Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:
Looking for writers with a background in digital news reporting to write for us on a freelance basis. We would need 40 hours per week and the hours would be 9-to-5.
See anything wrong with that?
You should. And your obvious follow-up question to the job poster would be this (and our own Paula Hendrickson, who alerted me to this, posed the same question):
Sorry, I thought you were looking for freelancers, not full-time employees. Am I mistaken?
And the job poster would respond (and did):
It is freelance, but full-time freelance.
Honey.
Listen.
There is no way on any earth or other planet where “freelance” is ever translated as “full-time freelance.”
In fact, when someone is trying to sell you on a full-time freelance job, they’re telling you plenty about who they are.
Cheap asses. That’s who they are.
[bctt tweet=””#Freelance” does not translate to “free to exploit.”” username=”LoriWidmer”]
This is a household-name magazine (the link to the post is right here). Maybe that’s why there were quite a few people arguing that hey, it’s job stability to have a full-time freelance gig. Then sweetie, get a real damn job. Because this “freelancing” you’re doing? It’s robbing you of a few things:
- The ability to work for other clients. When are you going to do that? In your sleep?
- Benefits. You aren’t getting benefits because you’re not an employee even though you have to work employee hours.
- Freedom. 9-to-5, M to F means just that. All damn week. Making chump change for people who are starting out the relationship by dictating your hours. Yep, that’s so smart of you to get job security that way, right? Who needs those benefits anyway?
- Your freelance status. Just because you think and they think that you’re freelance doesn’t make it so in the eyes of the IRS. If you are required to be somewhere and are not free to determine your hours or your rate, you’re a freaking employee.
- Money. You think they’re ever going to pay you what you’re worth? You think they’ll let you charge them $1/word? Try it. You’ll be passed over so fast because it’s not about your talent. It’s about your output. You could crank out 30 articles a week and you’re still going to get their set rate, which I suspect is around $20 an hour or, god forbid, $20 an article.
The poster goes on to say they need a lot of content per week. Okay, so a content mill. Never mind that this one has a household name attached to it — it’s still a content mill. I guess you can be grateful (?) that they don’t require you to punch in and out. Or do they?
And the pay — oh, they’re dictating that, too. So tell me — how is this freelance? Because you get to work from home in your slippers? So are slews of remote employees.
If you accept employee-like conditions from a “client” you are not a freelancer even if the ad says so or you think so or you get to work in your skivvies. It is unlawful for any company to set your hours, require your attendance, and not pay you benefits. Frankly, if they expected that of me, I’d be suing for a 401(k) and healthcare.
So should you.
Better yet, forget anyone who would massage the truth to benefit their needs and save a friggin’ buck. Do your own marketing. Find better clients. Work for people who appreciate your skills and are willing to pay your price for it.
Writers, what is appealing about this gig? If you’d seen this one prior to this post, would you have been tempted? Why? Be honest — no judgment here.
What else can a writer do besides take a job like this?
10 responses to “When is a Freelancer Not a Freelancer?”
I still can’t believe the number of so-called freelancers who were tripping over themselves to be exploited as full-time workers with zero benefits. It’s described as a W2 job, not 1099 work. To me, that’s a problem. It’s probably a red flag for the IRS, too.
I can only assume the woman who posted it doesn’t know, understand, or care about the differences between employees and freelancers. But she dug herself in deeper when she answered me (or you?) by saying it’s “hourly” and applicants are made aware of that. That’s totally irrelevant since millions of part- and full-time W2 positions are also hourly. Maybe she thinks only people with non-hourly salaries are full-time?
Then she’s crazy, Paula. Thank you for alerting me to this post.
It astounds me how many “freelancers” are willing to lock themselves into a full-time job that has stripped away the obvious perks of full-time work. If you really want stability and steady work, then a regular job may be what you’re after. But this? It’s not freelance except that they’re calling it that in order to underpay you (don’t even have to pay minimum wage to a freelancer) and save their money.
If you’re really committed to being freelance, this isn’t your gig. Instead, work at marketing harder, and be patient. We’ve all started in the same place. If I can, you can. Believe me, it’s not hard.
There’s nothing of benefit here for the freelancer. I can’t even find a silver lining to make this gig appealing.
Not a single one, you are so right.
There is NOTHING appealing about the job post. It’s exploiting people who are worried about finding work, demanding them to be unbenefitted employees. It’s disgusting.
Exactly my reaction, Devon. Those of us who are veteran professionals know a snow job when we see one.
People see “People” and think it’s the same as the magazine. I’m sure the people who are interested in it think this full-time job-masquerading-as-a-freelance-opportunity will put them on the par with People’s print writers. It won’t. It sounds exactly like the Forbes/Forbes.com model.
the print editors want well-researched articles with compelling interviews, while the websites want quickly churned out click bait that quotes social media posts (with links to said posts) or press releases. It’s a watering down of once-powerful brands.
It’s also why I make clear to publicists that articles for Emmy Online Originals are of the same high quality the award-winning print issue is known for. The only differences when I write for the website are that articles can run a little longer since there aren’t the same space requirements, and articles can be timed to premiere dates that fall between print issues.
A listing just landed in my inbox of a job that claims to be freelance for 20 hours a week, but you “have” to be available 37.5 hours. Um? So I’m supposed to sit around and not take other work as though I’m an employee, but not only am I unbenefitted, I’m only paid for 20 hours? Nope.
See, a freelancer doesn’t “have” to be anywhere. I’m sure if I sent back their contract with the terms reflecting them compensating me for those hours they require me to be there, they won’t mind at all. 😉
No. Damn. Way.
[…] I was reading through some old social media posts recently and came across discussion of a job posting that just plain sucked. In fact, I blogged about it not long ago right here. […]