Hey Lauren,
thanks for looking into this. I am surprised that you got a response so quickly, but happy as this means the project can keep moving forward.
For what it's worth, I think this aligns with what I am saying, which is a bit uncommitted anyways (note the purposeful use of words like : most, often, usually, etc.) and purposefully more focused on the experience of orgs like Forest City, who have operating, than orgs like mine, that run on projects. Let me know if that does not feel clear on your end.
What we could do, just to be safe, is make the percentage a range :
(usually between 10%-20%)
Also, I am gonna rant for a second since this PERFECTLY demonstrates the shift in how the council views cultural work. If you run on projects then you can ask for as much money as you want but you get zero job stability (I know this from experience). If you have stability (a salary and all those wonderful worker rights protections like unemployment, etc.) then you get trapped in poverty, particularly if you don't also increase workload for staff.
Who and when was it decided that moving all jobs into the artist contract worker model was the correct orientation for our sector?!?!
I feel like artists wanted job stability, the conditions of the worker, but instead cultural workers have been given the instability that characterizes an artist career, whatever that is. We were seduced by the big bucks (up to 50,000$, wow!) and took a step backwards in regards to labour rights. We are now trapped being overworked administrators, or precariously employed administrators. Fun right?
