Something's Gotta Give

The Time-Cost-Scope paradigm is simple and goes something like this:

In considering any kind of output (e.g., goods and services), there is an ideal equilibrium or balance among the inputs T, C, and S that results in the most efficient and effective way to achieve the desired output. If you alter any one of the three inputs, this changes the "weight" of the other two and creates an imbalance or disequilibrium.


For example, let's say it takes me one hour to do an in-depth edit of five pages of material for which I charge $35. If I rush through the material and complete my edit in a half hour, the quality suffers.

And this is exactly what happened with my online editing, freelance job. The rate of pay is $3.50 per article. So the only way I could make a reasonable per-hour wage was to race through articles, thus impacting the quality. This approach quickly becomes apparent to the copy chiefs, who scrupulously review and critique the work of the copy editors.

We occasionally need to consider how much our time is worth. It's hard to argue with the position that $7 an hour is better than zero. But is that hourly wage something that a self-respecting professional would accept?

As a friend and fellow editor put it, "Those folks are running a sweat shop!" I concurred, thanked my team leader for the opportunity, and told her that I was giving up the position.

"Simply edited"

I received my annual performance bonus: $250, net was $153. My bonus was the same as the proposal center manager’s AA, the latter told me.

I sent an email to our division’s senior VP, inquiring as to why my bonus wasn’t larger in light of the much-touted (obviously bogus) “benefit” of bonuses for each winning proposal.

The following is part of her response:

“Participation in the sales commission pools is based on . . . your contribution to winning the contract. So, for example, if you are an editor and you simply edited [my emphasis] the proposal (did your job), then that would not normally merit participation in the pool. However, if you went above and beyond (identified critical problems in the proposal that did not meet stated evaluation criteria, found compliance issues that if missed might have made us non-compliant, provided unique suggestions around content, etc.), then the team would use our process to propose/request adding you to the pool.”

That’s reasonable, all things being equal. But they’re not. I don't see proposals until they reach the “Gold Team” step, i.e, the contributions she mentions that would merit a bonus are completed in the multiple reviews that take place before Gold Team.

This is just another manifestation of the gross undervaluation of editing.