Payment?

[Merseysider]

I think it's currently contributing to the new heating system.

[Vox Americana]

Jeez, with $940 or so on candles per week, why do you need a new heating system? Is Britain that cold?

[musicus]

NB: I have moved two posts from this point to a new topic - Bankrupt US diocese

Musicus

[sidvicius]

Merseysider said

My bone of contention is simple: why are parishes willing to pay for organists (only way to get them) but not for MD's.

Is an organist worth so much more than the person who plans, arranges, composes, rehearses and, at the end of the day, brings the whole thing together?

Suppose I'm feeling a bit sore because working in the liturgy is effectively costing me so much money that I can't afford to live. While my organist is gaining an extra £200-£240 a month.

It sounds like sometimes parishes just plumb for the obvious option. "Oh dear, no music since Fred left." Solution: buy a new Organist. Hardly the most 'pastoral' option is it? Yet community-driven alternatives such as teaching someone to play it, are not explored. Schools are often connected to churches. Many schools teach kids to play piano - how about adding an extra string to their bow?

Musically there is little sadder than an unplayed organ gathering dust. I knew a wonderful instrument once, with a bell-like tone, and well-matched to the space it had to work in (unlike many). But it got an airing maybe once a year because no players were in the parish and the funds wouldn't stretch to paying someone.

I sure wish I played the organ - seems like there's good money to be made there! But Pirate is a paid 'musical director', so they do exist.

I have to sympathise with Merseysider because doing all that arranging etc must be hard especially if you haven't been officially trained in the art. The job of Organist outwardly appears simple, once you've learned to play the thing. Turn up, play hymns, get paid, go home. No lugging guitars, trombones or drums around like God's buskers. You can even hit a few bum notes apparently, and pay is not affected.

Getting paid, and going to church, and doing what you love to do (play the organ) - is that like having your cake and eating it and having 'seconds'?!
(Apologies if this is a bit off thread, and big respec' to all the good organists out there - sid')

[pirate]

Yes, I get paid - not much, but it is the difference between being solvent and overdrawn at the end of the month. My other job also involves working for the church and is extremely badly paid for the responsibilities it involves - compared with what other people doing what I do down the road at the university it comes in at around thirty percent less, and the terms and conditions are not friendly. I stick it because the good bits are good and the bad bits pass. But I have to ask--why is the Church such a bad employer generally?

pirate *on first proper holiday since about 1996 - and even now I am staying in a student hostel!

[Hare]

Just back from holiday. I am paid for 3 masses and choir practice each week, no pay review since 1997, and I find that in my absence my deputy organists have been paid pro-rata more than I get, PLUS they have been given diocesan mileage allowance!! (I walk to church, so don't even qualify for that!)

[Merseysider]

Yes, but you're paid. Because the church works prevents me working a five day week, I actually pay to do it!

[Hare]

I wasn't in any way arguing with you're situation (fellow) Merseysider - just making an observation about mine. I am self employed, and could not undertake all my church duties if I worked a full 5-day week either.

[Merseysider]

Apologies – didn't mean to niggle.
Looks like we're in a rather similar situation.
Fellow Merseysder?

[Hare]

At least I can spell it!!!!! (sorry!)

[Hare]

Totally off-topic but in reply to Merseysider's query, was born at Sefton General, but moved away (with parents) at age 5. Still have relatives on the Wirral though.

PS - Anyone know what became of "Andrew" who posted in the forum for a short and never-to-be-forgotten while?

[admin]

Andrew: Yes, I do, thanks!

[sidvicius]

pirate said

But I have to ask--why is the Church such a bad employer generally?

Interesting point that. Is it something to do with the fact that most church money is basically our donations thrown into a common pot, like a savings account, rather than the money made by companies, which is usually received for goods or services rendered?

Whatever it is, there never seems to be enough for people to be able to work, or indeed get paid properly, at least on a local scale, by the church.

But is that what it's all about? Should the church 'employ' people in that way? Would that be 'OK'?

Any church finance experts out there in SSG world???

[contrabordun]

Interesting point that. Is it something to do with the fact that most church money is basically our donations thrown into a common pot

It isn't just about money. Being a good employer encompasses much more than having enough cash to remunerate staff at some 'market rate'. HR studies always show that people are motivated much more by respect (both for the individual as an individual and for their professional skill), praise and thanks for their contribution and the opportunity to further develop their skills.

So the interesting question is, since all of the above cost nothing* and aren't exactly out of line with Church teaching on human dignity, why (to coin a phrase) is the church such a bad employer generally?


Are people simply unaware of the effort involved, both in preparing a music programme and in acquiring the skills necessary to deliver it?
Are people just too self-absorbed to look beyond they need from their employees at what their employees might need of their employer?
My pet theory is that people are scared that acknowledging the value added by musicians will lead to inconvenient extra pressure on funds, and ignore the problem in the hope it will go away, thus getting doubly dissatisfied musicians.

________________________________________
*other than perhaps a little help towards SSG Summer School costs

[sidvicius]

I sort of agree cb, but I'm still slightly hung up on the fact that the church isn't like a business exactly. It's more a sort of loose co-operative of friends and colleagues - a community! Within that community need co-operation - and fairness, and equality, so if someone starts getting paid for doing music, someone else might be justified in saying "well I spend ages planning and preparing the flowers", and ditto for a dozen other ministries. If we're all prepared to cough up the readies, on a local scale, all well and good, but - why should I pay when "they never play the stuff wot I like to sing"?

Rather clumsily stated, but I hope you see my point. I guess everyone would like to be paid to do what they like to do - er, but that isn't really why we form a church community, is it?