "should companies treat independent freelance writers as their employees?"

I don't know who you are, but your tone reminds me a little bit of my old gym teacher, Mr. Soufriere. that doesn't mean that I'm going to make a post accusing you of being him, though. it wouldn't make sense, and it would just make me look unbalanced.

speaking of unbalanced, when are writers going to realize that they are actually the ones holding the cards? if these companies don't have productive writers, everything stops.

finally, a compliment!

more insults and excuses...

I have more options than these. it's great, though-- now I'm in a shouting match with a bunch of company owners. their advice? open a company!


I don't have to prove anything. if you have access to these numbers, as a company owner, you're in a much better position than I am to audit your books. if you want my services as an accountant, that does come with a charge. I have already made several suggestions for cost-cutting, all of which you have apparently overlooked.

as for writers being exploited and not having power, I don't have to prove that. anyone with eyes, a pulse, and an IQ over 90, can take one look at this industry and see that the writers are powerless to dictate policy. they are also increasingly scattered all over the world, and as such, are even more isolated. the cherry on the sundae is that they are derided and ridiculed, on these boards, by their employers.


I agree, but the shame of it is that they turned their back on this slave situation in the office world, and entered a parallel situation of fealty in the world of freelance writing.

being organized doesn't mean losing your status as an independent contractor, able to set your own hours, work at your own pace, not punch a time-clock, etc. it just means getting more powerful, so that you can make demands of management, and not just have them smirk and say, "I can't afford it."

WritersBeware: you appear to be using this forum as some sort of release valve for your frustrations with South Asian people, and I don't really want to be a part of that. I'm here to try to raise some issues about writer treatment. please stop calling me Batul; I don't know who that is, and it's making you look even more foolish than you already look.

company owners: 2% of the work, more than 50% of the profit

writers: 98% of the work, less than 50% of the profit

there are countless organizations out there which can afford to pay full-time staff, meet their overhead, and provide benefits. what's wrong with the essay mill industry? why are the owners so poor? are they? or is it just that they're holding all of the cards, and keeping their writers isolated and powerless?

"companies that have minimum CPPs, don't charge fines, and have a very fair split."

I said that these companies were myths, because there is no such thing as a fair split in this industry. the writers are not organized, and have no power to dictate terms. when the company mangers are the ones setting the policy and dictating terms, there is no such thing as a fair split.

it appears that I've hit a nerve. you're in management, right? I wonder if you talk this way to people when you're away from your keyboard.

keep in mind: there are many companies with more administrative overhead than essay mills, which can still somehow afford perks and substantive benefits for their valuable full-time employees.

right-- companies provide a website, customer service, advertising, etc.

there are plenty of companies with more administrative overhead than that, which can still somehow afford perks and substantive benefits for their valuable full-time workers.

mention employee benefits to an essay mill owner, and watch them squirm! watch how broke they suddenly become.

writers-- they're not going to give you what you're worth unless you make them. otherwise, it's going to be excuse after excuse. and you can't make them, alone.

I have to remind you that this isn't "guess who I am" (as fun and funny as this game is).

this is "should companies treat independent freelance writers as their employees?"

and "can we establish a set group of minimum standards for writer treatment which can be installed industry-wide?"

"we" is anyone who has anything constructive to add.

break out the tinfoil hats. once again, we're getting nowhere.

obviously... but for all that relish, you're not very good at it.


no, and no.


have fun in your new thread.

tell me more.


aside from being a semantic minefield, this simply isn't true.


you seem to be speaking for a lot of people here.

I suppose I deserve being quoted partially and out of context, since I have done it to others.

since this is a new page, let me remind everyone that legitimate, educated, proficient writers need the power to withhold work collectively, after they have organized into a position of collective bargaining with the owners re: minimum industry standards for writers. this is not individualistic or inherent.

as to the exact minimum industry standards, this is what appears to be the main point of contention.


yes; the latter entity in your comparison is a myth.

I agree-- they don't need protection; they need

collectivization---> organization -----> power

legitimate, educated, proficient writers in the English language need power: the power to withhold work collectively in order to combat an inherently unfair system, in which the lion's share of the profits go to the owner.

writers: what's the difference between being content and being satisfied?

Amons-- that's what I'm talking about-- little stuff, at first, that people can agree on (as writers, not owners-- I distrust everything the owners say, and have now started discounting their insults and threats).

CPP standard minimum
bonuses based on customer feedback/loyalty
3rd party review on charge-backs
paid revisions
royalties programs

writers: are you really satisfied with what you're getting, based on what you're doing?

clue me in-- how can we ensure that writers, industry-wide, be treated to a minimum, set standard of benefits? I'm not even arguing about what these benefits should be yet, specifically. I gave some hypothetical examples, and everyone jumped on them. health insurance may come later, but we have to start with little stuff, like bonuses and paid vacations. I'm asking you for ideas, and your response is to call me clueless, and shoot down all my ideas without adding anything. you have asked me for logistics, and I have given you my perspective on possible cuts/numbers. maybe I am coming from outside of your industry-- and what's wrong with that? I know the basics, and I know they're lopsided.

ask company owners about freelancer unionization

• 
  inconceivable1.jpg
  

OK, well, since everyone here is apparently really negative and aligned against this idea, there remains the essential question, plus, how to be more positive. you're really dragging me down, having to respond to all of these insults. I'm going to do it just once more, and then stop. I know it's going to just breed a bunch of vituperative reaction from you pit of hissing komodo dragon company owners. to any workers who have enjoyed listening, I will continue to post occasionally, but declare this thread a disaster. all it has drawn is the sniping of these half-retarded, voracious blood-suckers.

hey writers! this is what your bosses think of your rights:

here's what I know: the owner takes home a couple of hundred grand, and the writer takes home maybe thirty or forty. the whole system needs flipped on its head.

essay writers have been telling me that they're content, which is not the same thing as being satisfied.