Should companies treat independent freelance writers as their "employees"?

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.

ESL writers (40-60% in this industry) cannot be united with native English writers. ESL writers may be content with $2-4 per page while legitimate native English writers don't care to work for less than $8-10 per page.

Your ideas failed even before they could see the light of day.

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.

The majority of freelance writers work both for themselves and have accounts to take projects from essay agencies.

Writers can withhold on a mass scale and work for themselves only (or not to work at all) at any time of the day. They don't need a Batul to tell them if, when, how, or for how much to work.

A free email account and a public computer are enough in this industry to establish an independent freelance writing business.

Your ideas failed even before they could see the light of day.

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.

We're amused by your idiocy. That is all.

Why would an independent freelance writer care about his or her direct competitors? A smart writer takes advantage of the market situation and couldn't care less about what other contract writers do or don't do.

So far only you (who are you?) claim you are not satisfied with the 'status quo.' If I stop posting you are left alone here with your delusional ideas.


170+ posts clearly indicate you cannot and will not be able to agree on any 'minimum standards.'


Couldn't agree more :).

That's a little hyperbolic. Professional associations do not Stalinism make. But Major is right in general that there has to be trust, discussion about mutual agreements and preferences, 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.


A cultural `tell.'


When you want to conceal your identity, don't repeat the EXACT same sentence you typed out when posing as `centralpark.'


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.

Let's not bring messy politics into an already too-long thread. Socialism's merits, debits and definition versus capitalism's merits, debits and definition are moot. If his proposal would improve the lot of writers, I'd be for it. It just doesn't seem like it would.

#1 seems like a good idea. #2 makes sense too: The AMA doesn't defend or represent whackjobs who use holistic energy fields or something with no university degree. Editor, would you agree that one of the union's requirements would need to be an independent writing test?

#3 is silly: People make all sorts of decisions for all sorts of reasons and companies defend themselves with all sorts of legalese, but those decisions are not necessarily thereby legitimate or true. People choose to hand their money to a mugger too, but that's not a decision based in justice. AR and EW do viciously exploit their writers, not just with really low CPPs but also likely illegal fining structures and policies.

That having been said, yes, writers should have known what they were getting into to some extent. Further, ESL writers shouldn't be in the industry. Editor: For someone who cannot write good English copy to present themselves as an English essay writer is ITSELF fraudulent. I'm not going to be too hard on someone seeking to make $2/3 a page off of writing which is an excellent wage in their countries, and as many people have noted here apparently some people are willing to turn that in (plus some people need someone who can mimic an ESL style anyways since they themselves are ESL), but nonetheless, if you can't put together coherent, grammatical, syntactical sentences, you shouldn't be writing in English. I don't sell French essays to French university students with my limited French skills, even though I know a French translator so what I put out would actually be perfectly legible.


But, again, not every burger flipper is made equal yet they are all paid the same, and someone working at a hardware store may have a lot more skill but the minimum wage at the fast food location is still mandated by law. Professional organizations for freelancers and businesses try to similarly control prices insofar as they can without becoming a monopoly. An organization of freelancers mandating a minimum CPP would be a GOOD thing for th industry, even for people who don't like the ESL writers. If companies like AR and EW couldn't pay their ESL writers $2/3 per page, they would have to either reduce their take or raise their prices. Either way, the incentive to actually HIRE bad ESL writers would go away, EVEN IF THE UNION didn't actually do any quality control itself!

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!

Correct - politics should not be brought into this.

As you know, I am fully in support of the establishment of an industry regulstory board. It would protect both customers and writers as well contribute to the gradual removal of the wannabes from the industry.

A union, however, is a stupid proposal. There is no legal precedent for the creation of a global freelancer union and the complications are enormous. Where do we register it? Which national laws would it adhere to? What power would such a union be able to yield, whether as pertains to writers or companies?

As for EW and AR - there is hardly a person here who does not know the extent to which I oppose their practices. They underpay and fine writers and, more often than not, find multiple excuses to STEAL rightfully earned wages. However, there are a number of things to consider here:

1) each and every AW and AR freelancer consented to their contractual terms and willingly sought employment with them;
2) their picking up orders valued at $4 per page constitutes explicit legal consent to fulfil the order at the stated fee and to the advertised quality standards;

3) many have repeatedly urged freelancers not to work with these companies. Did they listen? No, they insulted us and claimed that we were jealous of these companies' success.

As for equal pay - it goes without saying that most here are for equal pay, irrespective of nationality. But, we are also for equal qualifications. Academic freelancers, at the minimum, should be educated and proficient in the language they write in. I am fluent in French and do occasionally take French orders. My colloquial Italian is very very good but I wouldn't dare write an academic paper in Italian. We have people here whose English is completely incomprehensible, who are barely educated and do not know the first thing about academic research and writing - yet, they are counted as freelancers in this industry. How is that justifiable, ethical or anything but downright dishonest?

How about writers consenting to misrepresenting their nationality and academic qualifications upon being asked to by the companies they work with? This is nothing other than consumer fraud.

Now - not all ESL companies are bad. Some are very good and do not engage in consumer fraud or lie about who they are. In fact, a couple of the companies with shady histories are going out of their way to clean up their act. They are learning and, in so doing, contributing to the strengthening of the industry. We need good companies - even if they are one-man shows - around. Fair competition is good for the industry; consumer choice should be a natural right and, let's face it, the more the legits, the better the industry's reputation. We will all gain from fair and honest competition, just as we all lose when consumers get ripped off by substandard writers and companies.

Industry regulation and cooperation - definitely.
Protection of freelancers - most assuredly
Fair pay - of course
The elimination of fining policies - most emphatically 'yes.'

But, I still maintain that EW and AR writers entered EYES WIDE OPEN but assumed that it would not 'happen to them.'

Lie and deny - your new personal motto?

Since you have so many issues with us being company owners and falsely assume that we all exploit our writers, get out of the industry. We are here to stay. You are not.

No. The writers I 'disparage' are not 'my writers' and won't ever be. Most of those contributing to this thread do not consider them writers - you are the 'understandable' exception.

My writers are pros and we support them through thick and thin. We extend them all the respect due to them and would never consider underpaying or fining them.

Since you are opposed to our business model and fail to distinguish between the legits and the frauds, open your own company. Become a pioneer and an industry hero by showing us the error of our ways :) Either put your money where your mouth is or go for a very late, after dark, unaccompanied walk in 'centralpark' :)

McCarthy? Couldn't you have come up with a more contemporary example? Of course not :)

One state dinner ... straight to the head :)

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.

Most people would suck at being doctors. If a hospital said that, they wouldn't be insulting their own "employee base". One of the industry's problems is that there are far too many unqualified writers. Imagine if a bunch of undergraduates were running around offering unlicensed surgery. This would be exceptionally bad, right? One thing unions have always done is try to stop semi-skilled competition. You're trying to protect people who are harming you and are likely to be your eventual scabs.


So we're on the same page. The beauty of this approach is that non-represented writers can be terrible.


Sure, but

a) Many of their practices are either dishonestly disclosed, hidden in legalese, or simply not in the contract
b) Many of their practices are illegal, and it's likely that the whole contract is unenforceable given that they don't do their due diligence to make sure that they're not committing illegal academic fraud

c) Not all of these freelancers are even aware of this site; I doubt that even the majority are (I wasn't until I Googled to see which services were fraudulent)

I agree the CPP is undoubtedly legal. But under present international law, people in Haiti dipping baseballs into toxic chemicals by hand is legal too; doesn't make it any less exploitative, as we agree. That having been said, yes, workers do need to take responsibility for their own exploitation.


Again: Editor is on record saying it won't be a registered union, not in any legal sense. I think the more accurate conception would be a professional organization.

A professional organisation, as in a regulatory board, yes.

The legal argument is complicated by the following:
1) let's assume that they signed on without being in possession of all the relevant contractual terms
A) that does not invalidate their contractual obligations to complete unfairly priced orders as they willingly took them on
B) they were unaware of the fining policy ... if they were fined once and continued to work with the outfit after that, that constitutes explicit consent

2) not enough writers are opposed to AR and EW's exploitative practices. They protest, yes, but passively continue to plod on. The law cannot help them as they are complicit both in their own exploitation and in the perpetuation and support of consumer fraud (under English law they are)

That bring said - there are no two ways about it ... these companies are robbing their writers blind. Even if they can legally defend their unacceptable pay per page rates or their fining policy, FAILURE TO PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED IS ILLEGAL. Same goes for arbitrary fines which are implemented at will, and on a whim - they fine writers up to triple what they would have received upon completion of the order.

Solution - how many AR and EW writers are willing to sign up and fight this? If enough of you are, these companies can be brought to their knees - legally.

Let's talk constructive action against robbery and exploitation ...

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.

Debating with Paris Hilton would be more constructive.

Do you know what a regulatory board is? No. It does not target competition and is universal.

Hijack your idea? We've been discussing this long before you came here with your fourth username.

Form an Indian Freelance Writers' Association if you want. No probs. But, I can assure you that such an association would not induce the legits to lower their hiring standards.

You want to talk financial bottom-line? I know you consider $6 per page highly attractive (remember the JRR incident :) ) - but, am sorry, it is not.

No association/union would induce the legits to
1) lower their pay per page to equal the average paid out by the Asian companies
2) to accept substandard witers (I know youprefer to call it racist hiring practices)

As for your having no intentions of forming your own company - the hell you don't!

Lie and Deny

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.

Ohio?! Native speaker?! Haha ...

Everyone disagrees with your 'proposal' ... so, who is the stubborn one?

Enough is enough. I am officially bored.

Not to mention if there are no available papers to take his idea gets broken again.


I guess everybody is tired of his trollish posts.

You can't consent to something illegal. If my employer takes $20 from my wallet and I don't press charges because I don't want to go to court, that does not empower him to take $20. Their fining system is almost undoubtedly illegal and unenforceable. I agree that this doesn't help.


Exactly. I think that, say, if a writer turns in a half-completed paper, it could be justifiable to pay them only half the promised amount, which is a "fine" in a sense. The problem is the slippery slope: There is no bright line between that and a poor quality paper, or "improper" citation.

Why? That is, according to what laws? Wage laws and most other employment regulations do not apply to independent contractors; if the company has a policy of fining for explicit reasons then it is legal for them to fine writers, regardless of what those reasons are. At worst, the company would be in breach of contract for fining when one of the stated conditions had not been met, but they would not be in violation of any employment law.


I see where you're going, but you're making this way more complicated than it is. Generally, the good companies in this industry don't fine their writers--they fire them if they can;t produce good papers in a reliable manner. So yes, fines are generally evidence of a scam. This has nothing to do with the actual legality of fining writers.

Name names and provide specifics or shut the fu*- up, you clueless, overgeneralizing nutcase.

editor:

There are several writers in this industry that have already told you they want no part in your idea. This is because they (like me) can write well enough and fast enough to be hired by decent companies that pay very well for work that is somewhat enjoyable and hugely flexible.

I made approx. twice the national average salary before taxes in 2010, and took several vacations of longer than a week whenever I felt like it. At the same time, I have also been pursuing a side career that gives me a great deal of happiness if not abundant remuneration (yet), getting married, starting the home buying process, and leading a generally more relaxed life than my normally-employed friends. All of this would go away if I became an actual employee of the companies I work for.

There are downsides, of course: I have to pay for my own health insurance (not a problem in many countries), there is no pension plan (again, less of a problem elsewhere in the world), and I am responsible for making sure I "get to work" on time. The money I make doing this easily takes care of the first two problems with a bit of planning, and the freedom that is the flip-side of the last problem hugely outweighs this negative.

It would be nice if there was a way to force the scam companies o change their ways or shut down. There isn't. Even if all the decent writers in the world got together and demanded that these companies change their practices, they would simply turn to even less-qualified individuals desperate to make a buck and churn out even more useless drivel.

These are the facts of the situation. It seems increasingly clear that you have some other agenda at work, clumsily lurking beneath the surface of your ongoing argument, but as you can see no professional organization, writer's union, or standard employment contract for writers in this industry is either desired or required by those of us with real qualifications and abilities.

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.

Yes, but I said "those of us with real qualifications and abilities."


OK. Just for the three or four of us that have posted here in response to you. Where's your backup?


How would this work without impinging on my freedom? Stop speaking in empty rhetoric and actually explain your plan.


Then you would be a moron. It is the nature of this industry that each year, thousands of customers are lost as they come to a point where they no longer need academic assistance, and thousands of new customers with no previous knowledge of the industry or the companies within it emerge. There is a constant stream of new suckers on which the scam companies can and will prey. The fact that you have thought this through so poorly is not confidence-inspiring.

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.

Actually, I have quite rationally laid out the reasons that I don't like these "ideas," not that they have been especially concrete. The fact that you only pick up on the insults is more evidence of a lack of intelligence at work.


Oh, my apologies. I thought that when you made a direct statement like,


you could somehow back it up. Now I understand your argument: we should accept what you say because all ideas and all people are special and valuable, even if they're entirely irrational and unfounded.

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.

Yet when I ask you to back up what you say, you get defensive. I'm not taking pot-shots, I'm obliterating your virtually non-existent argument.

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

The verb "to argue" and the noun "argument" have less to do with each other than you imply. You made a controversial (i.e. debatable) statement; that is an "argument." I have asked questions about this "argument" and your only response is "I don't know. You're mean for not believing me."

Why don't you point out some substantive problem with something I've said? Or back up your own assertions with substantive facts and/or logic?

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.

What companies are you talking about? You keep lumping together all of the companies in this industry, when the fact is that the companies I work for have a great deal of respect for me, and I for them. The personnel at these companies have been very helpful in providing financial documentation and references when necessary, I am paid a very fair percentage of what they charge and what amounts to a more than decent salary in the US, and I get to work (or not work) whenever I want.

How is it that these companies need to treat me better?

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.

Where is your proof that qualified writers who work for LEGIT companies do not receive good/fair treatment? For the 50th time, provide proof or fu*- off.


They do, you ignorant tool!

You have no idea what percentage I make, and frankly it changes from assignment to assignment, but I'm already at or above the 50% mark on average.


No, I don't. This is like suggesting that the factory workers are wholly responsible for the products churned out by the factory. This doesn't take any other costs or services into account: customer service, marketing, payment processing, server costs, phone lines--all of these things cost money and are ultimately a part of the "product" provided.

You really haven't thought about this a whole lot, have you?

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?

Yes, but the owners of the factory supplied the equipment I use, the resources that go into making the car, the location where the factory exists, the marketing so there is someone to buy the car when it is done being produced, etc. This has nothing to do with division of labor, and you took my comparison in the completely wrong direction despite the fact that I explicitly explained it. More evidence of your stupidity.


Before you said approx. 50%. As soon as I said I earned that, you up it to 70%. Now, maybe it would be nicer if I made 70% of what the company charges, but if I could do that I would. The fact is it takes a lot of clout to bring in customers the way the company I work for does, and investing the time, energy, and resources into a building a company this size is something I do not care to do given the associated risks.

If your idea is to form a union demanding a 70% of all gross receipts, you're an idiot: no industry in the world works this way.


No. I also don't know how many years they spent in law and business school, how much they've invested in the growth of their company, how long they had to save before they were able to start their company, etc. This is capitalism--as long as I am paid a fair and decent wage, I'll work for it. Unions don't exist to take money away from entrepreneurs--they exist to ensure that workers aren't taken advantage of. I am not being taken advantage of; I know ho much my employer charges customers and how much they pay me, and I am satisfied with the arrangement.

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.