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.
I would have them uncaged, and I would also have them break the bonds of slavery through organization.
the free market takes care of nothing but profit. it does not ensure good treatment of employees, social responsibility of companies, etc.
Socialism? No ... try full-blow communism.
When history and the experiences of entire regions/nations have invalidated the ideology you are preaching, you sound like a loon.
burn me for heresy
A cultural `tell.'
I ignorantly and naively assumed that more people here would be interested in talking productively and intelligently about improving conditions for writers.
When you want to conceal your identity, don't repeat the EXACT same sentence you typed out when posing as `centralpark.'
sorry, Major, but I don't believe you. if no one cared, this thread wouldn't be pushing 6 pages.
Actually, Major is right - nobody cares about your propagandist drivel, fuelled by nothing other than venomous envy and blinding jealousy. Why do we respond? We do so just to offset any newbie's being influenced by your very silly arguments.
1) I am all for the creation of an industry regulatory board, presided over by the industry's founders. Such a board would work towards dividing the chaff from the wheat through the creation of a set of quality compliance policies. Only those companies which adhere to those policies would be awarded membership and have the right to display the industry-badge on their homepage. This, in itself, will help both writers and customers identify the legits. It would also exclude a vast number of `companies.' Sorry, but if the company in question is not legally accountable in the US/UK, etc ... it should not serve those markets. If the company in question has substandard hiring practices, it will be excluded from membership. If the company underpays and fines writers, it won't stand a chance of being granted membership. So, while I do believe in banding together, my reasons are very different from yours - they are based solely on consumer/writer protection (my definition of `writer' differs from yours) and on levelling the playing field (a simple legal concept called fair competition - we cannot affors t charge $7.5 per pae and pay writers $2 per page)
2) The vast majority of writers in this industry are no writers at all. One of the purposes of the board would be to ensure that they do not attain `writer' status; another would be the creaion of a shared database of unreliable, plagiarising and and bad writers (proposed by Eugene) and of customers who hop from one company to the other and, in essence, steal from us (unjustified chargebacks, etc etc.). Do you know how many writers would be excluded?
3) Believe it or not - while AW and EW have no right to pay writers $4-7 per page and should never fine writers - many who come here screaming about low pay and fines have no right to do so. The terms of their service contract/freelance employment were made clear to them and they accepted.
4) I have openly admitted to hiring ESL writers - almost 2 years down the line and we've only found 6 truly excellent ones; the others have been blacklisted, denied and banned (after being paid any/all dues, of course). Witers who sent in applications using
a) the names of long deceased scholars - we just received an application from Prof Edith Penrose (RIP) and the applicant had the temerity to upload one of her articles as his/her sample work. Penrose is not just one of the greatest economic theorists of the past 50 years (among the many theories she developed was the `rent theory') but, was my father's PhD supervisor at LSE (decades ago) and a valued family friend - I attended her funeral :) BTW - this is not the first time that we've received applications of this sort
b) excuses for their inability to provide ANY PROOF OF THEIR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS.
c) godawful English in their application letter. I am sorry but if your application reads "I
belong to x,yz, etc country" - we won't read any futher.
You want equal treatment for all writers, native and otherwise. First of all, pls allow me to dispell the myth that writers are accepted simply because they are American/British etc ... nationality does not guarantee acceptance. Second, equal treatment is predicated on the possession of equal qualifications.
Your English is ok - but is is ESL. Use all the fancy words you want, labour over every sentence, etc ... but the truth remains unchanged.
Now - as for freelancers being listed as full timers, that is plain stupid:
1) their income would be significantly reduced (exclusivity as opposed to their being able to work for a multitude of companies)
2) they would have to take on a minimum set of papers/pages in order to satisfy their full time employment requirements. That, in itself, would force them to take papers they are not comfortable with - how is that fair to customers or to them?
3) Contrary to your very very ignorant assumptions, not all full timers in ANY industry are extended the benefits you are advocating and companies are not legally obigated to provide them with
a) medical coverage
b) end of year bonuses
c) company cars
d) paid vacations
e) 90% of the income generated from any project they are involved in. Did Microsoft give the Windows7 development team 90% of all the profits the OS generated? Did Jobs give his iPad team 90% of all the profits generated from iPad sales? Talk sense, please.
Unionisation- collectivisation, etc ... would only work for the underpaid, unqualified writers; a group none are interested in bargaining or dealing with.
The only reason why you find employent with RWC, AR and EW is that they pay you the peanuts you are worth. The legits are, to put it bluntly, not interested in working with such writers. Yes, our profit margins would increase but our reputations would be destroyed ... simply not worth it.
Stop denying who you are as no ` guessing' is involved.