The state of freelancing
The state of freelancing
Georgie Martin
Originally published in Bound Vol. 3
Like most creative industries, the publishing industry is becoming increasingly reliant on freelance labour, particularly for the editing process. It’s a smart move: outsourcing editing to freelancers helps publishing houses cut staff overhead costs and frees up in-house staff to focus on project management. According to freelance writer, editor and publisher Sam Cooney, ‘Freelancing is more common now than ever in the publishing world... structural editing, copy/line editing, proofreading—most of the time this is all freelanced out, with just a publisher and a managing/desk editor working inside the publishing house’ (pers. conv., 18 August 2020). The research backs this sentiment up: The Institute of Professional Editors’ (IPEd) 2016 survey found that 76% of respondents—most of whom were members, but not all—were freelancers, up from 56% only two years prior (Wikramanayake 2019).
On the whole, publishing is a notoriously low-paying industry. According to a survey completed by Books+Publishing in 2018, the average Australian editor’s salary had increased by only 8% since 2013, in spite of 10.2% inflation (Farquharson & Oldham 2018). Freelance editor Anna Thwaites believes that editors’ declining rates point to a larger issue—a devaluation of editorial work by society at large: ‘A spelling error is embarrassing, but most people don’t mind if grammar is a bit off or any number of the thousands of rules, conventions and consistencies that editors look out for are broken or missed’ (pers. conv., 28 April). Further, Thwaites suggests that the publishing industry has shifted more toward ‘conning’ readers into buying books based on covers and marketing: ‘The idea that editing could be the key to making a book a bestseller seems increasingly forgotten.’
Crucially, that same Books+Publishing survey also found that the Australian publishing industry is at present overwhelmingly female (Farquharson & Oldham 2018). Given that women live on average five years longer than men but retire with 47% less superannuation—and receive just a third of the government tax concessions on superannuation—fair pay and adequate employment benefits are key issues that need to be addressed in the publishing realm (‘IPEd conference 2019: pay rates, copyright discussed’). Even more worrying, female survey respondents reported earning between 81% and 89% of their male counterparts’ average salary in management, editorial, sales and marketing, and publicity departments (Farquharson & Oldham, 2018). Publisher Jane Curry suggests that editing has become gendered, and that because it’s now seen as ‘women’s work’, much like nursing and teaching, it’s undervalued (2019). ‘Editors may “lean in” in terms of commitment and skill but they certainly don’t get valued for those attributes on payday,’ Curry writes (2019, para. 9).
So it’s not only freelancers but almost all editors—and more broadly, most of publishing—that are not being fairly compensated for their work. Freelancing compounds the issue—because while it can offer workers freedom and flexibility in terms of working hours and lifestyle, it can also leave them vulnerable to being taken advantage of by publishing houses and other clients. At the heart of the issue is what Pierre Bourdieu calls ‘flexploitation’: ‘a mode of domination... based on the creation of a generalised and permanent state of insecurity aimed at forcing workers into submission, into the acceptance of exploitation’ (cited by Morgan, Wood & Nelligan 2013, p. 403). In other words, freelancers are more inclined than in-house staff to accept poor working conditions because they’re unsure when their next job—and therefore their next pay-check—will come in. Thwaites says, ‘There’s always a dim background worry that the work may dry up or drop off and I may not have enough next month or in a few months to cover rent and bills and food’ (pers. conv., 28 April). Additionally, many turn to freelancing because of parenting commitments and to manage mental and/or physical illness—any of which would further complicate a lifestyle based on unstable or uncertain income, and make it even harder to turn down low-paying gigs or risk losing them over contract negotiations (Lambert 2019).
Due to the competitive nature of their work, freelancers worry that if they set their rates too high, they won’t be given work. Thwaites says that while she’s getting better at pushing for higher rates where possible, ‘I still always have a limit in mind past which I assume I would be passed over for the job in favour of someone cheaper, or perhaps would be avoided for the next job that might have otherwise come my way’ (pers. conv., 28 April). Freelance editor and manuscript assessor Kate O’Donnell adds: ‘The main issue for fiction editors is that our skills are completely tied to the publishing industry – no one else needs us. Thus, while they have to pay sales and marketing staff and freelance designers properly, they have editors over a barrel’ (cited by Wikramanayake 2019, p. 11). In line with these statements, the IPEd survey indicated that in the 2015-16 tax year, 43% of freelance editors earned less than $20,000, and 72% earned less than $50,000 (Wikramanayake 2019). It also showed that freelance editors were feeling the scarcity of work: 44% said they wanted more work, and 51% said they wanted a broader client base.
A related issue is freelancers’ lack of superannuation contributions. While employers are legally obliged to make superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees, because freelance workers are generally considered ‘independent contractors’, they’re excluded from these laws (Boccabella & Kaine 2017). Though Media Super advises freelancers to make regular voluntary contributions to their superannuation fund—and points out that they could be eligible for tax deductions for such contributions—most freelancers are more worried about securing the next job than saving for retirement (Wikramanayake 2019). In writer Marisa Wikramanayake’s words, ‘Even if freelance editors make enough income to meet their needs, there is often little left over for super... they have to prioritise where their money goes’ (2019, p. 11). Some are looking for ways that freelancers can be considered ‘dependent contractors’ for the sake of receiving superannuation contributions from their clients, but these changes, should they occur, are still a way off (Boccabella & Kaine 2017).
Unfortunately, it seems that there’s little power freelance editors have on an individual level to change their working conditions
Lastly, freelance editors have to navigate scope creep. One anonymous freelancer who spoke to Wikramanayake said that after accepting an already low-rate for a copyediting job, it turned out to be an ‘extremely heavy edit with lots of structural problems’ (2019, p. 11). In their view, ‘The publishing house doesn’t care how long it takes me, or how low my rate ends up being. They were quite happy to misrepresent the work involved.’ Many freelancers worry that if they point out the additional workload and ask to be compensated accordingly, they’ll lose work later down the track. Barbara Pocock’s research with the University of South Australia’s Centre for Work + Life has consistently found that the full-time self-employed work nearly eight hours more in the average working week than full-time employees, and their work-life outcomes are markedly worse, in spite of freelancing’s ‘flexibility’ drawcard (2012).
Unfortunately, it seems that there’s little power freelance editors have on an individual level to change their working conditions—besides creating boundaries for themselves and their clients, and trying their best to stick to them. Editor Ian See says that he and many other editors try to only work to the budget they’re given: they’ll consider the total sum they’re being paid and calculate how many hours or what extent of work they’re willing to do based on that sum, and in theory, they’ll not work a minute overtime (2021). But as well as this works in theory, it’s not always practicable. Presented with this approach, Thwaites says, ‘I think most editors struggle to keep to the budget—in my experience they will almost always give more than they’re being paid for and the whole publishing industry sort of depends on that’ (pers. conv., 28 April). Thwaites goes on to say that as with all questions around the conditions in publishing, the trouble is that the workers care about and enjoy the work—so ‘you suffer to watch the work done badly more than you suffer to be poor and insecure.’ Bridget Caldwell-Bright, another freelancer, takes a different approach: she says that if the scope of a job starts to creep, she’ll happily accept the extra work but insist that she be compensated accordingly for the additional hours and effort that she’ll have to put in (pers. conv., 27 April).
Thwaites says that she tries to ‘defend myself quite haughtily in terms of timeframes and fees... I never answer emails outside of hours, and I refuse to allow publishers to incorporate weekend time into their schedules for me’ (pers. conv., 28 April). She says she hopes that these little resistances might make clients think twice before trying to cross those same lines with other freelancers, ‘... but who knows.’
There have been some moves from in-house staff to improve their own rates of pay and to draw attention to pay inequality across gender and racial lines. One example that sent ripples through the Australian publishing industry last year was the creation of an anonymous ‘Australian Publishing Wages’ spreadsheet, inviting publishing staff to share their job title, company (name or description), wage, gender identity, ethnicity, location and years of experience. Sarah Hollingsworth, the creator of the spreadsheet, says that her aim was to help publishing staff work out what they could expect to be paid for a role and to negotiate a raise if they weren’t getting paid as much as somebody else in a comparable position (2020b). And the spreadsheet highlights Hollingsworth’s cause for concern: as an example, three development editors with two years’ experience each, all working at University Press, submitted their information to the spreadsheet (2020a). One woman was being paid $53,000, another $60,000, and a man in the same job was getting $63,750 pro rata. ‘For decades, the publishing industry has used the secrecy and avoidance of salary disclosure to their advantage,’ Hollingsworth says (Books+Publishing, 25 June 2020). ‘The lack of communication and transparency around pay has created a system in which low and unequal rates are the norm.’ Hollingsworth goes on to say that she hopes her spreadsheet will be part of a greater shift towards transparency in publishing wages, and ultimately, ‘a fairer, more equitable and diverse industry.’ Perhaps the freelancing side of the industry would benefit from something similar: a spreadsheet where individuals could share their rates, how those rates are calculated, how much super they pay and how regularly, and any clauses they include in their contract to avoid exploitation or poor treatment by clients. Like with the Australian Publishing Wages spreadsheet, they could include their age, ethnicity, years of experience and the highest level of education they’ve completed. Another direction this spreadsheet could take would be to ask freelancers to share some of their clients’ company names and warn others against clients who’ve underpaid, paid late or been otherwise inconsiderate of freelancer working conditions—anonymously, of course.
There are some organised bodies trying to do some of this work: the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) for one. Wikramanayake explains that though freelancers face many of the same workplace issues as in-house staff, they’re unable to negotiate with Fair Work for improvements because they can’t unionise the same way that employees can (2019). In response to this problem, the MEAA has formed a National Freelance Committee to advocate for freelancers’ rights. The committee supports the Australian Trade Council of Unions’ Change the Rules campaign, which is pushing for fair pay and job security across the workforce, and they themselves have been working on their own Fair Rights for Freelancers campaign aimed at issues affecting all freelancers, including editors. Beyond that, it’s hard to say exactly what the MEAA is doing or able to do for freelance editors. Plus, many find it difficult to join the MEAA in the first place, as their membership fees are significantly higher than those of other unions: the average full-time worker in Australia earning $80,000 pays on average $10 a week, whereas editors earning $40,000 to $60,000 pay close to $15 a week or $800 a year (Wikramanayake 2019).
IPEd is another body making moves to improve the working conditions of freelance editors. Their approach is to establish recommended rates of pay by reviewing freelancers’ and editorial staff’s current wages, and consulting with other industry bodies. Eventually, they plan to launch a national campaign to promote the adoption of those pay scales by publishers, government, businesses and other clients. They also aim to boost individual editors’ rates by encouraging them to complete IPEd’s accreditation exam, after passing which editors are granted the post-nominal AE, for Accredited Editor. According to Wikramanayake, in the decade since the accreditation exam was introduced, IPEd have seen evidence of employers increasingly requesting or even requiring their accreditation when advertising editorial roles—especially in government fields (2019). Their idea is that accreditation gives prospective employers and clients the security of knowing an editor is competent, and as such, accredited editors should be able to charge a higher fee than those who aren’t.
But again, there are faults in this plan. Firstly, the cost of accreditation is high, and not necessarily realistic for freelancers who are already likely being underpaid and overworked. There are also issues with the idea of introducing minimum rates to freelance editorial work at all. In some editors’ eyes, top-level editors charge higher fees for good reason, with or without accreditation behind them (Wikramanayake, 2019). Heather Millar worries, ‘If IPEd is putting it out there that this is a “standard” rate, clients may well complain about any higher fees being set’ (cited by Wikramanayake 2019, p. 12). Another concern is that clients will find a way around the minimum rates—for example, by increasing the workload of in-house staff; using emerging editors who are willing to undercut minimum rates for the sake of gaining experience; automating editorial work, or even settling for a lower standard of quality and less editorial intervention. These scenarios hark back to the concerns Thwaites raised earlier about the devaluing of editing in general—will clients be willing to cough up, or will they simply cut editors out?
Currently, that’s where the work to improve freelance editors’ working conditions ends. Thwaites hopes she’s wrong but worries, ‘I think it will probably be quite difficult to swiftly and effectively lift conditions for freelancers as they are largely lone wolves, a little bit pitted against each other’ (pers. conv., 28 April). Banding together seems to be the solution. Thwaites also says: ‘It’s much easier to take a stand if you’re doing it as a group rather than alone, not knowing what consequences it will have for your reputation or future work, or whether it was worth watching a piece of writing go out in its crappiest form.’ Others agree—though banding together looks different for different people. Another freelance writer and editor, Elizabeth Flux, stresses that emerging editors should form a network of other editors around them, not only so that they can take action together as needed, but so that they can share their rates and check in with one another—have a frame of reference through which they can see whether they’re being underpaid or exploited (2021).
O’Donnell highlights the importance of not only freelancers joining forces, but in-house editors and managing editors as well: ‘If in-house staff refuse to overwork, or campaign for their own pay rises and better budgets for the books they’re project managing, then there’s a point in freelancers standing together and asking for better rates’ (cited by Wikramanayake 2019, p. 12). Another way that in-house editors can support freelancers is by paring back the scope of their work so that it doesn’t exceed a reasonable workload for the rate they’re being paid, though this is a tricky balance to strike—the risk being that in-house editors, underpaid themselves, wind up absorbing the excess labour. Freelancers can support in-house editors in turn by not accepting low rates. Ultimately, however, responsibility still falls on the shoulders of publishing houses, who have the power to raise editorial budgets and subsequently, editors’ rates of pay.
The hope is that these various measures to increase freelancers’ rates will simultaneously pull the other problems with freelancers’ working conditions into line. In theory, freelancers will need to worry less about when their next job is coming, because they’ll have savings for the periods of scarcity; therefore, they’ll also feel more comfortable setting some money aside for their retirement fund. Further, freelance editors hope that increased wages could cause clients (and publishing houses in particular) to reassess the value of editing to their work. This necessary cultural shift is key to improving wages and working conditions for editors on the whole: if publishing houses can relearn the value of good editing to building a bestseller, they’ll be willing to increase their editorial budgets—possibly at the expense of marketing, where Thwaites suggests editorial money now goes—and in doing so, pay their editorial staff more. If in-house staff are higher paid and considered of higher value to their company, they’ll feel more able to rally for the rights of the freelancers they contract. Perhaps most importantly, editors working both in-house and independently can expect improvements to the way that publishing houses and other clients interact with them, and what’s expected of them.
Freelance editing work exists at a dangerous nexus between precarious work with poor conditions and a profession that is already at best undervalued as ‘women’s work’ and at worst forgone altogether. While some moves are being made by organisations like MEAA and IPEd to address inadequacies in freelancers’ (and specifically freelance editors’) working conditions, it seems that the initiatives that freelance editors engage the most with—and feel the most empowered by—are those that start from the ground up—including knowledge sharing, networking and solidarity. With this in mind, freelance editors themselves hold remarkable power: to band together, shift perspectives on the value of their work, and hopefully, take back some of the power from their clients.
Reference list
Boccabella, D & Kaine, S 2017, How gig economy workers will be left short of super, The Conversation, 19 October, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://theconversation.com/how-gig-economy-workers-will-be-left-short-of-super-85814>.
Curry, J 2019, Hidden in plain sight: Jane Curry on the role of the editor, Books+Publishing, 17 July 2019, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2019/07/17/133356/jane-curry-hidden-in-plain-sight/>.
Farquharson, S & Oldham, K 2018, For love or money: employment in the Australian publishing industry in 2018, Books+Publishing, 21 November, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2018/11/21/118475/for-love-or-money-analysing-the-employment-survey/>.
Flux, E 2021, ‘Week 8: Portfolio Careers Roundtable’, lectorial, COMM2713, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Hollingsworth, S 2020a, Australian Publishing Wages, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7wJXdvz8larHA8gRwrEuOYAF7YqVpA9Li7fsW_HsHo/edit#gid=1417976645>.
Hollingsworth, S 2020b, Sarah Hollingsworth on the anonymous publishing wages spreadsheet, Bound, vol. 2, pp. 122-125.
IPEd conference 2019: pay rates, copyright discussed, Books+Publishing, 22 May, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2019/05/22/133552/iped-conference-2019-pay-rates-copyright-discussed/>.
Lambert, R 2019, The State of Australian Freelancing: A summation of Australian freelancers and their work habits, Freelance Jungle, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://freelancejungle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FJ-Survey-2019-FINAL.pdf>.
Morgan, G, Wood, J & Nelligan, P 2013, Beyond the vocational fragments: Creative work, precarious labour and the idea of ‘flexploitation’, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 397-415.
Pocock, B 2012, The imperfect freedoms of the freelancer in the changing world of work, The Conversation, 24 July, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://theconversation.com/the-imperfect-freedoms-of-the-freelancer-in-the-changing-world-of-work-8312>.
See, I 2021, ‘Week 6: Editors Roundtable’, lectorial, COMM2713, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Wikramanayake, M 2019, The freelance life, Books+Publishing, 30 May, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2019/05/30/133358/the-freelance-life/>.