Dept. of Labor Regulations and the Future of Sacred Music
-
So, you think the Church should be above the law?Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
-
"The Law" isn't always right. It's just "the law". The Church has taken views against civil laws before. Bishops were very encouraging and priest very involved in protests during the Civil Rights Movement, some of which DID break local laws enough for them to be hand-cuffed, trucked away, incarcerated, and fined.
I'm not saying that the Church should be above the law, but that our own personal working relationships - agreements between us and our immediate employers - is OUR BUSINESS and NOT the government's. The "laws" in question are merely new regulations from the IRS and DOL, none of which's employees were elected by any of us. -
we could also stop voting for Democrat politicians who put in place even more workplace regulations
My disgust at all flavors of politicians, and government in general, is (I think well known), so I assume no one will take it as endorsement of Republicans when I say:
The above-mentioned issue, while bad, is one of the least Evil things promoted by so-called liberal politicians. If Problems one through 99 haven't made someone stop voting for those people, I'm not sure how "I now have to deal with time cards" could become the proverbial last straw. -
our own personal working relationships - agreements between us and our immediate employers - is OUR BUSINESS and NOT the government's.
Employees are relatively powerless in an employment relationship. It is the government's job to ensure that individuals are protected from bodies that are powerful and exploitative.
Thanked by 1Elmar -
Employees are relatively powerless in an employment relationship. It is the government's job to ensure that individuals are protected from bodies that are powerful and exploitative.
Except that if the employer is bad, employees will leave, and the employer will have trouble keeping people.
The market self-corrects.Thanked by 1Steve Collins -
Okay, it’s true, even if not in practice.
-
Except that if the employer is bad, employees will leave, and the employer will have trouble keeping people.
The market self-corrects.
Except it doesn't. Employees will put up with a lot before leaving a job. Just look at Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. They have no problem keeping employees even though the work environment is very hostile. Even on this site, look how many put up with bad employers, even though others encourage them to leave.
Thanked by 1Elmar -
SOME Employees will put up with a lot before leaving a job.
And some employers will put up with a lot before firing people.
If everyone is a consenting adult, I don't see the problem. -
Except it doesn't. Employees will put up with a lot before leaving a job. Just look at Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. They have no problem keeping employees even though the work environment is very hostile. Even on this site, look how many put up with bad employers, even though others encourage them to leave.
Except it does.
Those employees probably do deal with a lot of crap associated with their job. (though it turned out the Amazon story was quite possibly overblown, if you would have read the followup). But they also make a dump truck full of money while they're dealing with it. The lower end for an apple software engineer is $125k, with the upper being nearly $200k, according to a few different sources I found.
They could move on anytime they want, but then they'd also probably make less money. You can get an easy job that doesn't pay much, or you can get a high paying job, which (on average), is likely to include more responsibilities and more stress.
And a software engineer at Amazon Web Services? There's an open job in DC for about $190k according to a quick google search. For the right person, the stress is worth it. That's their choice.
No one is holding a gun to those employee's heads and telling them to stay there. Who are you to say that no one is allowed to work in a hostile environment if they think the trade offs are worth it? Do you think those people should *not* be allowed to work there because *you* think it's not a good environment for *them*? Why not let them make their own choices?
Companies gain a reputation. People aren't stupid.
Like I said, the market self-corrects. -
Democracy has a self-correcting feature too. It's a pity the Massey miners didn't vote with their feet.
-
Companies gain a reputation. People aren't stupid.
Like I said, the market self-corrects.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.
Often enough people have the choice between a job - maybe they need even two of those - that pay just enough to keep themselves and their kids from starving, or else be unemployed (have a look outside your country as well, same companies).
Not everyone is up to the decision to quit their 'Egyptian slavery' in favor of a forty year desert track. It's not just a question of being stupid or not.Thanked by 1Spriggo -
The problem, as with so many governmental things, is when a national "one-size-fits-all" policy is promulgated to combat some (perhaps real) abuse or dysfunction. Many, many very different situations can become caught in the crossfire. Another great example is the application of regulations for industrial food processing factories to small family farmers - anyone familiar with Michael Pollan or Joel Salatin books will know what I'm talking about. Correcting for probably legitimate abuses of employee time and/or safety may be a worthwhile thing - but applying rules meant for corporations and factories to a small parish office may be invasive and stupid and destructive, creating rather than solving difficulties for both employer and employee. I would hope that people formed in a 2000+ year intellectual tradition could look at and deal with a new law with rational, prudential judgment, rather than acting in Borg collective mode simply because a new law exists. Given how the church often reacts to law, though, it is really funny to me how modern Catholics will look back with condescension and disdain on the old "divine right of kings" days.
As an addendum to this whole salary discussion, I'll also say that my family has opted out of the health care insurance system. We are in a Christian health care sharing organization called CMF Curo (the Catholic wing of Samaritan Ministries), which was grandfathered in under the ACA. It is a bit of a leap of faith, since it is not technically insurance, and coverage is not legally guaranteed. However, at under 500 a month (which saves both me and the parish bundles even though they subsidize our monthly payment) the savings are huge. Plus I have no moral issues with insurance (only procedures in line with church teaching are allowed), and I am not victim to constantly rising premiums or limitations from the system about who which physicians we can see. It's not for everyone, but some might want to check it out. We are not helpless drones, completely dependent on the government to solve all our problems, real or perceived. My only complaint is that the ministry is Protestant in origin - I wish the Catholic Church could come up with solutions like this!Thanked by 1eft94530 -
I am often confused by the posts on this forum regarding employment issues. In my nearly 40 years as an organist/choirmaster (the title sometimes changes!) in 3 dioceses I have always had excellent group health insurance (including prescription coverage), life insurance, dental, vision, pension plan and matching fund 403b. These are diocesan plans offered to all full-time employees - the parish has no choice but to pay the required premiums for all full-time employees less the portion which I pay for health insurance (which incidentally has decreased three times since the advent of the ACA). I am well aware that many of my colleagues around the country work in less than ideal conditions and do not receive adequate salary and benefits. And there will always be those of us who, for whatever reason, seek part-time employment and there are many good positions available for those musicians. The church (read bishops and priests) has a moral obligation to provide for its employees. I am aware that this response is a bit "off topic" but I feel compelled to point out that there are many of us who do work in good situations.Thanked by 1Elmar
-
Which is helpful, and I hope we all take to heart what you say about the obligations of clergy who employ people on staff...Thanked by 1Elmar
-
lvsltrgy - interesting...since ACA our diocesan plan spiked dramatically once, with a warning that it would be monitored and might go up again at any time. For my part, I'll just clarify that all of those benefits you mentioned are standard for full-time employees in my diocese as well. My family opted out of the insurance because our HALF of the premiums would have been over $800 a month (with the parish paying half as well, as is the diocesan norm). It has probably gone up again since we left. I've not been denied benefits!
-
Jared, this is sad to hear. I am hopeful that, at some point, dioceses "force" us to go to that model. Eliminate the plan administrator's position and guarantee a set subsidy of salary to cover health insurance, then do these plans. My share (something like 64%) of the premium here for our family is around $750/mo., which is absolutely absurd for a high premium/low deductible ($500/$1500) plan, especially when copays are $35 for a GP...and well visits aren't free!Thanked by 1JaredOstermann
-
I just don't believe in the HMO model of health insurance. This country has gotten used to EVERYTHING being covered, and every visit to a Dr.'s office costing just a pittance. This is unrealistic and I'm not surprised that young people are deciding to steer clear of the medical profession. "Health care" is NOT a right, it is a responsibility.
Our Diocese is considering offering a simple Major Medical with high deductible and HSA - finally, after years of very expensive "one size fits all" HMO.
IMO any Diocese could deal with health care themselves, IF they actually had control of nominally catholic hospitals like they used to. Those institutions are largely run by HMO insurance groups now - simply part of the national system, and ready to become part of national health care - single payer system - once our infinitely wise government decides to become fully communist! -
All right this is now completely over the top. A single payer health care system is not going to make America Communist.
-
"Simmering frog" syndrome. We're almost there. FDR and a progressive Congress started us down this road with the Warner Act in the 1930s. The vast majority of Americans have become well-trained lemmings. We therefor, as a country, deserve everything we get from of our "government of/by/for the people."
-
I think you mean the Wagner Act. Because of the long residue of the common law of conspiracy and related subject matter, the only way the right to unionization was going to get secured in Anglo-American law was via statute. The particulars of the statutory regimes can be debated, but if one complains about unions as such, one should go argue with Leo XIII. The Catholic Church has never embraced rugged individualism as a social good.
-
All right this is now completely over the top. A single payer health care system is not going to make America Communist.
Quite right. But black helicopters, black ops and conspiracy theorists just might do the trick;-)
-
I believe there WAS a need for unions, but even from the beginning there were serious problems with them.
The part of the Wagner Act I'm referring to is that of a typical governmental win/win/win situation - good then but opening a Pandora's Box. Rather than the employers (mostly factories) giving substantial increases in wages, they could offer "health insurance" in place of raises. This satisfied both the unions and the workers, at the time. But it also defined the "benefit" as being a 100% expense deduction for the corporation, with no burden of income tax withholding or Social Security contributions.
Fast-forward to today, the health insurance (for myriad reasons, mostly controlled by the government) is very expensive, especially when it covers everyone head-to-toe. The employer (Diocese/Parish) can pay up to $1,500/month to cover a family (100% employer paid). What if that $1,500 were actually paid to the employee? Could said employee maybe afford to go to the Dr.'s office on a regular basis, with spouse and children? I think so! And what about that SS benefit at retirement? What an incredible impact $10,000-$30,000/year would have on that! But, no. Most people would prefer the employer to "give" them insurance - insurance that requires virtually nothing from them. Insurance that IS the consumer of the health-care, since they are the ones actually paying the ills.Thanked by 1eft94530 -
Steve
But it was World War II that dug the permanent foundation for health insurance as a form of comp. And large employers discovered it was a powerful lever for them in the labor markets. They are the pipers that call the tune here to the gummint. That's why Obama dropped the idea of a single payer option and went with what would have been considered a conservative GOP approach in the 1990s (and people forget that, among people expressing dissatisfaction with Obamacare, a large chunk is not from the right but from the left...) In any event, that market asymmetry means that individual/small group plans are always going to be screwed, because large employers have pricing power and insurers and reinsurers have to price that back into the system. (Note: I was self-employed for years and had to get insurance in the individual market. Being in midlife with a chronic condition, going nekkid was not a viable option. My high insurance premiums effectively subsidized the lower premiums of employees in large plans.) -
Being a worker in a minimum wage job, I can tell you there is still a need for unions!
-
EFT
Well, that's where the moral hazard argument is not cognate for health care from a restaurant. The thing is, the much higher costs of ER care already get socialized (and creating financial disincentives to preventive care ultimately lever those costs higher). For some strange reason, we have this thing about not sending people away from ERs untreated for inability to pay (mind you, they'll get hounded into bankruptcy for failure to pay, but once bankrupt, those costs do get shifted back through the system one way or another....) But because that is all done behind the curtain, people don't realize that the collective we are indeed already paying in a variety of ways. Big cognitive bias issues. And providers/insurers prefer that we don't see the specs of what goes on behind the curtain. It's why you can't get a proper price estimate for many things beforehand; it's only after the magical rituals of coding that a price will get popped out well after the fact. ("We're sorry (hear the teeny violin?) the anesthetist who happened to be on duty the day you came it is out of network, so you pay full rack rate for him/her! Yea, so it sucks to be you: pay up, buddy". The restaurant cognate would be going to a diner to have steak and eggs, but with no prices available on the menu, only to find out after the fact that they were sourced from a ranch tended by 12 virgins under a full moon, and Ferran Adrià i Acosta pinch-hit at the grill.) -
I hope I didn't derail things too much by bringing up health insurance - obviously it strikes a chord here. I'm not sure it's off topic, though, because it is such a huge consideration and expense these days, and central to any discussion of salary. Just as worrisome to me as hourly/salaried question is how someone making less than 50k/year can hope to pay 10k for health insurance out of that salary ($800/month), PLUS all the out of pocket medical costs on top of the plan. As far as the future of church musicians vis a vis salary considerations, that's at the top of my list. But maybe the thread should split...Thanked by 1eft94530
-
Just as worrisome to me as hourly/salaried question is how someone making less than 50k/year can hope to pay 10k for health insurance out of that salary ($800/month), PLUS all the out of pocket medical costs on top of the plan.
To me, this quote alone makes it worth the tangent, Jared. This was exactly the situation upon taking my current job, when I foolishly forgot to check on the health care costs. Most priests have no idea what living an even lower middle-class life costs. In addition, unless it's a major archdiocese, the group is not going to have enough clout to go head-to-head with an insurer to get a good rate.Thanked by 1eft94530 -
I’m now forced to use an exchange after having been a TRICARE dependent my whole life (since it’s way more expensive from 21–25 since the DoD, realizing that we are en route to national TRICARE for all, balked at keeping costs down for someone my age...like all other plans would have to do), and I’ve always known it was relatively inexpensive, certainly more so than what civilians paid. I would want to boost a staff member’s salary if he has to pay for health care like that. So, an extra $12,000 isn’t unreasonable, and that way we avoid the time cards...
-
Bruce - sorry to hear that...
It can be a very difficult discussion, with hurt feelings on both sides, because the parish paying for half sees that half as a benefit (and it is a benefit). So they may say - "we really want you to come - we'll pay 45k, AND we'll pay 10k a year of your health insurance!" They are out 55k a year, and you take home 35k, so both parties loose. When I switched to Samaritan, there was some confusion - I was essentially negotiating a pay cut for myself! But I ended up taking home more money.
A further complication is that parishes are usually not allowed (for moral concerns) to pay for outside plans. Thus, even if you could find a sub-$800 plan through Blue Cross or someone, the parish couldn't pay for that (i..e pay 100% of an outside plan instead of 50% of the in-house plan). Some priests/HR people also see any arrangement other than the required 50% of the diocesan plan as somehow suspect, as if you're trying to pull one over on the Church. I even had a diocesan HR person tell me to my face that they discourage plan shopping "because we need young healthy people to pay in to make the system work." Sorry - I don't believe pastors or employees need to be hamstrung by such considerations in making salary deals.Thanked by 1eft94530 -
I did a survey of diocesan parishes in order to ascertain what was a standard fee for substitute organists. This was several years ago and in response to some discussions with a couple of pastors about this matter. A particular parish got my attention when I received a response that is common among a class of workers that shall remain unnamed. The church secretary said, "I sure wish that I could be paid $80 for only an hour's work." I replied that the church was not paying for only an hour's work. They were actually paying for twenty years of lessons that cost thousands of dollars, thousands of hours of practice during that twenty years, and the time required to obtain the materials required for the contracted job and to prepare and deliver them for the time when they were needed.
A musician is not retained for a number of hours at a fixed rate of pay, even though there are those who would like to put the work in a box like that. They are paying someone to do whatever it takes to prepare and deliver a polished, professional performance of suitable music for a particular purpose. They, unfortunately, think that if they didn't see it happen, then it didn't happen. "How many hours do you work on your job?", is a question that causes a great deal of trouble for a musician far too much of the time.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,492
- General Music Discussion7,767
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes291
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,612
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry154
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism728
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115