Ship of Fools: Taking time out

Thread: Taking time out Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027026

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I was at a Synod at the weekend and one Minister presented a sabbatical paper on taking time out/off. Seemed incredibly PC to me. Our members (or mine anyway) work incredibly long hours; leave home at 7am and get back after 7pm weekdays and we still expect them to give time to Church work at weekends etc. They don't get sabbaticals. Their jobs are equally stressful. Yet here we are pleading for ministers to have sabbaticals, Sundays off; holidays etc.

And when it comes to sabbaticals it sometimes seems that these are no more than extended holidays.

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

[ 25. March 2014, 10:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I was at a Synod at the weekend and one Minister presented a sabbatical paper on taking time out/off. Seemed incredibly PC to me. Our members (or mine anyway) work incredibly long hours; leave home at 7am and get back after 7pm weekdays and we still expect them to give time to Church work at weekends etc. They don't get sabbaticals. Their jobs are equally stressful. Yet here we are pleading for ministers to have sabbaticals, Sundays off; holidays etc.

And when it comes to sabbaticals it sometimes seems that these are no more than extended holidays.

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

I also find this idea of Sabbaticals rather odd. The Methodist minister here is about to embark on his second in 6 years!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

And when it comes to sabbaticals it sometimes seems that these are no more than extended holidays.

In most denoms that I am aware of that grant sabbaticals (not all do, of course) the pastor is required to submit a proposal of how s/he will use the time-- generally something related to the greater mission of the church-- researching some topic of interest that may make it's way into a sermon and/or book*, teaching or preaching at a mission outpost, serving on the denominational level, etc. Which is not to say that said pastor won't find someway to finagle things so that said research/preaching/teaching just has to happen at some amenable place for a holiday. But generally, there is some attempt to connect the sabbatical to something worthwhile, with a report on the results expected upon his/her return. The custom would probably adhere to the connection in some (particularly Reformed) denominations to the pastor as "teaching elder", analogous to university faculty who enjoy similar sabbaticals with similar goals/expectations.

Which is not to say that this might not also be true:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

Ministerial duty has it's own unique sets of great benefits and great costs, which differ from those of other professions. Whether the mix is more blessing or bane probably depends a great deal on the particularly clegyperson and the particular parish. But some distinct advantages are definitely a part of the mix.

*which has led to interesting discussions of late as to the whether the pastor or the church holds the intellectual property rights to the work product.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Clergy shouldn't get Sundays off. On that we can agree. My in laws still think it's unfair we have to work on Christmas.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
which has led to interesting discussions of late as to the whether the pastor or the church holds the intellectual property rights to the work product.

That is a good question. We are both employees and self employed. My understanding is that employers own the work product of employees and contractors. So, the congregation would own the intellectual property rights. Do universities own the intellectual property rights of research done by their faculty? What if they are visiting faculty? Clergy write books all the time and retain the property rights. I don't plan on going on sabbatical and writing a book.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Not in the UK we're not. We are office holders, not employees.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I also find this idea of Sabbaticals rather odd. The Methodist minister here is about to embark on his second in 6 years!

I've never had one, and I was ordained in September 1987. By "rights" I should have had three, with a fourth not far off. Yet in that time I did do both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree (both while working "full-time"), however the Doctorate proved a bit much and I dropped out in my third year.

Perhaps this reluctance to go for Sabbaticals brands me as a micromanager who isn't prepared to entrust "his" church - and, in particular, the pulpit ministry - to others for more than a few weeks.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ministerial duty has it's own unique sets of great benefits and great costs, which differ from those of other professions.

For me a blessing and a bane has been tied housing - especially the fact that I do not own a property and will have to move to I-know-not-where when I retire (a difficult time to cope with emotionally at the best of times).

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Apparently we can have them after 10 years but the paperwork involved is more complicated than the paperwork to get a visa for a North Korean missionary.

What's the point?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

IME sabbaticals for the clergy are routine in the Methodist Church. The assumption is that that the time is meant to be used wisely; it's not time off so much as time for reflection and reassessment. What you do during the sabbatical seems to be less important than what you take from the whole experience and how you apply that to your ministry. But I stand to be corrected.

Methodist congregations are used to worshipping without the weekly presence of their minister, so Sunday mornings aren't necessarily the time when a sabbatical makes the most impact.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A warning from me, I had a 6 month sabbatical, not from church work, but as a lecturer, and when I went back, it felt so awful, I quit!

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?
Not hereabouts anyway.

Although anyone could (in theory anyway) maybe attempt to get freehold in the C/E and then do nothing beyond the bare minimum.

But I'd suggest that Overwork, rather than Underwork is the problem that C/E clergy face. And for that, a sabbatical is ideal~ forcing folk to s-t-o-p and that's not as easy as it sounds.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Perhaps there is a case for more vacation time. Perhaps there should be clearer substitute-clergy networks available for when one is on vacation and an emergency arises. That said, lengthy sabbaticals are for scholars who have clear expectations of scholarship (in the sense of advancing the professional field, and not just studying for one's own personal development). These are people who expect to conduct real research and to publish the results for the scholarly community or even the public. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of parish clergy on sabbaticals doing things like this.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Perhaps there is a case for more vacation time. Perhaps there should be clearer substitute-clergy networks available for when one is on vacation and an emergency arises. That said, lengthy sabbaticals are for scholars who have clear expectations of scholarship (in the sense of advancing the professional field, and not just studying for one's own personal development). These are people who expect to conduct real research and to publish the results for the scholarly community or even the public. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of parish clergy on sabbaticals doing things like this.

Again, in my tradition (Presbyterian) that is primarily what clergy do during sabbaticals-- research of some sort. (I have a foot in both camps right now, being both clergy and an academic).

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

At least in the Anglican context, 6 days a week is in the contract, with 36 days of holiday a year. I think a week's retreat is generally given on top, but this isn't in the Common Tenure contract.

I didn't think about this much til someone pointed out that compared to those who work 5 days a week, the extra time involved in working 6 days a week is equal to just under 2 months a year.

So given that, I find it hard to get excited about clergy taking sabbaticals.

x

AV

[ 24. March 2014, 20:49: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Yeah, I'd be inclined to ask the complainers how much time they work each week.

If the idea of a clergy-person having a bit of time to actually think about what he is doing seems too much for you, then maybe you have the problem,...

and you will have the further problem when said clergy-person jumps ship and writes negative reviews of your parish for prospective replacements.

But then I'm only an irrelevant schoolteacher, who gets two months of holiday and does nothing but babysit, so what would I know?

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Maybe we need to think about the church's expectations on busy lay folk and affirm the christian mission of where they are most of their waking hours?

As a Uk Methodist minister I will have a 3 month sabbatical after 10 years, and then every 7 years. As a 6 day a week role that doesn't seem excessive, and yes some can make it more about themselves (though if it stops burnout is that valid in itself maybe?) but the idea is having space to reflect and equip yourself for the next stage of ministry. That may not be actively academic in a shareable form, but will enrich the next few years of work in various ways - preaching, pastorally etc.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My understanding is that employers own the work product of employees and contractors. So, the congregation would own the intellectual property rights. Do universities own the intellectual property rights of research done by their faculty? What if they are visiting faculty? Clergy write books all the time and retain the property rights. I don't plan on going on sabbatical and writing a book.

I know at the university I work (but only as staff) faculty own the intellectual property rights (copyright) for books/papers they write; the university owns the patent rights if any of official research, however, splits any profits from the patents amongst the researchers, the department, and the school (the university also provides the patent attorneys and encourages researchers who want to to use sabbatical time or summer time to develop the idea into a company). Faculty can take either a half sabbatical every 3 to 4 years or a full sabbatical every 7 years and often use it to visit at another university or consult with a company. Faculty also sometimes get unpaid leaves of absence to serve in government. Note however that all the University staff and faculty have to sign an intellectual property agreement otherwise the work is not necessarily 'work for hire' so unless the congregation and the pastor have a signed agreement the pastor probably owns his or her work in the US.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Note however that all the University staff and faculty have to sign an intellectual property agreement otherwise the work is not necessarily 'work for hire' so unless the congregation and the pastor have a signed agreement the pastor probably owns his or her work in the US.

A recent article in CT suggested just the opposite-- that, while most pastors and churches assume that the pastor owns the intellectual property rights to sermons and books based on sermons, if there is no signed intellectual property agreement the church legally owns the rights unless said pastor can prove that all the work was done off-site, on off hours and using his/her own computer.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Perhaps there is a case for more vacation time. Perhaps there should be clearer substitute-clergy networks available for when one is on vacation and an emergency arises. That said, lengthy sabbaticals are for scholars who have clear expectations of scholarship (in the sense of advancing the professional field, and not just studying for one's own personal development). These are people who expect to conduct real research and to publish the results for the scholarly community or even the public. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of parish clergy on sabbaticals doing things like this.

For my sabbatical, I plan on taking a research cruise of Northern Europe to find a Lutheran church that does liturgy well and whose theology doesn't make Martin Luther turn over in his grave. I was working on getting funds to take you along as a research assistant. But since you don't even think I should get a sabbatical...you can forget it.
[Razz]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Our last minister went studying steam trains! he came back with lots of photos of himself driving, servicing and polishing trains.

This is true!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'd say the solution is to spread sabbaticals further out to more professions, not cut them out of those few professions that have them as if they're some kind of unwarranted luxury.

- orfeo, who quite enjoyed his long service leave last year and is well aware that the whole notion seemed impossibly exotic to the Americans and Canadians that he explained it to.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

A sabbatical is often a veiled way of saying that the clergy don't have time to fulfil the vow to continue in study. At least in the Episcopalian/Anglican tradition one of the vows at ordination is to continue in study. It's easy for clergy to feel that a day is best used constructively by visitation, admin, pastoral care, services and such, but to only fill you days with this is to neglect both study and private prayer - two vows that are taken. I have spoken to clergy who freely admit that a sabbatical is the only time in their vocation in which they can give serious thought and time to proper study. That's a pretty damning admission considering this is a vow taken before God and before the gathered people of God, but I can understand that on the whole congregations might get a little agitated at the thought that their priest is at home reading books, which is equally as damning of the expectations of congregations.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Having recently taken a few months off from the choir, which did me a tremendous amount of good, I now understand why clergy think it's necessary to have the occasional sabbatical. If your role is the care of people's hearts, souls, minds, then it is vital that they are not running on empty. Best to take a refreshing break before it gets to that stage. One would hope they discuss that break, and what best to do with it, with their spiritual director as well as their family, in order to get the most from the experience and return able to do their demanding work to the best of their ability again.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Pampered? To a degree. I have twice had priests doing teacher training placements with me. They had turned to teaching to escape the long hours of their former work only to find out that teaching required longer hours, even in the 'holidays'.

However, priesthood is supposed to be about being rather than doing.

As for sabbaticals, in this diocese they have to propose a topic for study and can't really get away with an extended holiday.

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

In Australia, regardless of who you work for, after about ten years, one gets a special paid break.... About ten weeks or so. It is called long-service leave. It is vacation. If one wants to study, sleep, fish, travel or have sex, then that's up to the individual.
I have worked for the same denomination for 25 years. I have just finished my second lsl. I travelled. It was fun. But.... Try explaining that to the outside world! "Yes, I have ten weeks off, paid..." Lsl is not common in a community where many people move on to other jobs regularly. However, it still exists in jobs like teaching, ministry and so forth.
I decided I wanted a rest. I was overdue for lsl, so I took it, and was reinvigorated!
I don't know what happens with sabbaticals and so on here, having had no experience therein.
Aussies get four weeks vacation a year. Because I work in a specialised ministry, that demands much much sacrifice, I am given five. I take them.
I work hard. I live in one of the most remote areas in the state. I usually drive 4000 kms a month doing work in my parish, which takes five hours to drive across. My nearest city of more the 9000 is four hours away.
I find effective visiting means travelling, and staying with parishioners, or in motels paid for by work. When I am taking a day off, it is deserved. I sleep and relax. I try not to drive.
I chose my ministry role. I am not complaining. I loved lsl! I love what I do, and where I do it!
I am going on vacation after Easter, for ten days. Yay!

[ 25. March 2014, 19:14: Message edited by: Rowen ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No wonder the clergy have the highest job satisfaction.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Perhaps there is a case for more vacation time. Perhaps there should be clearer substitute-clergy networks available for when one is on vacation and an emergency arises. That said, lengthy sabbaticals are for scholars who have clear expectations of scholarship (in the sense of advancing the professional field, and not just studying for one's own personal development). These are people who expect to conduct real research and to publish the results for the scholarly community or even the public. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of parish clergy on sabbaticals doing things like this.
For my sabbatical, I plan on taking a research cruise of Northern Europe to find a Lutheran church that does liturgy well and whose theology doesn't make Martin Luther turn over in his grave. I was working on getting funds to take you along as a research assistant. But since you don't even think I should get a sabbatical...you can forget it.

Alas, good luck with that. [Razz]

Perhaps my post seemed a bit callous above, but I certainly will not backtrack. That said, don't disregard my first couple of sentences: I am all for you having two days consecutively off each week, with a scheduled backup priest to handle all of your emergencies, visitations, Masses, offices, whatever on those days. I am all for you having longer vacation time than you most likely receive, including Sundays. I am okay with two weeks of professional development each year. I am completely in support of you using your time flexibly, so if you're out late at night for six hours sitting at the hospital, go ahead and hang a sign on the church door the next morning to contact Father so-and-so. Heck, I'm even all for a diocesan team coming to every parish in the diocese to train the faithful on how to deal with this. Lengthy sabbaticals, though, shouldn't be automatic, and should have to be justified with some pretty hard evidence. There is a difference between the role of an academic and that of a parish priest.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our last minister went studying steam trains! he came back with lots of photos of himself driving, servicing and polishing trains.

Now I could warm to that!! Where did he go?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Lengthy sabbaticals, though, shouldn't be automatic, and should have to be justified with some pretty hard evidence. There is a difference between the role of an academic and that of a parish priest.

I would probably understand your position more w/o the last sentence. As someone who serves in both roles, it strikes me as a bit of hubris to say the academic is doing "real" research that is "contributing to the field" and a pastor who is doing a different sort of research is not. As we have seen, denominations vary greatly in their practices in terms of granting of sabbatical, and under what circumstances and for what purpose (as do academic institutions). Both academics and clergy enjoy some unique privileges (a high degree of autonomy and institutional authority) that should be acknowledged and valued. But your last sentence strikes me as a bit more arrogant than is warranted.

[ 25. March 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Perhaps there is a case for more vacation time. Perhaps there should be clearer substitute-clergy networks available for when one is on vacation and an emergency arises. That said, lengthy sabbaticals are for scholars who have clear expectations of scholarship (in the sense of advancing the professional field, and not just studying for one's own personal development). These are people who expect to conduct real research and to publish the results for the scholarly community or even the public. Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of parish clergy on sabbaticals doing things like this.
For my sabbatical, I plan on taking a research cruise of Northern Europe to find a Lutheran church that does liturgy well and whose theology doesn't make Martin Luther turn over in his grave. I was working on getting funds to take you along as a research assistant. But since you don't even think I should get a sabbatical...you can forget it.

Alas, good luck with that.

Perhaps my post seemed a bit callous above, but I certainly will not backtrack. That said, don't disregard my first couple of sentences: I am all for you having two days consecutively off each week, with a scheduled backup priest to handle all of your emergencies, visitations, Masses, offices, whatever on those days. I am all for you having longer vacation time than you most likely receive, including Sundays. I am okay with two weeks of professional development each year. I am completely in support of you using your time flexibly, so if you're out late at night for six hours sitting at the hospital, go ahead and hang a sign on the church door the next morning to contact Father so-and-so. Heck, I'm even all for a diocesan team coming to every parish in the diocese to train the faithful on how to deal with this. Lengthy sabbaticals, though, shouldn't be automatic, and should have to be justified with some pretty hard evidence. There is a difference between the role of an academic and that of a parish priest.

Sabbatical time is in my covenant agreement but that is the diocesan standard. I think I get one after seven years at the same church. I'll be happy with staying in one place for seven years. I'm ambivalent about taking a sabbatical. It will depend on what is happening seven years from now. That said. I do believe parish clergy have a scholarly role to play. If clergy had time to truly study, I would agree with you. However, such is not always the case, so I think sabbaticals can be justified and beneficial for all involved. They can also turn into an extended vacation.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our last minister went studying steam trains! he came back with lots of photos of himself driving, servicing and polishing trains.
Now I could warm to that!! Where did he go?

The East Lancs Railway.

[Smile]

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I was at a Synod at the weekend and one Minister presented a sabbatical paper on taking time out/off. Seemed incredibly PC to me. Our members (or mine anyway) work incredibly long hours; leave home at 7am and get back after 7pm weekdays and we still expect them to give time to Church work at weekends etc. They don't get sabbaticals. Their jobs are equally stressful. Yet here we are pleading for ministers to have sabbaticals, Sundays off; holidays etc.

And when it comes to sabbaticals it sometimes seems that these are no more than extended holidays.

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

My reaction is not to the idea that sabbatical leave, or holiday time for that matter, is PC, but sadness that so many are obviously in stressful jobs and working such long hours.
In a country where the idea of an eight-hour working day took hold as early as 1840, and where basic annual holiday entitlement is four weeks, I would expect clergy to have their share of down time.
Every summer in our suburban district, churches take turns to share Sunday worship as each minister takes their summer breaks.
It must have been thirty years ago that our local Presbytery adopted a policy formulated by their pastoral appointee that ministers should work ten half weekdays, an evening counting as a half day.
When looking for ideas for a Transfiguration service, I came across this quote:

quote:
If you know what it is like to be tired, to have people seeking you out for what you can do for them, and other people criticizing you and working against you, if you have ever been filled with dread at what lies ahead, you have a little something in common with Jesus.

Jesus took time out to go into a lonely place, up a mountain or wherever. Why deny our clergy the same privilege?

GG

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Indeed. Isn't the charitable response to clergy getting sabbaticals whilst a lot of us non-clergy don't to call for others to have them as well, rather than a dog in the manger "I don't get one so you shouldn't either"? attitude. Why the race to the bottom?

I know I could do with one. I don't see how I benefit by whining that since I can't have one no other bugger should either.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

What Karl said.

If that doesn't persuade you, then self-interest should. Clergy who don't get any time out are more likely to have mental health issues and/or burn out. Interregnums are a lot of extra work for the PCC and churchwardens, and eventually the supply of clergy willing to work in your church is bound to give out...

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

As said above, study leave (we are not allowed to call it a sabatical now)is meant to give an opportunity for clergy to do expand their knowledge and skills or do some deeper research.
Sometimes a bishop will ask for something writen up at the end of it so that he can see how the time has been spent.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

In general, no. Not with regard to sabbaticals, though each diocese might have its own rules on how frequently they can happen. In my last but one diocese, the rule was once every ten years since ordination. My last diocese was once every ten years since joining that particular diocese. The upshot was in 13 years of full-time ministry, no sabbatical. Just a pathetic and ever-increasing desperation to make it through to the next holiday break and perhaps my day off, if I was lucky.

I think all professions where the person lives their vocational lifestyle 24/7 should have sabbaticals for the sake of their mental health. Sabbaticals, of course, are also intended for educational and professional refreshment purposes, so, in theory, a more useful - as well as rested - individual should be returning from their 3 months - or whatever - off.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If the majority of parish clergy worked the sort of hours that they did 50+ years ago then maybe sabbaticals would be a good idea; but now?

We are a parish where many of our regulars commute long distances and so have very long days; they still give willingly of their time to run the parish, maintaining the fabric of the building and churchyard, and keeping things going. On the whole, most people get 4 - maximum 5 - weeks annual leave (unless they're teachers but we don't have too many of those).

How to justify 3 months off for someone who is, in any case, only working Thursday to Sunday, who is out of the parish Sunday night to Thursday morning, who is so determined not to do more than his House-for-Duty contract that he won't even get back to undertakers or return urgent messages on the answerphone.

As was rather tartly pointed out at the last APM (I don't go) the PP took off more Sundays than the 2 churchwardens and organist combined...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I wouldn't include House-for-Duty people under the same heading as Stipendiary clergy ... though they should, I agree, answer phone calls etc.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the majority of parish clergy worked the sort of hours that they did 50+ years ago then maybe sabbaticals would be a good idea; but now?

We are a parish where many of our regulars commute long distances and so have very long days; they still give willingly of their time to run the parish, maintaining the fabric of the building and churchyard, and keeping things going. On the whole, most people get 4 - maximum 5 - weeks annual leave (unless they're teachers but we don't have too many of those).

How to justify 3 months off for someone who is, in any case, only working Thursday to Sunday, who is out of the parish Sunday night to Thursday morning, who is so determined not to do more than his House-for-Duty contract that he won't even get back to undertakers or return urgent messages on the answerphone.

As was rather tartly pointed out at the last APM (I don't go) the PP took off more Sundays than the 2 churchwardens and organist combined...

Do you have some reason to conclude-- as your first paragraph does-- that this unfortunate anecdotal example represents "the majority" of clergy?

I can't speak cross-pond, but I don't see any evidence that American clergy are working any fewer hours than their counterparts 50 years ago (now if you want to go back to circuit rider days, you may have a point...)

Posted by Polly (# 1107) on :

Sabbaticals or long service leave are not limited to clergy.

My Uncle was a GP and he had a couple. I know you can have something in the Police and when I worked in finance the FD was open to people having something similar.

Part of the difficulty is in language because we only talk in terms of 'employment' and 'job' and the role I serve in a Baptist Church is still considered to be a vocation where we receive a stipend and not a salary.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In most professions there is an expectation that you continue to learn. At the very least to stay up to date with new knowledge - would you want to be seen by a doctor nearing retirement who hasn't learnt about new treatments and diagnostic methods since graduation 30-40 years previously? In a lot of professions that may include brief (several weeks or months) returns to university for specific courses, maybe longer term taught or research post graduate qualifications (masters or doctorates). Sabbaticals in many professions provide space for similar career development.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But your last sentence strikes me as a bit more arrogant than is warranted.

I certainly didn't mean it thus, and apologize if it sounds that way. Let me try to rephrase: people working in academic jobs have specific research obligations to fulfill, while people working outside academia (in churches, for instance) have different obligations.

Now perhaps an individual has an agreement with a church in which her/his post has academic expectations. I'm not sure how this plays out in Anglicanism, but it can certainly happen in many Protestant churches, including the Presbyterian tradition to which shamwari probably refers, if I recall correctly. If that person is hired with an expectation of scholarly research, or time off to serve as a journal publisher, or time off to be a public speaker, then so be it. Set aside time for that person to fulfill the obligations of the position, even if it be a sabbatical.

That said, the OP seemed to tend toward the fact that every ordained person should be granted a sabbatical, a suggestion which I call into question. Most people with advanced degrees are interested in furthering their professional research, but that doesn't mean such people should automatically receive a sabbatical for no reason other than amount of past service in the position.

[ 26. March 2014, 21:48: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In most professions there is an expectation that you continue to learn. At the very least to stay up to date with new knowledge - would you want to be seen by a doctor nearing retirement who hasn't learnt about new treatments and diagnostic methods since graduation 30-40 years previously? In a lot of professions that may include brief (several weeks or months) returns to university for specific courses, maybe longer term taught or research post graduate qualifications (masters or doctorates). Sabbaticals in many professions provide space for similar career development.

I have to attend compulsory professional development and education courses to renew my practising certificate each year. All lawyers, doctors and most other professionals have similar obligations. It may not be compulsory for clergy, but keeping up to date on both theological learning and pastoral skills must surely be good for them and the congregation.

Our clergy have 4 weeks annual leave, and accrue long service leave; both these are in accordance with diocesan regulation. In addition, as a part of appointment within the parish, each is entitled to a week's retreat annually. Given the tasks they undertake, I for one don't begrudge them these entitlements.

In my own case, as I am self-employed (both as a matter of ethics and regulation I cannot be an employee), any leave I have is unpaid. Indeed, even attending the hours at compulsory education come at my own cost, as that is time I cannot bill to a client. I take a week's break most winters and around 5 each summer, summer break including public holidays. Madame runs her own business and while she has a very competent manager, her breaks are not just unpaid but she pays an allowance to the manager for the time she is away from work.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

As a professional musician I'm expected to keep up to date with performance skills, to take on board new repertory, etc, etc. I'm expected to do this in addition to my salaried position, not instead.

I say again, there is a lot of featherbedding going on. Across the board most professionals are expected (and expect) to work harder and keep abreast of developments in their field: the only professions where this is seen as requiring a sabbatical are the clergy and academia.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

...because of course we all know what clergy actually do, yes?

No.
We don't.

And a few duff ones (yes there may very well be a few around) do not invalidate the vast majority who work damn hard and are in all probability very fed up with having their meal times interrupted every single day. I mean. Honestly. Who in their right mind would go into stipendiary ministry right now? You'd need your head examining.

I'm with Karl on this.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

How to justify 3 months off for someone who is, in any case, only working Thursday to Sunday, who is out of the parish Sunday night to Thursday morning, who is so determined not to do more than his House-for-Duty contract that he won't even get back to undertakers or return urgent messages on the answerphone.

Not a picture I recognize. But then you're plainly talking about an unpaid, part-timer, a situation in ministry I have had little experience of. As a full-time stipendiary, if I was out of the parish (eg a clergy training day) for more than five hours I phoned a colleage in the next union to cover in case a funeral or emergency cropped up. Or I'd leave my mobile no on the answerphone. Answering the phone any time of the day and night was, quite rightly, part and parcel of an ordinary day's work. A day - let alone an overnight - out of parish was rare, except for booked leave, approved by the diocese, and covered by colleagues. But then again your description doesn't sound in the least applicable to the large rural unions of parishes we managed as full-time stipendiary clerics.

So perhaps there's a possibility here, that some people seem anxious not to consider; that circumstances might have some bearing on whether or not it's actually needful - not merely desirable - for sabbaticals to take place.

House for duty, eg, is a specific contract of a set number of hours. I have no idea what that must be like. How disciplined a cleric would need to be to keep to such a contract. I know of some such who certainly do their hours and no more. Galling, no doubt, to folks who might be used to the luxury of a full-time cleric at their disposal as and when required, but hardly unreasonable. If one engages the services of someone on an hours-per-week basis, there can be no complaint when that is what is received in return? I also know that many House for Duty folk simply work all the same hours their full-time paid colleagues do. Some even run parishes, despite the fact they have no legal standing to do this.

I don't know what arrangements the parish and diocese would have to make to ensure appropriate clergy cover, where there is a house for duty bod in place. That would obviously be between the parish/diocese involved and the part-time cleric. Sounds like your lot still need to do some negotiating to cover the parish load. If an unpaid part-timer is covering some of the parish work, obviously the parish'll have to figure out how to do the rest.

And whether or not unpaid, part-time clergy should get sabbaticals is obviously a question on its own and quite apart from whether or not full-time stipendiaries should have a block of time for study, refreshment and getting their heads showered. The two tasks are widely different, to say the least.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As a professional musician I'm expected to keep up to date with performance skills, to take on board new repertory, etc, etc. I'm expected to do this in addition to my salaried position, not instead.

I say again, there is a lot of featherbedding going on. Across the board most professionals are expected (and expect) to work harder and keep abreast of developments in their field: the only professions where this is seen as requiring a sabbatical are the clergy and academia.

So because you don't get one no-one else should. How about instead putting the case for others outside the clergy and academia to have sabbaticals?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I was at a Synod at the weekend and one Minister presented a sabbatical paper on taking time out/off. Seemed incredibly PC to me. Our members (or mine anyway) work incredibly long hours; leave home at 7am and get back after 7pm weekdays and we still expect them to give time to Church work at weekends etc. They don't get sabbaticals. Their jobs are equally stressful. Yet here we are pleading for ministers to have sabbaticals, Sundays off; holidays etc.

And when it comes to sabbaticals it sometimes seems that these are no more than extended holidays.

Are the clergy pampered to an undue extent?

The thing that makes me worry that the Church may cease to exist is the extent to which we as a society have gotten good at filing up every nook and cranny of our lives. Our cell phones are constantly at our ears; we "friend" hundreds of people who we neither know nor care about; we have 24-hour entertainment on hundreds of channels plus streaming media if none of them will do; etc. We seem to have reached a point where we can fill that God-shaped hole in our lives with techno-garbage. I say anything that helps us to "be still and know that I am God" is a good thing. We should all take sabbaticals, and have to leave our electronics at home when we do.

--Tom Clune

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In our diocese, sabbatical leave is regarded as part of Continuing Ministerial Education, and part of the life long learning expectation. It is available to applicants who :

quote:
have not less than
eight years in licensed ministry.
three years in current post.
seven years since a previous Sabbatical.
three years before retirement age.

The expectation is that it will be used to gain

quote:
enrichment, new experiences and energy, different perspectives and fresh vision.

which

quote:
Properly planned and reflected on… can be of enormous benefit to ministers, their families and those they serve, and to the wider church.

It is the equivalent of one day every four weeks accumulated over the seven year qualifying period.

When my other half fulfilled part time lecturing responsibilities at University level, she was paid an hourly rate for her lecturing time at a level which reflected that fact that she was expected to study and prepare as well as mark essays and offer tutors support, not just turn up and deliver a lecture.

Similarly, IMHO, when paying organists or other musicians the rate needs to reflect the time that they take to practise, and to refresh their skills. (My practice when we had a 'resident organist was also to, at least, offer payment for/contribution towards specific courses, and to treat purchase of music as a reimbursable expense of the post.)

In the same way, if it is important to the Church to keep clergy intellectually and spiritually fresh for their ministry, then that needs to be resourced somehow - and sabbatical leave is one of the ways in which that is done.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

To be fair, most people work a 5 day week and, even if they have admin or professional study to do at home, have two days per week to fit it in. The clergy work 6 days a week and often face demands to work for a large part of the 7th as well. They, more than most, are, in effect, always on duty, they and their family scrutinised as in a goldfish bowl. So their pressure is abnormal.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Most jobs I've had are 6 days a week (7 in rush times), no overtime pay or comp time.

Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.

Mid-level managers commonly work 10+ hour days plus some weekends.

I don't see that clergy work harder than other workers. They sure do get a lot more time off! The local Methodist guy gets 4 weeks vacation plus 3 weeks "renewal leave" per year, plus retreats and conferences (these are unpaid time in the jobs I've had but paid time for him). Plus paid sabbatical every 6 or 7 years. And guaranteed job for life = none of the fears (or realities) of unemployment the rest of us periodically face.

Yes what they have we should all have - job security included. But when I hear that they are "sacrificing" I get a little jaded. The local Methodist guy gets about $80,000 a year (including housing, we all have to pay for housing), that's the upper 10% of USA incomes, not counting the wife's full time job. (The TEC clergy person gets about $85,000).

Some of you UK clergy ought to move to the USA!

(For proper comparison - the Methodist church is the biggest one of 5 or 6 in the area, ASA 150 people, the TEC is the only one in the county, ASA comparable or a bit less. Y'all may be talking about churches with an ASA of 12, which of course wouldn't pay nearly as much.)

Not sayin' everyone gets that kind of pay package, lots and lots of small churches pay less than a living wage and no paid vacation, no renewal leave, no sabbatical. But the major denominations take good care of their (full time) clergy, some of whom insist they are "sacrificing" by being clergy instead of taking a corporate job. (The part timers get treated poorly.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This major denomination (LCMS) does nothing of the sort. Unfortunately.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most jobs I've had are 6 days a week (7 in rush times), no overtime pay or comp time.

Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.

Mid-level managers commonly work 10+ hour days plus some weekends.

I don't see that clergy work harder than other workers. They sure do get a lot more time off! The local Methodist guy gets 4 weeks vacation plus 3 weeks "renewal leave" per year, plus retreats and conferences (these are unpaid time in the jobs I've had but paid time for him). Plus paid sabbatical every 6 or 7 years. And guaranteed job for life = none of the fears (or realities) of unemployment the rest of us periodically face.

Yes what they have we should all have - job security included. But when I hear that they are "sacrificing" I get a little jaded. The local Methodist guy gets about $80,000 a year (including housing, we all have to pay for housing), that's the upper 10% of USA incomes, not counting the wife's full time job. (The TEC clergy person gets about $85,000).

Some of you UK clergy ought to move to the USA!

(For proper comparison - the Methodist church is the biggest one of 5 or 6 in the area, ASA 150 people, the TEC is the only one in the county, ASA comparable or a bit less. Y'all may be talking about churches with an ASA of 12, which of course wouldn't pay nearly as much.)

Not sayin' everyone gets that kind of pay package, lots and lots of small churches pay less than a living wage and no paid vacation, no renewal leave, no sabbatical. But the major denominations take good care of their (full time) clergy, some of whom insist they are "sacrificing" by being clergy instead of taking a corporate job. (The part timers get treated poorly.)

You are quoting anecdotal data as if it were universal. The average salary in PCUSA-- surely a large mainline American denomination-- is around $50K. No guaranteed job and no guaranteed sabbatical.

Your two examples may in fact be correct-- I know some clergy who are making that range for base + housing. But I know that there is often a lot of misunderstanding due to the habit of many churches to quote as "salary" the entire cost to the church-- the cost of pension, health care, etc.-- which is then compared to only the actual salary of other workers.

Which is not to say that there aren't significant benefits to ministerial work. There are. They have more to do with flexibility and influence than finances and hours. But there are real benefits. There are also real challenges. It's like most jobs in that way.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.

And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Well, that's two and a half hours of my over 13 hour working day with two hours unpaid church work to follow!

God doesn't pay His debts with money. Or time off.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.
And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.

Yep. Must be shit living in the USA, if Belle Ringer's 'evidence' is anything to go by.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.
And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.
Yep. Must be shit living in the USA, if Belle Ringer's 'evidence' is anything to go by.

According to this report on "Paid leave in private industry over the past 20 years" from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics her impressions don't reflect averages across the US. 10 days of vacation (excluding paid holidays) is the average for new full-time hires; it's 17 for 10 years' service.

According to data from the US Federal Reserve, the "average annual hours worked by persons engaged" in the US and UK are fairly close - though it turns out people in the UK worked substantially longer hours (~ 20% more in 1960) in the 50's, but this dropped to parity by the mid-90's.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think the stresses of working as parish clergy (at least in the CofE) aren't greater or less than the stresses of any other kind of work. They're just different.

When I was a parish priest I hated "living over the shop". It meant that as well as priest, I was church caretaker, security guard and general dogsbody. It meant that people could turn up on the doorstep at any time of day or night - and they did - expecting my attention or, often, a free handout. But I also hated the lack of management and governance in the CofE. Nobody really cared what I did, or even whether I did anything very much at all, apart from turn up at church or for mostly pointless meetings. It was before the days of ministerial review (which even now isn't done well - I'm still waiting for the feedback from my last one a year ago!) so I had no-one who would spend time with me assessing my performance and objectives.

On the other hand, to all intents and purposes I had a job for life, an insanely generous pension, absurd sickness benefits (I've heard of parish clergy off sick for over a year, with no real pressure or plan to return to work), and of course a 3-month paid break from the "day job" every 7-10 years, or as often as I cared to demand it.

Now I work for the NHS. Each morning I go to work; I work; and I go home, where unless I'm on call no-one from work will phone me unless, as I usually put it, "an asteroid hits the chapel". (If I'm on call, I have to be ready to be on site within an hour on demand.) Governance is tight: I have to know NHS policies and guidelines on all sort of matters, forwards, backwards, and sideways - and God help me if I break any of them, because no-one else will. But governance exists primarily to protect patients. I also have a supportive manager who regularly helps me assess my performance, and I'm part of a multidisciplinary team who recognise the value of my work. Life is good.

But I've had to arrange and pay for my own housing. I have to pay for my own pension (I think it's 9% of my salary this year). I certainly don't have a job for life - my profession is one of the more financially vulnerable in the NHS. If I'm off sick for more than 2 weeks the "management of absence" policy kicks in, and if I were off sick for a year I would probably lose my job. And I don't get sabbaticals.

On balance - though at times I resent still having the CofE breathing down my neck - I prefer life as it is now to life as it was when I worked in a parish. Others' mileage may vary.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.
And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.
Yep. Must be shit living in the USA, if Belle Ringer's 'evidence' is anything to go by.

The part about second jobs sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me--in my business most of us dabble in work on the side, but that's as much to keep our rep up for freelance work etc.--but the rest is no joke. Taking all one's sick leave is a great way to never get promoted in many/most jobs, for instance.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

My line manager has often told me off for not taking all my annual leave allowance. Without adequate time to wind down and enjoy life outside the office people burn-out and productivity falls. At least, that's why he tells me to take more time off.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

The comments (up thread) re Living Over The Shop say it all.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
10 days of vacation (excluding paid holidays) is the average for new full-time hires; it's 17 for 10 years' service.

Which still isn't great. Here in Australia you have a right to at least 20 from the get-go.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.
And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.

Indeed. I keep reading this sort of thing and think "In a rich, civilised country? Why do people put up with it?" because I know it'd drive me into an early grave. It's one of the reasons I have never, ever considered working in the USA. The conditions can be abominable, going by accounts like this.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most people I know who have a 5 day a week job work a second job - either a weekend job or a home business. Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none). professionals are often expected to work part of their vacation. A friend had a full time job in an advertising agency in NYC, got one week vacation per year. Small business owners get no paid vacation. Many jobs are reducing or eliminating sick leave.
And, there's this urban myth about Abe Lincoln abolishing slavery.
Indeed. I keep reading this sort of thing and think "In a rich, civilised country? Why do people put up with it?" because I know it'd drive me into an early grave. It's one of the reasons I have never, ever considered working in the USA. The conditions can be abominable, going by accounts like this.

Well, if someone offered me a job with terrible conditions in another country, I wouldn't consider taking it either! But I probably wouldn't eliminate the possibility just because somebody on the internet told me some people there have jobs with terrible conditions. By that sort of standard, I imagine one could easily find reasons to avoid all manner of places generally considered "civilized".

(You should perhaps consider the possibility that her experience is an outlier, or that she's exaggerating for effect.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Bit of a tangent, I know, but I actually thought about that question a bit while visiting last year.

The amount of leave was a little bit disconcerting, but it was actually the health care situation that freaked me out. The notion that jobs come with health care plans, and that you might have to decide on a job based on its health care plan and not just the actual job, or lose your health care at the same time as you lose your job, is something that I just could not deal with.

Although I'm not quite clear on how much Obama may have fixed this for you with his evil socialised medicine...

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to this report on "Paid leave in private industry over the past 20 years" from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics her impressions don't reflect averages across the US. 10 days of vacation (excluding paid holidays) is the average for new full-time hires; it's 17 for 10 years' service.

I suspect the person who put that summary together (or the author of the original report) is innumerate. It is almost beyond belief that the "average" number of days vacation in the first year would be 10 in this country. Virtually every private company I know offers somewhere between 0 and 10 vacation days in the first year. I can believe that the median number of days is 10 or that the mode is 10, but the average would almost assuredly not be a whole number and would almost as surely be closer to 7 than 10.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to this report on "Paid leave in private industry over the past 20 years" from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics her impressions don't reflect averages across the US. 10 days of vacation (excluding paid holidays) is the average for new full-time hires; it's 17 for 10 years' service.
I suspect the person who put that summary together (or the author of the original report) is innumerate. It is almost beyond belief that the "average" number of days vacation in the first year would be 10 in this country. Virtually every private company I know offers somewhere between 0 and 10 vacation days in the first year. I can believe that the median number of days is 10 or that the mode is 10, but the average would almost assuredly not be a whole number and would almost as surely be closer to 7 than 10.

--Tom Clune

And "Virtually every private company [you] know" makes a sample size of how many?

In fact, according to the 2012 National Compensation Survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 38, both the mean and the median number of days of vacation for full time first year civilian workers with paid leave is 10. (Fractional vacation amounts were rounded to the nearest full number of days.)

The distribution for full time workers is:

Less than 5 days: 4%
5-9 days: 33%
10-14 days: 40%
15-19 days: 14%
20-24 days: 7%
Greater than 24 days: 2%

Of course, they only got information from just under 8000 establishments, so what do they know? If you'd like to probe the depths of their innumeracy yourself, you might enjoy reading Chapter 8 of the BLS Handbook of Methods, National Compensation Measures.

(And if you think nearly all private companies offer between 0 and 10 days of vacation in the first year, I don't see how you can also think that it's likely that the median number of days could be 10.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The amount of leave was a little bit disconcerting, but it was actually the health care situation that freaked me out. The notion that jobs come with health care plans, and that you might have to decide on a job based on its health care plan and not just the actual job, or lose your health care at the same time as you lose your job, is something that I just could not deal with.

In Germany it's simple. You have your health care plan/insurance through your job. If you don't have a job it is part of your benefits.

I don't like our system as much as the one in Germany - the patient has real choice over there. But the USA seems to be the pits health care wise.

Back to the topic - I have lots of time off now (semi-retired) and can heartily recommend it! Having time off work is never as good as not having to work. No guilt trips when there's no employer [Smile]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
[QB
In fact, according to the 2012 National Compensation Survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 38, both the mean and the median number of days of vacation for full time first year civilian workers with paid leave is 10. (Fractional vacation amounts were rounded to the nearest full number of days.)

The distribution for full time workers is:
Less than 5 days: 4%
5-9 days: 33%
10-14 days: 40%
15-19 days: 14%
20-24 days: 7%
Greater than 24 days: 2%

Of course, they only got information from just under 8000 establishments, so what do they know? If you'd like to probe the depths of their innumeracy yourself, you might enjoy reading Chapter 8 of the BLS Handbook of Methods, National Compensation Measures.

(And if you think nearly all private companies offer between 0 and 10 days of vacation in the first year, I don't see how you can also think that it's likely that the median number of days could be 10.) [/QB]

Dave, I did as you suggest and perused the report you cite. Before explaining it to you, let me indicate how it would be possible (I didn't say "likely") for median and mode to be the same value while mean differs. Consider this sample of ten: 1 gets no time off; 2 get five days off; and seven get ten days off.

Now, the first table you should look at in the report you link is table 32. It shows that about a quarter of all the companies in the country offer no vacation benefits at all. That may make you suspect that you have missed something.

When turning to table 38, we find it clearly stated that they are limiting themselves to those companies that do offer vacations. Second, they do not provide any data whatsoever for "new hires" (the term you used originally). They show number of days off after one year and after five. FWIW

--Tom Clune

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Dave, I did as you suggest and perused the report you cite.

You're welcome.

quote:
Before explaining it to you, let me indicate how it would be possible (I didn't say "likely") for median and mode to be the same value while mean differs. Consider this sample of ten: 1 gets no time off; 2 get five days off; and seven get ten days off.

OK - fair enough.

quote:
Now, the first table you should look at in the report you link is table 32. It shows that about a quarter of all the companies in the country offer no vacation benefits at all. That may make you suspect that you have missed something.

Actually no, I didn't miss it - that's why I said it was "the mean and the median number of days of vacation for full time first year civilian workers with paid leave." (And the table doesn't give the fraction of companies that offer paid vacations - it's the fraction of workers who get them.)

quote:
When turning to table 38, we find it clearly stated that they are limiting themselves to those companies that do offer vacations.

Well, yes. But again, the claim I'm countering is "Americans usually get two weeks (10 days) of vacation *if* the job offers any paid time off (increasingly jobs offer none)." Since 10 days is both the mean and median for workers with just 1 year of service in jobs with paid leave, and that median rises to 15 days after 5 years and 20 days after 20 years, I think my argument is holding up pretty well.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Belatedly, since I had to check with a busy person: Presbyterian clergy get the statutory 4 weeks holiday leave (family holiday withn husband & kids; time with ailing aged parent etc – like any of us). Study leave as I understand it accumulates year by year though there's an initial few years to start with. A minister has to present a report to Presbytery after study leave.

GG

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Dave, your figures show 10-14 days as the modal value (40%). I consider that pretty piss poor. I have 33 days through long service (we start with 25 I think) and there's absolutely no expectation that you'd ever work during any of it. I'd not be able to do all the stuff I want to in 14 days off, and I only work because it provides money to live on and do the things I do on the days off.

This is paid leave of course. I don't think I could really afford unpaid time off.

[ 31. March 2014, 09:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Dave, your figures show 10-14 days as the modal value (40%).

That's for people with 1 year on the job, it's not for all workers.

quote:
I consider that pretty piss poor. I have 33 days through long service (we start with 25 I think) and there's absolutely no expectation that you'd ever work during any of it.

I'm not expected to do any work during my time off, either, and I think this is typical for American workers.

quote:
I'd not be able to do all the stuff I want to in 14 days off, and I only work because it provides money to live on and do the things I do on the days off.

This is paid leave of course. I don't think I could really afford unpaid time off.

I'm not arguing that paid leave is the same or better the in US, and I'm certainly not making any claims about whether it would (or should) satisfy your personal preferences. I'm just trying to provide evidence to support my contention that Belle Ringer's extreme description of working conditions in the US is not accurate.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Having finally managed to find a deputising player for a particular Sunday - one who can cope with Anglican Chant, etc, so dead easy to track down(!) - I inform the PP, only to be told I can't take the Sunday because he'll be away... [Mad]

I've had 1 Sunday off in 15 months...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

To which, I suppose, you might justly say he can't have that Sunday off as you'll be away. (Though TBH, unless you are also leading the worship, I don't see why a visiting organist will be any problem for any other competent person taking the service.)

Do you have a contract? The standard organist contracts I've seen specify six weeks leave in the year with one month's notice given of holiday. They also provide only that you should "make reasonable endeavours to find a suitable organist to play in your absence".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If only it were so easy...
With children in a choir one of the main requirements is that the deputy have Safeguarding Clearance (the old CRB check) valid for your church: yes there are proposals to make these clearances portable but at the moment they aren't.

Yes, I do have a contract: it stipulates I can take "up to" 6 Sundays a year off - but have to cover: Advent Sunday, Christmas, Epiphany, Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday to Easter Day inclusive; Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity, Patronal Festival (September), Harvest, Dedication, All Saints & All Souls and Remembrance.

The wording you quote is, I think, from the standard RSCM document - my contract is not that but was drawn up to reflect exactly what the church required and at a time when there were available TWO deputies within the parish. Moreover, the appointing PP was a more realistic chap to work with...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I'd have thought there were probably other ways of dealing with Safeguarding than by requiring any one-off visiting organist to have Safeguarding Clearance, but that's another story.

Perhaps it's time to review the contract if it was drawn up for circumstances which no longer pertain, and to push for one of the more standard form contracts. The difficulty of finding cover suggests that you might be in a strong position (they're not going to sack you and easily find someone else. Perhaps an informal chat with the PP when he happens to be in the presence of a churchwarden might be in order.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't want this to change into a thread about Safeguarding, but ...

a. Does said deputy have a CRB/DBS in their capacity as a music teacher? If so, ask to see it.

b. There are ways and means of dealing with "once-offs" - eg the Baptist Union has a Voluntary Declaration Form which can be used. At least its use protects your backs.

c. Just make sure said deputy is never alone with the young people, and doesn't take down personal details (although that might not be easy).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not all would-be deputies (or organists, for that matter) are music teachers. Apart from the children in the church choir, I don't teach under 21s either...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

You are looking for someone to come into church one Sunday and play the hymns chosen by the preacher, possibly allow them in once before that to get some practice on the instrument. Why would it be expected that they'd have any involvement with the children in the choir (or elsewhere in church for that matter)? I understand that your job as organist could include accompanying the choir in practices, maybe more direct involvement in helping the choir get the best out of their talents, which would put you in closer contact with children. That doesn't have to be part of what your deputy does.

It's almost getting to the point where anyone coming into church on a Sunday morning needs to undergo Safeguarding or equivalent procedures just in case they sit within 100 yards of a child.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No.

The need is for someone to take a junior rehearsal, including one-to-one voice training with each, for an hour, segueing seamlessly into a rehearsal with the adults: first fifteen minutes on music for the Sunday, the next 50 prepping other things.

The music will have been chosen (by me, not the PP: I'm qualified in liturgical music, he isn't) so on the Sunday the player is required to be on the bench playing for 15-15 minutes before the service, to accompany hymns and psalms, conduct 2nd set of responses and anthem (will be deliberately chosen to be unaccompanied so easier) then play suitable voluntary at the end.

We are told by the diocese that ALL choir members must have CRB clearance, and the same goes for anyone responsible for any part of the training of the juniors.

As for your last point: a strict legal interpretation of Protecting All God's Children does indeed lead to the somewhat startling conclusion that if an unaccompanied under 18 walks into a church then anyone in the building without CRB clearance should leave. True, this is not how PAGC is being acted upon, but that is the inescapable conclusion having had the thing examined by a lawyer.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

"The organist is on holiday; therefore there will be no rehearsal on xxxday."

Put in newsletter; job done.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I made that suggestion - told not possible.

In the meantime: have pleaded with old uni chum and they will do service and rehearse adults before service for half-an-hour. Children will be given weekend off, which isn't ideal but...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I think you have an unreasonable PP if he can't imagine a week without a choir rehearsal.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If it is the opinion of the PP that people who give service to God in his church (organists, choir members, cleaners etc) can not take a holiday then he needs to decide why that opinion doesn't hold for everyone in his church - starting by looking at his own diary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You are looking for someone to come into church one Sunday and play the hymns chosen by the preacher, possibly allow them in once before that to get some practice on the instrument. Why would it be expected that they'd have any involvement with the children in the choir (or elsewhere in church for that matter)? I understand that your job as organist could include accompanying the choir in practices, maybe more direct involvement in helping the choir get the best out of their talents, which would put you in closer contact with children. That doesn't have to be part of what your deputy does.

It's almost getting to the point where anyone coming into church on a Sunday morning needs to undergo Safeguarding or equivalent procedures just in case they sit within 100 yards of a child.

Anyone who holds an upfront job, visible to children, has to be V& B checked.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

KLB - I'm a salaried organist, not a volunteer; as for the number/timing of rehearsals, in theory its up to me but one has to take into account the upcoming repertory and what is required by way of preparation.

AC - see above.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0