Staff Pay and Workload in Radical Social Change Organizations

There is an interesting conflict in progressive non-profits which is heightened in the more radical organizations which have the least money.

The conflict is between wanting to treat their workers well, and wanting to get as much work done as possible for the greater good of society.

I'm fine arguing that well-funded moderate non-profits and for-profit corporations should be paying very high wages, but it's harder when then money comes out of organizations that are doing good work.

Should staff members in radical social change organizations be paid just enough to survive, a "living wage", or somewhere in between?

A Living Wage
A living wage is a concept whose definition is contested. Perhaps the biggest issue is how many people are supported on the wage. It's a lot harder to support one to three children (and potentially an adult partner), than to be single. Ultimately pay should be tied to need, but that's very hard to do in a capitalist society as you would lose most of your single workers who would go where they can get paid more.

A US Living Wage
People who earn a so-called living wage in the US, by most definitions of the term, are actually in the top 5-10% income bracket for the world. This living wage relies upon vast global economic inequality (based on US/corporate imperialism) and participation in environmental destruction. This environmental destruction and resource consumption ensures that millions of people in the Third World will never be able to have the same standard of living that Americans with a living wage get - even if we did have a radical transformation in our global economy that would aim to end economic inequality.

The US Living Wage is high because our consumerist culture pushes us to consume stuff we don't need, so as to feel that we are living and middle-class.

To some extent, the US living wage is actually not in the top 5-10% global income bracket if you take purchasing-parity (what you can actually buy) into account.

Also if the US would increase its internal economic inequality (which is one of the highest of any industrialized nations), then low-income people would find lower-prices for things like housing, health care, mass-transportation and other goods. Also, a social-democratic government that provides more services and lower taxes for low-income people could effectively lower the amount of money required for a living wage.

Radical organizations should strive to lower the amount of money that all workers need in the US to get a living wage.

Volunteering or Interning
A lot of students and youth volunteer or work at low/unpaid internships. Young people choose to work for Americorps, intern at non-profits, and there are many of low-paying positions in religious organizations (ex. Mennonite Volunteer Services just pays you enough to scrape by).

Why shouldn't young people be able to choose to work for radical nonprofits at a very low wage?

Also, most of the work of radical organizations is getting done by grassroots members who aren't paid anything. So for people to be able to get paid, even if it is a very low salary, they have an advantage the unpaid volunteers. People in this position often consider themselves lucky to be able to devote full-time to the work they love.

Work and Status Privilege
While staff might not be paid well, they often benefit from a large degree of control over their own work and hours. I believe that staff in radical groups often benefit from a form of "status privilege" that most workers don't get. The work might be hard, but they are setting their own working conditions, doing something they believe in, and often are treated as important people by the media, other organizations, or their membership. To some degree workers are choosing this higher freedom over money.

Summary
I think people who come from background of relative class priviledge should be able to choose to work for radical organizations at a low-wage. In fact, people who come from upper-middle class backgrounds should perhaps be encouraged to limit their wage so that as many people as possible get the chance to work for the organization.

I don't think people from low-income backgrounds should be pushed to do this. But for people with privilege, it makes sense that they should be trying to change their economic status to be more in line with that of most people in the world, and in tune with our goals of economic justice. While people from a class privileged background won't ever be the same as lower-income, as they lack the depth of working class experience, they can reduce their level of class privilege.

For their own health and that of the movement, I think that people shouldn't be pushed or required to work much more than 40 hours a week. In my experience, some people might be able to handle this, but it generally leads to burn-out and is a very very bad idea.