Moms On Issues
with Sara and Veronica
We're two moms with different backgrounds, jobs and points of view, writing about our opinions on the political and social issues affecting working moms. We'll also keep our eye on the media and the celebrity mom world to highlight issues that are relevant to your life.
Check out our personal blogs: Veronica's Blog and Sara's Blog
If the position doesn’t pay, does it command respect?
Categories: career, feminism, moms in the news, politics
No, this isn’t another “don’t blog for free” treatise, but close. One of the electoral victories for women is that the New Hampshire Senate now has a women majority.
New Hampshire’s state Senate will carve history for the Granite State in January when the legislative body convenes with women in 13 of the 24 seats forming the country’s first female majority.
Women will also factor in key positions of leadership: the Senate is presided over by its president, Sylvia Larson, and president pro-tem, Maggie Hassan, while Martha Fuller Clark continues her role as majority whip.
This is certainly significant as New Hampshire would be the experiment we have been waiting for to see if you do put women in charge if things would end up any differently, specifically in a better place. But one thing has put this experiment in some doubt – pay.
States such as New Hampshire and New Mexico, whose elected officials receive no compensation, tend to have a higher percentage of female representatives, says Ziegler, because the sessions are less time-consuming and the expectations and compensation are such that the people who serve think of themselves as public servants rather than professional politicians.
Ziegler goes on to parallel the New Hampshire and New Mexico legislatures to PTAs because of the no pay and smaller time commitments.
The PTA? Is that a correct parallel? My daughter is in kindergarten and I haven’t been snagged by one of the many committees at her school and based on a very unpopular question I asked at a parent meeting, I doubt I will be. But I don’t see the PTA as something that is not time consuming. Yes, less time consuming than being State Senator, but still pretty darn tough when you’re working and raising a family.
But back to this no pay thing…Would you be an elected official if there wasn’t any pay associated? The debate in freelance circles are “exposure” writers versus “pay-only” writers and then a huge group of writers in the middle. Are there gigs that might “pay for itself” in exposure? Yeah, I think so. Can being a State Senator of New Hampshire pay for itself in exposure? Incoming U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen [video link] is evidence that it can.
The debate occurring on blogs and listservs is whether or not the fact that women are the majority of New Hampshire’s Senate is a direct result of the non-pay AND if this means that being a state senator is less respected than in other states. Of course in my woman-head, I think that it shows more character to be a state senator for no money than to see people wrestle over a seat that pays a lot of money – Not knowing if they are in it for the service or for the pay. Maybe New Hampshire has cultivated a culture that commands respect for service, especially volunteer service.
Loyal readers…Would you run for an office for no pay? Anyone from New Hampshire who can shed a light on this amazing piece of history?
Subscribe to blog via RSS
Veronica, thanks for posting about this topic. You do a great job rounding up the “on the one hand, on the other hand.”
Can you believe I’m still not sure what to really think about it?! Speaking only for myself, though, I can absolutely imagine going for an NH (or nearly non-paying) legislative job as a younger or older person and building my skills and experience, or giving my experience to the effort. But as a mom of three school-aged kids, my time is so precious. I think that my volunteered time has got to be, on a case by case and not usually long-term basis, got to be something that positively impacts my family. I can’t imagine doing the legislative work for no money at this point in my life. But for sure, after I graduated college and when I didn’t have kids, I can see how it’s a stepping stone.
That said, do you think there’s any analogy to how the role is valued? I think you make a great point about how you value it more because there is no money involved, but then I get back to how that gets viewed by future employers or voters - is it used against us?
I think if we could eliminate marginalizing of the role and effort and also remember that we need to assert just how much we accomplished, in any role - paid or non-paying - then we’d be moving forward.
Thanks again.
Jill | November 24th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Although it is true that serving in the NH House and Senate are unpaid jobs they certainly are significant jobs. NH’s style of government provides the legislature with great powers over state government.
The women who make up the majority of the new state senate are all remarkable professionals. Three are lawyers, one a retired firefighter, one a retired member of the military, a nurse/healthcare consultant, a retired Deputy Commissioner of HHS, one a former legislative and gubernatorial aide, three former college instructors and two former office administrators.
Each of these women ran professional campaigns with staff, advertising and campaign budgets of between $30,000 and $100,000 depending on the race in districts of about 45,000 residents.
Only four of the women defeated other women meaning that nine of the women defeated a man for their senate seat.
These are highly sought positions and their gender had little to do with their candidacies, the voters chose the best qualified person.
Raymond Buckley | November 24th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Jill and Raymond,
You both make excellent points and I appreciate the perspectives. I have a question though. Does the lack of pay, then, only draw those women (and men) who can “afford” to work for free? You can call it volunteering or working for free but at the end of the day those with more time and resources generally (not always but usually) are the ones more able to take these jobs on. I think it’s great but I also know that whether we pay people or not, politics is still an arena for the more privileged among our citizenry, isn’t it?
Amie Newman | November 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Great discussion. When we founded Third Wave in the early nineties, I was adamant we PUT IN THE BYLAWS of incorporation and the mission statement that all workers should be paid and that working to change the world should be fully compensated for the essential job that it is. I still feel that. There is no reason people should be willing to work their behinds off–especially those with kids or families or student loans–to ensure a better environment for all…for free. It does show integrity, and I agree it would be great post-college, but it may just lead people to feeling as if the work of leading is undervalued, and thus so are their aspirations. Reminds me of the situation with teachers–they are underpaid, and some of them perform spectacularly, but that’s despite financial hardship I don’t think its fair to ask them to take on.
But this also gets to the issue of the role of government. When government doesn’t pay, and people are expected to contribute out of civic duty, it implies the private sector is doing its job to compensate adequately in other arenas. Part of a bigger government vs free market issue, and I don’t like what happens when the market is expected to take care of people. Leaves too many vulnerable and the government with less accountability overall.
This is also at the heart of the non-profit system, which arose after Reagan’s dismantling of several social service programs–the private sector (non-profits, which are essentially tax write-offs for the rich that are supposed to manage the gap created by lack of government–was born. Sometimes successful, but, looking at the current state of affairs, not nearly comprehensive enough.
I say applaud people willing to work for free, give the job to a young person, but pay them all anyway.
rebecca walker | November 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Amie and Rebecca
In my heart, I really feel that what Amie suggests as a conclusion is in fact true as a general proposition: “whether we pay people or not, politics is still an arena for the more privileged among our citizenry, isn’t it?”
There are of course examples where that isn’t the case but look at the expense of running for higher and higher office.
Then, as Rebecca says, and I thought of the teacher example too, but also childcare: if it means enough to us, aren’t we willing to pay for or pay more for something?
Now, maybe that premise is wrong, but in a capitalist society, don’t we pretty much work to keep that as the mantra re: paid work?
This is tough - I know how I make decisions for myself, balancing whether or not something is worth it but there is NO question - I AM privileged and pretty much always have been, always.
Now - on the other hand (ugh!), when there is a scarcity of paying jobs AND people are looking just to contribute, their work too can be of enormous value in the present and in the future.
So - I don’t know - money. It can really mess things up in terms of knowing how and when to value what we care about most and the way we spend our time and skills and efforts.
Jill | November 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
[...] This post at Work It, Mom summarizes many of the “on the one hand - on the other hand” arguments about pay v. non-pay legislatures. [...]
Secret to NH State Senate female majority: it doesn't pay | November 25th, 2008 at 7:38 am