Recently, after having been laid off around a year ago from my last job as a magazine copy editor for a major firm in the industry, I got a call from a major "niche" magazine that now has a job opening for a copy editor. The magazine's offices are some 70 miles from where I live, about a one-hour-and-15-minute drive.
Just after the magazine's editor asked me if I was interested in first driving to its office for a half-hour copy-editing test, he asked me what my salary expectations were. I told him that it would be difficult at best to state any range without knowing more about the job and what it entailed and without his knowing more about what I could do and had to offer. He nonetheless pressed me to give a figure, stating that he did not want to waste my time or his if my range was outside the magazine's. He asked me, apparently as an alternative, what I made in my last job. My last job paid in the high 30s at base and, with annual bonuses, was just over $40K, but I know that living costs in the job's geographic area and/or higher transportation costs would entail a salary at least in the mid- to high 40s just to stay even in the new area. So that was the range I gave him, noting that it was a preliminary; "all else equal" figure and that I was seeking to veer toward the higher end of that range. This prospective employer offers no relocation assistance.
After the editing test, it seems that the people there (contrary to what I expected) are still interested in me, calling me in for another encounter (I use that word very deliberately), but I remain deeply concerned over possible pay levels, commuting (almost 70 miles each way) costs, and/or possible moving/living costs (I very much want to stay living where I am!).
Based on what the magazine's editor told me via telephone last week, it seems that the editorial staff there is put through a scheduling wringer toward the end of each eight-week production cycle, and the owner, happy with his magazine simply coming out on time, doesn't seem to care how that happens. He seems quite willing to put up with freelancers whose technical expertise seems to override the fact that many don't follow proper magazine style (requiring extensive last-minute rewriting and editing) or heed magazine deadlines. The editor, a 30-year veteran who's previously worked for at least three other niche magazines. seems quite resigned to this, almost beaten down, unwilling and/or unable to do anything about it. (I even asked him if any thought had ever been given to sending regular freelancers a copy of the magazine's style guide--and he said that that had never been done, implying he doubted it ever would or could be.)
He noted to me that the senior editors regularly put in a lot of overtime and that the copy editor would basically be expected to put in about five hours extra or so each week during crunches, too.
All this might well be at least part of the reason why three people, all under 40 and at least two relatively new to the field, have held the copy editor's job there (the one for which I applied) over the last five years or so. Not good.
None of them wanted to discuss with me any details about the job or why they each left. Not good again.
I told the editor that while extra hours during crunches often came with our field, it was important to do all we could to make sure that they were the exception, not some standard rule. While crunches can never be completely prevented, I added, I believed we needed to do all we could to minimize and mitigate them proactively. I said that if I got the job, I would want to work with him and others toward doing this. I hope he realizes that I'm not merely spouting rhetoric here (or anywhere else),
Disposable, low-cost doormats, not a real, committed, long-term copy editor, I fear, might be what those in charge there really want. I do not want or plan to be this place's possible fourth victim, but I want to hear the editor's and managing editor's sides of the story as well--and make it clearly if diplomatically known where I'm coming from. Quality and commitment have their price--and merit at least some respect.
I do want to ask the editor and managing editor at least why the previous copy editor left, mention my own commitment to longevity and stability and the importance to me of a good "long-haul" fit, and see how they react.
If they bristle at such signs of assertiveness and intelligence, even at more probing, if they decide to pursue candidates a bit more gullible, willing to work for less, and/or more amenable to abuse, I'll have dodged the "bullet" I fear this could be. If I did take the job, I would not want to consider moving unless this job proved truly viable--but I fear that its very location would make it quite hard at best for me to seek a "real" job in my current (and lifelong) geographic area.
If a job involved a minor pay cut but was in my current geographic area, that's one thing. I've taken such jobs twice before and recouped the loss in each case in two or so years. But I fear that this might be an entirely different matter. For this job to be a sustainable possibility for me, it would also have to be relatively stable and pay reasonably well--it would be silly and economically suicidal to move, especially at my own expense, for a job that ultimately does not prove stable and offer decent pay and benefits, especially if one must deal with higher transportation, housing, food, and other basic living costs.
This matter is far from settled, and there's a lot that's unsettling that needs resolution.
All else equal, I'm not quite ready to write this one off as "a bridge too far" (financially as well as geographically), but I do want to make sure that this really is a viable possibility for me. It might well not be. I fear that this job might be what some call a "meat grinder," a "revolving door," or even a "suicide slot." I hope that's not so here. But if it is, I am fully prepared to walk away.
What think you of all this? What would you suggest I do (and not do)?
|