Income inequality is a topic that often begets irony, albeit unintentionally. A recent example comes from a job advertisement for The New Republic, which touts itself as "[l]ong a champion of equality in all its guises."
The left-leaning publication wants a deputy editor to head an inequality section on the website. Given the nature of society, it would seem a reasonable focus for some to have. (Heaven knows it keeps me busy enough here.)
The proper candidate would have to be "well-sourced in this beat" and know "how to cover the pieces that no one else is," with a particular focus on the topic for 2020 elections coverage. The chosen person will edit multiple pieces a week, generate ideas for the print magazine, and "edit a print feature when the occasion warrants." The winner also will oversee columnists and a staff writer, plus design "potential partnership opportunities" while finding ways to "use a small budget to grow this beat into something spectacular."
Now for the irony:
- It's a job that runs an expected 29.5 hours a week. That's just under the 30 hours that would make it technically full-time under various federal and state laws.
- Although the person could be remote, the company prefers someone in D.C. or New York who could work in their offices. In other words, they want an employee who's there to be managed and monitored.
- No benefits. Candidates would be on their own and either need additional work to afford benefits (because neither city is inexpensive), possess a trust fund, or expect government assistance.
It seems potentially like a more-than-full-time position being crammed into official part-time status.
I have reached out to The New Republic through its PR representative for an interview or comment, but so far have heard nothing.
Over many years I've found that the most vocal advocates for those in difficult situations sometimes are effectively indifferent when it comes to their own operations or interests. There are historical examples of upstanding people who belong to private clubs that restricted (read "white") membership, limitations on admissions to certain groups at exalted institutions of higher education, "progressive" organizations that lag in equal hiring, segregated housing, and so on.
Maybe some of the examples are unintentional mistakes. Perhaps, in this case, The New Republic wants work done with authority. What better authenticity could you have than an editor watching over this important new segment who simultaneously experiences inadequate hours and no benefits, which would offer better insight into the plight of income inequality?
In the meantime, maybe it is valuable to remember this quote from a November 13, 2018 New Republic article, The Backlash to the GOP’s Union-Bashing Has Begun in Earnest, which was about how Republicans in the Midwest faced a voter backlash over its attack on unions:
Many voters living under Republican leadership are reacting to stagnant wages and the rise of underemployment. (Despite working fewer hours than they would prefer, underemployed workers get counted as “employed” in official statistics.) In 2011, when Amy Mizialko, president of the Milwaukee teacher’s union, first checked her pay stub online after Act 10 passed, she broke into tears. “Those cuts were devastating,” said Mizialko, who took a $10,000 cut in wages and benefits in the first year alone. Since the passage of Act 10, membership in Wisconsin’s largest teacher’s union plummeted from 98,000 to 32,000. Once the progressive heart of the labor movement in the United States, Wisconsin saw its union membership drop 46 percent between 2011 and 2017.
Did I mention that the ad specified this as a "non-Guild" job? That means the eventual employee will not be eligible for representation by the union that represents New Republic employees, the NewsGuild-CWA, part of the Communications Workers of America.
But it's all different in this case. Of course.
[Update: 6/24/2019, 5:15 p.m.: New Republic editor Chris Lehman just tweeted: "From my unsecure location on vacation, I’m delighted to report that the TNR job listing that social media made infamous today NOW INCLUDES BENEFITS, as all permanent PT jobs at the magazine will going forward."
An improvement. However, it's still a full-time responsibility stuffed into a part-time position, and it doesn't sound as though it's become eligible for union representation like the full-time positions. Better, but not good enough to keep a demanding job from leaving someone in a difficult position of trying to support themselves without help.]
