December 11, 2007
"Viacommie" Freelancers Walk Off the Job
MTV network freelancers took their beef to the streets yesterday in protest of changes to their benefits plan; about two hundred of the workers spent the afternoon picketing outside the Times Square headquarters of MTV's parent company Viacom. According to Gawker, an initial chant of “What the fuck?!” was revised into the catchier “We care about our 401(k)s!” after a reportedly winsome young rabble-rouser climbed atop a garbage can and helped brainstorm new chant ideas.
Though the immediate catalyst for the walkout was MTV’s recent fiddling with their benefits, tension has been simmering for a long time among the freelancers, who sarcastically refer to themselves as “permalancers” because they’re essentially full-time employees without the same benefits. Some MTV workers have been there as long as three years but remain classified “freelance” in order to keep benefits out of reach.
It’s a common practice these days, according to Sara Horowitz, the founder of the Freelancers Union, which claims as members 40,000 New York area freelancers. She told the Times that while permalancing is widespread, particularly in the media industry, protests are not.“I really think it’s getting to a point where people are not willing to take it anymore,” she said. In the MTV permalancers' case, the objections seem to be winning some concessions; Viacom reinstated the 401(k) plan they had taken away and, according to Gawker, management has been quietly negotiating with some of the squeakier wheels.
UPDATE: The freelancers were scheduled to walk out again this afternoon at 3pm; other full-time employees have pledged to join them in solidarity.
What about you; wretched permalancer or sleek, pampered employee with benefits? Is yesterday’s walkout the start of a wider freelancer rebellion?
Photo by Davide Berretta.
|
A Jewish union organizer? Who knew?
Viacom is a notorious abuser of "freelancers" -- that's how they can produce their VH1 and MTV programming so cheaply. Even at CBS we were appalled at what they got away with; in my opinion, these protests are completely justified and overdue.
a beautiful thing to see americans protesting for thier rights - perhaps theres hope yet for this culture
they are completely justified! in fact, all the permalancers should get together and file a class action lawsuit. that's what happened where i used to work and finally management was forced to make people full time employees. yes, some people lost their jobs but overall 70% of the staff stayed.
It's pretty funny that the Times is writing about this since they are one of the biggest permalance employers around. People freelance in the art dept for up to 16 years(with no benefits!) before getting hired.
I thought they produced their shows cheaply because they would use cheaper fresh out of college 20-something labor that didnt mind working for less money if it was for MTV or VH1
Heh, well that too, apparently. At least from the footage on the news last night, the protesters were noticably young and squeaky-clean looking.
permalancing sounds like a scam. and while i don't give a hoot about the people who bring me MTV, I do think the practice should be revised via state law.
the thing is, many of these companies insist on paying the freelancer through their payroll, thus resulting in a W2 form (as opposed to a 1099 form) at the end of the tax year. This greatly diminishes the person's availability to (legally) claim most itemized deductions, even though they incur them as a freelancer. If you want to work, you have to play by THEIR rules.
I believe everyone has the right to protest and should. But if you are a freelancer, or a permalancer, you should not expect the same benefits as a hired employee.
There are plus and minuses to both staff and freelance. Benefits are a big issue for sure.
I've worked in staff creative positions in companies of all sizes. Now, I've incorporated and have worked as a freelancers for years.
I pay for my own benefits, actually through The Freelancer's Union, which is not a union at all, but a decent group health (and dental) plan. I found that I was able to keep my same doctor, and I actually paid less for benefits by handling them on my own than when I was on staff. (disclosure: I am not married and I do not have children...)
I think creative freelancers need to fully recognize how they want to position themselves when they work for any client. If you are concerned about benefits, and want the leveraging ability of staff access, then take a position at the company.
If they don't offer you a position, or are being sh*tty about it, then perhaps you should work for another company because it's clear they are not acting regarding any of your best interests, only theirs.
If you decide to freelance for them, then you should alter your rate to compensate for your benefits, and pay for your own. If they refuse your rate, then, again they are not acting regarding your best interests, only theirs.
I'm not being an *ss, but I think that sometimes creatives tend to sell themselves short. Being a freelancer should be empowering, else why do it?
Also, I don't understand permalancing. If you really want to permalance at a company, then you should take a postion at it. If they won't hire you, then move on, or revert to freelancing for them.
I believe everyone has the right to protest and should. But if you are a freelancer, or a permalancer, you should not expect the same benefits as a hired employee.
There are plus and minuses to both staff and freelance. Benefits are a big issue for sure.
I've worked in staff creative positions in companies of all sizes. Now, I've incorporated and have worked as a freelancers for years.
I pay for my own benefits, actually through The Freelancer's Union, which is not a union at all, but a decent group health (and dental) plan. I found that I was able to keep my same doctor, and I actually paid less for benefits by handling them on my own than when I was on staff. (disclosure: I am not married and I do not have children...)
I think creative freelancers need to fully recognize how they want to position themselves when they work for any client. If you are concerned about benefits, and want the leveraging ability of staff access, then take a position at the company.
If they don't offer you a position, or are being sh*tty about it, then perhaps you should work for another company because it's clear they are not acting regarding any of your best interests, only theirs.
If you decide to freelance for them, then you should alter your rate to compensate for your benefits, and pay for your own. If they refuse your rate, then, again they are not acting regarding your best interests, only theirs.
I'm not being an *ss, but I think that sometimes creatives tend to sell themselves short. Being a freelancer should be empowering, else why do it?
Also, I don't understand permalancing. If you really want to permalance at a company, then you should take a postion at it. If they won't hire you, then move on, or revert to freelancing for them.
I'm confused. I'm a freelancer (with more than just one client) and I know some of my clients have been audited and fined for the same kind of thing; keeping people who should really be classified as employees on a freelance basis. The IRS really doesn't like that and I have to spend time justifying my freelance status to my clients so the IRS doesn't make them pay taxed for me. How does Viacom get away with it?
Tgirl, what you say is true. Supposedly there was a law passed a few years back that rules it "illegal" for a freelancer to not be paid via payroll for a publicly held company.
At least that's my understanding of it.
There are stipulations to this law tho, that most lazy HR people don't know or won't tell you. Regarding things like working "in-house", using company equipment, providing the same "service" as staff member, etc...
The way to get around this is to classify yourself as a consultant, which by definition means that you are providing a service that the company does not have.
It's true tho, it's a gray area, and companies tend to bully freelancers about it.
Any lawyers out there?
I'm confused. I'm a freelancer (with more than just one client) and I know some of my clients have been audited and fined for the same kind of thing; keeping people who should really be classified as employees on a freelance basis. The IRS really doesn't like that and I have to spend time justifying my freelance status to my clients so the IRS doesn't make them pay taxed for me. How does Viacom get away with it?
I meant to say "...make them pay taxes" not "taxed", sorry.
palndrom23, it's easy to say you should work for another company if you're not being treated right, but that's really hard to do. i'm not sure what creative industry you work in, but jobs in tv are really scarce, so it's lucky to find anything at all. unfortunately in this industry, especially when you are starting out, you can't afford to be picky. hopefully someday i'll be able to request a rate and actually get it, or have multiple job opportunities available to me, but until then i'm stuck in a job without benefits, paying $200 a month for shitty health insurance..
I'm a creative freelancer as well at a very large corporation. However, we have an outside payroll company who handles our paychecks AND benefits. Long term consultants and freelancers have the choice to enroll and it's quite inexpensive (about $20 a week deduction from paycheck). I have freelanced most my NY life and I have to say this is the best set-up. More large corporations should handle their talent this way. I commend the protesters. The only way things will change is if people stand up and do something about it. Chanting "WTF" is pretty disheartening and juvenile... but hopefully they will get it together. Good luck fellow 'lancers!
palndrom23, it's easy to say you should work for another company if you're not being treated right, but that's really hard to do. i'm not sure what creative industry you work in, but jobs in tv are really scarce, so it's lucky to find anything at all. unfortunately in this industry, especially when you are starting out, you can't afford to be picky. hopefully someday i'll be able to request a rate and actually get it, or have multiple job opportunities available to me, but until then i'm in a job without benefits, paying $200 a month for shitty health insurance.. but at least i can say i like my job!
as a former freelancer (for many years), I can tell you that the freelancer does not dictate to the company that they want to be classified as a "consultant." Most companies, whether the freelancer is incorporated or not (I was for time), will insist on going through payroll.
I would second the advice offered above- adjust your rates accordingly! also- be loyal only to yourself, and don't abuse yourself to in order to meet their (usually due to managerial incompetence) unrealistic deadlines.
I'm a creative freelancer as well at a very large corporation. However, we have an outside payroll company who handles our paychecks AND benefits. Long term consultants and freelancers have the choice to enroll and it's quite inexpensive (about $20 a week deduction from paycheck). I have freelanced most my NY life and I have to say this is the best set-up. More large corporations should handle their talent this way. I commend the protesters. The only way things will change is if people stand up and do something about it. Chanting "WTF" is pretty disheartening and juvenile... but hopefully they will get it together. Good luck fellow 'lancers!
I'm totally not trying to be insensitive to any freelancers.
Regarding this Viacom situation, it s*cks and I'd be p*ssed too.
My main point was that it should be empowering to be a freelancer, and sometimes it's easy to forget there are options.
people over on gawker are saying that they never wanted to be freelancers and only ever wanted to be employees, however viacom will deny them that status in order to save money.
pretty shitty if you ask me.
"But if you are a freelancer, or a permalancer, you should not expect the same benefits as a hired employee."
palndrom23, a lot of companies "switched" to such a scheme in the late 80's to early 90's. NBC, among others did it to there Technical staff.
Remember that NBC technician who was shot with a Rifle when he was pointing out the guy to the police back in 1994?
I believe he was full time employee who was converted to "freelance" status. That wasn't their choice, it was accept it or be put out of work. Net result, his family did not get the benefits they would get as an employee.
This whole "freelance" BS is just for the company to save money, nothing else.
I'd say most self-described permalancers (not freelancers) want to be full time employees but aren't given the option. And talent doesn't necessarily hold value for leverage when the hiring decisions are made by a disassociated accounting department.
all the contract /freelance /consultant types that are being abused by these mega corporations should walk out
it is total gluttony on the the parts of the corporations to not pay them benefits and health insurance.
they should have the exact health insurance as the CEO.
Galvo, Sadly it's easier said than done.
In the late 80's the Union, NABET, was forced to give into "freelancer" status. In their case, the technicians working for TV and Radio are specialized to that Industry. It's not like IT staff that can go from one industry to another in NYC.
The people I know (Electrical Engineers) who left did leave rather than give up benefits had a seriously difficult time getting work.
Anyone stupid enough to work for Sumner Redstone deserves to be out on the street. That guy picks people off better than Charles Whitman of U. Texas Clock Tower Massacre fame.
People don't permalance by choice. I knew several people who tried to get jobs at MTV for years and were hired and fired with regularity.
I often wondered why they didn't strike or leave. I'm generally against the unions of today but I think this is a brilliant example of collective action for the purpose of getting the things one needs and deserves.