Questions about the wage survey

There have been enough questions asked about the wage survey in the comments from this post to justify starting a new post to answer them.

Q: Along with the regular survey results, how about including a supplemental page that lists every individuals salary amount and perhaps even where they are employed. Now that would be interesting and helpful. Why are you saving the employment information for internal use only?

A: The #1 objection I've heard from members to filling out the wage survey is the fear of other people finding out what you make. Openly publishing the survey results in the individual format you suggest would be counter-productive at best, not to mention a de facto betrayal of the promise of anonymity we've given to the membership as a condition of their sharing he data with us.

As we've made clear every time we publish the survey results, any member can call me to ask about results broken down by employer, category and/or media. Hundreds of members over the years have called to get a better idea of wage conditions in the specific department with which they're negotiating.

Q: All I was suggesting, Jeff, is that union members have the same access to wage information as you have. I don't see how anonymity is compromised when all submissions are anonymous and members have a choice whether or not to list where they work. Maybe the apathy would diminish if we could garnish more useful info from the survey rather than what the top, bottom and middle wage earners are making and wondering if it's based on a 40, 45 or 50 hour week.

A: As I thought I made clear, the membership has the same access to survey results as we do, they just have to call me to get it.

In one of the first years of the survey, there was a seven-person department at a studio -- a well-known artist (call her June K.) and six others working under her supervision. The survey tabulation showed three results for that department, two being paid about $100 over scale and another being paid $700 over scale. The staff member looked at the spreadsheet and noted: "Now I know what June K. makes." Since then, the percentage of survey participation has declined and the number of employers has increased, making it that much easier to make these kinds of informed presumptions.

To be honest, anyone applying for a job in that department could have called me and gotten the data. But that's a lot different than publicly publishing data from which anonymity could be so easily compromised. Again, that would violate our promise of anonymity in reporting the survey results, which is the precondition of many members for giving us their information.

Q: Plus I think it would be helpful if you guys simply asked "How much do you make in a normal work week?" instead of trying to explain the differences between people who are on 40, 45, and 50 hour contracts. I think a lot of people either don't pay attention to that at all or simply miscalculate because they misunderstand the wording. So because of that, I question the accuracy of the results, which leads to apathy on my part. Just a suggestion.

A: We have to ask the question about the set length of the on-call workweek, because without that specific information the salary data is meaningless for purposes of direct comparison.

Many if not most of our members are being paid on an "on-call" basis, meaning their standard weekly salary is computed based on a week that is longer than forty hours. So for example, if you're paid on a forty-five-hour week, your salary is based on forty hours straight-time and five hours of overtime per week. That means you get five hours of OT per week even if you didn't work past forty hours, but it also means you won't get additional pay unless you work more than five hours of OT.

The length of your standard workweek affects the computation of your salary:

• A person being paid $2,500 for a 40-hour week is taking home $62.50 per hour.
• A person being paid $2,500 for a 45-hour week is taking home $52.63 per hour (40 hours straight time plus 5 hours OT, equivalent to $2,105.20 for a forty-hour week).
• A person being paid $2,500 for a 50-hour week is taking home $45.45 per hour (40 hours straight time plus 10 hours OT, $1,818.00 for a forty-hour week).

Since the Guild contract minimums are based on a forty-hour week, we use a forty-hour standard to compare the questionnaire results in computing the survey.

Anyone who doesn't know the length of their standard workweek should read the paperwork they signed when they were hired, or ask their H. R. department. Let us know if you have any questions.