The idea that you should pay for quality is not really Church thinking. (It's also not exactly AGO thinking, if memory serves.)

There are no structures in place to enforce quality anyway...does anyone know of a DM who was actually fired for poor quality musicianship? The only DM's I know who have been fired for musicianship reasons, have been fired for good musicianship.

Except for that, if a firing occurs, it occurs for some unexplained reason which makes some people angry, and everyone sad. Then some friends of the pastor will say quietly and without elaboration that it was the right thing to happen, and everyone moves on.

The Church encourages striving for quality, but lacks any mechanism for enforcing quality, because "charity" dictates waiting for the 40-year-old DM to retire or the parish to close, whichever comes first.

And besides, De gustibus non est disputandum.

So if you can't get quality, why pay? Only to justly remunerate for the time spent.

And how much time is actually spent with a single volunteer choir practicing 3 hours a week for 8 months a year, singing at one Mass/week, and then accompanying several other Masses on Sunday? Yes, I'm sure I'd be surprised. There's photo-copying (which can be outsourced for cheaper), music searching (which can be done once) and organ practice. But barring weddings and funerals, I have to think it shouldn't take more than 20 hours/week.

And who says that a full-time job is 40 hours/week? That's a full-time union job, folks. Most full-time professionals in the States work 60 hours/week to earn a family wage, with professional development time on top of that.

So here's my proposal. If you want a full-time wage, either plan to run 5 choirs, or else plan to accompany all the Daily Masses, and Vespers and Benediction every night.

I think matters like pay and working hours are a result of individual negotiations with the hiring pastor. They really are not anyone else's business. It is an employer/employee relationship and as long as both parties are satisfied with the arrangement, I can't see how it needs anyone else's approval.

Kathy, I did mention funerals and weddings, which are variable work and typically paid separately anyway.

By my math:
3 hours for Sunday Masses (12 months)
3 hours for choir rehearsal (8 months)
14 hours for organ rehearsal and music distribution (8 months)
plus
17 hours/week for 4 months for planning, music picking and organization

Is there anyone here whose work for 3 Sunday Masses actually takes 180 minutes? Anyone who completely neglects organ "rehearsal" (I prefer "practice") for 4 months of the year?

Chrism,

Thanks for your comment and consideration.

I don't mean to nitpick or to be combative, but how do you wind up with the same amount of hours of work (960, assuming 4 weeks in a month) when you acknowledge that we spend more time at Sunday Masses and more time practicing organ? That doesn't take away from other work.

I'm saying I think 12 hours is more than sufficient for weekly practice and "music distribution".

I'm saying I think 255 hours over the summer is more than sufficient for all Summer music tasks outside of playing at Masses.

Chrism, you're being very silly. And on Labor Day.

Maybe I'm being ignorant about the average MD's workload, but I think the question of paying musicians should be based on the Church's social teaching.

I don't think it's realistic to implement a commercial view of this (i.e., buying the best music money can buy), but maybe that would be a better approach.

Where I live, salary structures in parishes are exorbitant and churches are closing as a result. The hierarchy is proposing that to solve the Church closing crisis, we hire more professional lay ministers with high salaries. It's crazy, people are unhappy, and they're refusing to donate.

I don't know that there is an average workload. But I'm pretty sure skimping on MDs' time and salary decreases energy and quality, decreases use of volunteers, and increases dependence on paid subs. You end up with less, and don't save much.

I just added a fifth choir--the second Spanish choir--so 6-7 hours is just minimal. Much more on a Holy Day. The week after the Assumption (3 Masses) was our parish bilingual festive patronal feast (1 big complex Mass with several rehearsals). Our cantors are volunteers, so it would be pretty weird to ask them to pay me for the privilege of being trained. And funerals take a lot of time, even if someone else sings and plays. I really don't think you're being realistic.

Kathy, I don't think we disagree at all. Five choirs clearly merits a full-time salary.

If you look at a typical parish with 250 families that has one choir, singing one Mass a week (+ two Masses with just organ/cantor), and treat funerals and weddings separately--because they're paid separately--then I think the DM has a part-time job and can only justify a part-time salary plus a stipend for funerals and weddings unless the DM commits to additional work.

If you have a big parish with 1,000+ families and 5 choirs and a school, you've got a full-time job that clearly deserves a full-time professional salary with benefits.

If it were not for the money, the glamor, and the groupies, I would get out of church music. ;-)

If I got $250 per funeral, I'd be on my way to retirement!

I worked at a parish with around 500 families (with about 200 active) and had about 20 hours/week worth of work, and that was mainly because they had far more Masses on a weekend than they should have considering the size of the church and the few people who attended. However, not my fault they were willing to pay someone for all that! At one time the parish had about 1200 families, and back then the job was nearly (not quite) full time for the then MD.

That's not a flaw, Doug, that's a salary negotiation point.

who is there to take phone calls, greet the poor and needy, etc.?

Um, the second part-time secretary you hire? The priest? A permanent deacon? The custodian? A volunteer?

I have to admit, this would be a novel pitch to a donor to ask him to fund a professional musician.

Exactly, DougS. As a DOM/Organist and recently retired teacher, I agree it isn't the strict job description where most of our time goes. In both jobs, I had and have to do quite a bit of hand-holding, counseling, individual tutoring, etc. Let me change a bit of that. I don't HAVE to do those things, but they are generally a sign of professionals who care about the adults and children they work with. Sounds kinda Christian, doesn't it?

Re: salary negotiation. How does that work?

Priest: "We're going to offer you a full-time position for $45,000, but if you decide you don't want to come to some all-parish functions, we'll knock it down to $43,000. If you only answer music-related e-mails, we'll knock it down to $41,000."

Musician: "What if I come to half of the all-parish functions, answer my e-mail only when I'm at the office, and never take any phone calls or make emergency trips to the church supply store?"

That's true, Gavin. I admit that maybe I'm misunderstanding the point.

It's also possible that I mistakenly believe a full-time person whose duties are more all-encompassing is, in many but not all cases, a value-add over a part-time person. Fortunately I don't make these decisions.

I agree with Adam, but my point (at least) is that using quantifiable hours worked is perhaps not the best way to distinguish the difference between FT and PT.

If your job includes managing other individuals, it should skyrocket toward FT in the minds of those doing the hiring.

The compensation relative to the direction, "Make it happen," is key here, not the # of hours worked.

I agree 100% with Gavin. Part-time pay for full-time work is wrong. There are churches out there that go it about it the wrong way.

Once needs and means have been assessed, though, what are the key items that should determine whether the position receives full-time benefits or not? Assume for the moment that ability to pay a small salary with benefits is not an issue. Maybe the real problem is that diocesan finance offices squeeze workers into hour-by-hour categories that may not be appropriate given the nature of the work?

Choir rehearsal is 2 hours a week. Add 2 hours for score preparation. That only includes motets and anthems. Add an hour to prepare any gregorian propers. For any "extras" such as soprano descants, etc add some time as well.

Playing for Sunday masses means I'm AT the church and playing or getting ready to play from 8:00 am until 12:30 each Sunday and 4:00 pm until 6:00 pm on Saturday. This time includes the actual mass, plus the half hour before meet up with the cantor to warm up and time to put things away, get out of the loft and go home. So weekend masses altogether are 6.5 hours each week.

Now add about an hour of cantor rehearsal. Add 4 - 6 hours for organ practice if you want to have preludes, postludes, and voluntaries at the preparation of the gifts.

Add an hour or a few for staff meetings, liturgy meetings, returning e-mails, phone calls, etc. This includes fielding questions and preparation issues with brides. I get paid a seperate fee to show up and PLAY for their wedding. Meeting with them and answering questions is part of my job.

Add up to two hours for preparing the weekly worship aid, which includes setting things in Finale, etc.

Right there, we are up to approx. 20 hours a week for the TANGIBLE things that we can easily quantify.

Now for the not so easily quantifiable. What about staying up to date in education? For example, dialoging with colleagues, reading pertinent journals and scholarly publications, and reading (venerable) sources such as this very forum? Yes, I consider that part of my job, to be educated and aware of the liturgical landscape around me.

What about keeping my choral directing and chant directing skilles honed?

What about the concert series and visiting choir program that I run? I have to find groups that fit our budget (almost non-existent) but who are not completely pedestrian and will bring an audience. This can involve many e-mails and phone calls coordinating with college choir directors, negotiating performance terms with the directors of professional groups, etc. Don't forget about coordinating their arrival times, making sure the space is ready for them to rehearse, taking up the free-will offering, etc.

Don't forget about all the other things that are so routine that it's easy to forget about ... changing the numbers on the hymn boards, preparing the greeting announcement each week for the cantor, preparing the choir binders and mine for the weekend masses ...

Oh - and ... our choir isn't a fully professional choir. I can't throw 8 part polyphony at them. I have to spend a CONSIDERABLE amount of time investigating music that is "credible", but also DOABLE for them - and I try to not just do random things for no reason (i.e., let's just do Palestrina's Sicut Cervus this Sunday), but things that FIT the proper texts or theme or readings of the day. So I spend HOURS looking at CPDL, looking through online catalogs, etc.

All of this could EASILY climb to 30-40 hours a week.

So what is my point? In my position I'm able to do all of this with a very fair part time (3/4 time, really) salary and work expectation.

BUT - whatever you do - do NOT ever fall into this trap that someone could "show up, play/sing/chant whatever at mass and then go home." And that all of that should be woth a $75 a week "stipend."

It's funny how there is always money in the budget for something that Father wants, isn't it? Don't buy that story. It's about priorities, not money.

It's funny how there is always money in the budget for something that Father wants, isn't it? Don't buy that story. It's about priorities, not money.

Precisely, which is why I said this not something to volunteer for. If it were important to the church, my son would be paid.

Lol. The day after Labor Day.

I don't disagree in any way with your final post, Chrism. So perhaps I chose a bad example of an "extra" duty that isn't specified in the job description, and I have been misreading all along.

For me, the fundamental issue is simple. Speaking as someone whose job isn't measured in hours and minutes (and as the spouse of a full-time DM whose job also isn't measured that way), I bristle at the notion that "man-hours counting" is in fact the best way to go about measuring work and doling out pay as a consequence.

If reasonable people can have enough trust to pay an employee $ABC to accomplish tasks X, Y, and Z up to a particular standard, then it shouldn't matter how long it takes the person to do it. When task X is "make the liturgy happen with excellence," there are many moving parts that need organization, which requires a broad set of skills, including people and musical skills, none of which are really quantifiable in "hours worked." Sometimes "making the liturgy happen with excellence" will take 60 hours, or 70. Sometimes it will take 25. In the end, if the liturgy is excellent, you are getting what you pay for because everyone has agreed on its value. Giving someone freedom to complete tasks as he or she sees fit (because of his or her unique expertise or skill set) is starting to look like a "full-time job" in my book.

When, on the other hand, task X is "play the organ on Sunday," that's a bit more limited in scope; Johnny B. Organist could drool for all we know. This is starting to look like "part-time" or "per service" work to me.

Personally, I would prefer that we get rid of meaningless phrases like "part-time" and "full-time," because using the number of hours worked as a way of quantifying work done seems like a largely meaningless form of social control that diminishes the value of the human person. In the past I have worked with many "full-time" employees who took forever to complete even the simplest of tasks; they were paid the same as the efficiency experts who could finish tasks in 20 minutes and played solitaire all day.

Maybe using phrases like "per service," "salaried," and "salaried with benefits" to describe a job would be better. Defining these along a sliding scale of tasks to be completed and people to be managed would be a good start toward eliminating confusion about whether or not getting to that 26th hour of work really makes a big difference. Beyond that, as Chrism said, defining more specifically what the tasks are is a matter of salary negotiation. In my experience, though, the task of "being there" is an unspoken agreement that "full-time" persons make; maybe they are selling themselves short.

How I wish that there were no way to retroactively DELETE posts after you have made them. You shoot off your mouth, for better or worse, stand by it.

On some forums I've been on people take screen shots and post them when someone does this.