Ridiculously low rates of pay

[gareth]

Don't think anyone else has said this yet... I've emailed the named contact and it would appear that he is looking for a fully-qualified technician with relevant previous experience - apparently not a student or newbie.

 

Discuss...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that confirms it - they're taking the p*ss big-time. Nix posted (presumably based on a reply he's had from the company), that they're looking for twenty days' work for the quoted fee. Therefore they want to employ an experienced/qualified technician and pay them £52.50 per day before deductions. I hope they get what they pay for - it'd serve them right!

[Solstace]

The person advertising it has no sense (or morals either). How can you live on that amount!

 

Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Some perspective - provided the £50ish a day is regular (eg. 5 days a week) then it's actually more than I was paid in my previous full-time employment, before I turned to freelance and casual work at the beginning of this year. I accept that as a short-term job, it's little better than freelancing in terms of being able to fit work in around it, so the full-time comparison doesn't work.

 

As to whether it's worth doing, I'd guess it'd depend what else is covered by the company while on tour - in my limited touring experience things like travel, food and accomodation have been covered, making the day-rate seem somewhat better than it first appears.

[Just Some Bloke]

I hope everyone has taken from my comments so far that I am totally against low rates of pay for technicians, but I would like to see this from the point of view of the company involved.

 

They will know, just as well as us, that "you get what you pay for". At the rate they are paying they will get someone to do the job. That person may be OK, and will probably get the job done. If they paid more, they'd get someone who would do a better job, give them less trouble and, here's the point, make their show better. Don't you think they want that? And don't you think they know that?

 

They get a measly amount of money from the venues, plus, presumably, some funding from elsewhere (and we know how little funding is around these days). If they had more money and could hire someone good then they'd probably (I hope) do that, but if they can only afford to pay someone who, unlike most of us, doesn't laugh at the rate of pay, then they'll have to, to quote Gareth:

 

get what they pay for

 

As I've said earlier (and no-one has commented on yet) would you rather have 2 technicians in work, earning peanuts but accepting that, or 1 technician earning a decent wage? It's a tough choice.

[gareth]

Don't forget that the 20 days of work are irregular and spread across two and a half months. Somewhow I can't see the company being best pleased if whoever takes the job tries to put a dep in for some of the dates (not that you'd have much luck finding a dep for that sort of silly money, anyway) - I'd imagine that they'd expect the person they employed to do all the shows. So therefore, you've got a company expecting someone to make themselves available pretty much on a first-call sort of basis, which may well entail having to turn down other more lucrative work in order to fulfil the contract for the tour, for the princely sum of £52.50 per day.

[timmath]

But still they will get 'someone' willing to do it.

[Guest lightnix]

...Nix posted (presumably based on a reply he's had from the company), that they're looking for twenty days' work for the quoted fee...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I just counted up the days in the original ad.

 

...in my limited touring experience things like travel, food and accomodation have been covered, making the day-rate seem somewhat better than it first appears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would have thought, though, that if that was a part of the deal it would have been put in the ad. The fact that it hasn't been certainly makes me wonder.

 

...As I've said earlier (and no-one has commented on yet) would you rather have 2 technicians in work, earning peanuts but accepting that, or 1 technician earning a decent wage?  It's a tough choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that's the right way of looking at it, it's a bit like asking whether you would rather have one person properly fed or two people on the edge of starvation. In view of that I think I'd opt for one better paid technician, but that's just my take on the situation.

[andy_s]

The person advertising it has no sense (or morals either). How can you live on that amount!

 

Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think on the assumption that this is a "freelance" job, not a full time one, and therefore there is opportunity to earn more money.

 

I make no comment on whether this is a good rate of pay or not, as that has been well explored already, merely remark that it is not uncommon for technicians to work for more than one company concurrently, and that the schedule quoted would appear to allow that possibility.

[Guest lightnix]

OK, so it's a "freelance" job, but (as discussed sooooo many times before) that shouldn't automatically mean that no tax is deducted at source, unless the technician engaged is registered as self-employed, with the PL insurance, tools, accountant, etc. to go with it.

[andy_s]

OK, so it's a "freelance" job, but (as discussed sooooo many times before) that shouldn't automatically mean that no tax is deducted at source, unless the technician engaged is registered as self-employed, with the PL insurance, tools, accountant, etc. to go with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I was implying nothing about true sub contractor status, or that "freelance" (a widely misunderstood term - that's why it's in inverted commas) meant that there was more take home pay or less tax to pay, my point is that the fee for this job would not necessarily represent the full earning potential of the technician over the period of the tour.

 

I was using "freelance" in the original sense of "not tied exclusively to one liegelord", as opposed to the modern sense of "dodgy way of getting out of meeting your tax and other responsibilities"

 

I agree with everyone else that it's not a lot of money for quite a lot of work, but I note that TMA BECTU' s minimum hourly rate for a grade 1 technician is only £6.27. A Grade 1 technician is defined as a Head of Department where the Dept consists of 2 or more staff. So the issue is a general one of low perceived worth even from the organisation there to protect us. This is far more within the remit of BECTU, equity and other trade unions, and as far as I understand it, has not been within that of the ABTT - who are concerned with standards of work, best practice, training etc, not with employment rights, rates of pay etc as specifics.

 

I'll freely admit that I'm trying to sit on the fence and not comment on the rights or wrongs of specific situations - perhaps this is not in the spirit of the thread, if so I apologise for being Off Topic.

[gnomatron]

Hmm, the problem is that while the ad may list 20 days, it's a tour, so there's bound to be at least a few overnighters in places several hours drive from wherever you happen to live. That means you'll effectively be tied up for more than 20 days.

[MikeR]

As I've said earlier (and no-one has commented on yet) would you rather have 2 technicians in work, earning peanuts but accepting that, or 1 technician earning a decent wage? It's a tough choice.

 

I'd opt for one in work on a proper pay deal. The one that cant make a living can do the other thing, I can't see how its a tough choice myself.

[PoppaDom]

Just a thought on this subject but has anyone invited the listed addressee to this forum so that they can place their reasoning and side of the story before us?

I feel that as soo many strong feels are stirred by this issue (my own included) that this opinion would be welcome to add to the debate.....

 

Incidently....

I graduated 18 months ago with a relevant degree and haven't worked for less than equity minimum since then, the majority of the time well in excess of the minimum. Yes I work freelance.

 

Poppadom

[Guest lightnix]

I was using "freelance" in the original sense of "not tied exclusively to one liegelord", as opposed to the modern sense of "dodgy way of getting out of meeting your tax and other responsibilities"

OK, fair enough. I've slapped my wrist on your behalf ;)

 

...TMA BECTU' s minimum hourly rate for a grade 1 technician is only £6.27. A Grade 1 technician is defined as a Head of Department where the Dept consists of 2 or more staff.

Is that all!!! :o Blimey :D

So the issue is a general one of low perceived worth even from the organisation there to protect us...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not kidding.

 

By way of comparison, I found out last night that the Basic Barman's (i.e. newbie) rate is £5 per hour, with a 12 hour shift, making £60 a day before tax.

 

So there you have it: you can make more money per day as a junior staff member, pulling pints in a Wetherspoons pub, than you will as an experienced technician on the job in question.

[Just Some Bloke]

I'd opt for one in work on a proper pay deal. The one that cant make a living can do the other thing,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What other thing?

[Bryson]

Just a thought on this subject but has anyone invited the listed addressee to this forum so that they can place their reasoning and side of the story before us?

I feel that as soo many strong feels are stirred by this issue (my own included) that this opinion would be welcome to add to the debate.....

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I attempted to invite him, but the e-mail address bounces.