| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: "The Viacom Permalance Slave System" |
Topic: "The Viacom Permalance Slave System"
| Author | Message |
| rulebook | Posted – 12/10/2007 9:41:15 PM | show profile In my experience, "permalancers" get paid more than their peers who are full time employees, but do not get any benefits. They are treated as full time employees in every other respect as far as responsibilities and expectations. I have seen this first hand in the advertising/marketing industry, where people I know actually refused to accept offers of full-time status because it would mean taking a significant pay cut. On the flip side, I have seen good people fired who were permalance and had reached their time limit at that status...basically the powers that be had a choice between hiring them full time or firing them, and they chose the latter. I also know many people at HBO who I believe fall under the same type of agreement: higher take-home pay, no benefits, no job security. No one has really talked about monetary compensation in this thread. If I had my guess, and this is a guess, it's that the permalancers at Viacom get paid more than their full time contemporaries. If that's the case, then I don't see what the big deal is. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Matt, I find it hard to believe that anyone, in any industry, is on permalance status in a major corporation (ie expected to show up every day, mon-fri, treated like a full time employee, but without benefits) making 20k. I just don't buy it. I know it's not the 90's anymore, but that is an un-livable wage even with benefits, so I question who would take such a job when an entry level job pretty much anywhere pays at least 30k plus benefits. I would love to hear more about compensation in this thread, because I suspect that would quell some of the outcries of injustice. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 12/10/2007 11:40:59 PM | show profile Rulebook ... I know for a FACT what these people are getting paid, since I'm working in the same corporation. These unfortunate souls even tried to organize into my union (unsuccessfully, thanks to a successful threat-and-intimidation campaign by the company). Most of these kids are getting paid a flat "per-shift" rate of $100 per shift. But that's where the rub comes in: The company dictates how long a "shift" is. No shift is under 10 hours. And many shifts stretch to 15, 18, even 24 hours! I spoke with one writer who said he once worked on a "deadline project" that stretched into a 72-hour shift! He said the company provided him with a a cot to sleep in his office, and encouraged him to take "power naps". But since it was an "uninterrupted" shift, he got paid his "flat rate" of $100. No overtime, of course. So why do these writers put up with these slave-like conditions? Because they're young, inexperienced, don't know any better, and are full of energy and enthusiasm, willing to do that extra mile (or ten miles) for their bosses because they're just so darn thrilled to have landed a job at the fabulous MTV (or whichever other Viacom property they landed). |
| nandy | Posted – 12/11/2007 3:16:01 PM | show profile The IRS took MANY big companies to task over this...had them shaking in their boots...about twenty years ago. I went from a per diem to a full-time employee in a heartbeat because the company just couldn't prove that I was an independent contractor, although that was what they were calling us. Almost the entire art department at a major music company had to be put on staff. A few got away with staying per diems, because they came and went as they felt like working (or not). But those of us who were there everyday, who had to keep specific hours, were "hired", less 16% to cover our benefits. It seems every generation or so, the media companies "forget" what the law is and try to force things to their way of thinking. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 12/11/2007 8:09:45 PM | show profile But the difference TODAY is ... ...media companies have grown into even bigger behemoths than they were 20 years ago. They're more vertically integrated, and they have virtually unlimited funds to blithely break the law and "let the lawyers work it out". And, of course, they've now got the law on their side: After 8 years of Bush, we've got a National Labor Relations Board stacked with pro-business judges, and a Labor Secretary who loves business but HATES laborers. |
| DQ102 | Posted – 12/12/2007 2:34:16 PM | show profile I am glad the "permalancers" are finally standing up for themselves. This has been going on at Viacom for years. I had friends working at MTV back in the early 90s who were in the same situation. It is amazing that it has gone unchallenged all this time. I think the writers' strike is getting everyone thinking about fighting back. |
| astrahook | Posted – 12/12/2007 3:54:15 PM | show profile im not sure I'd call this standing up for themselves |
