Letters – Salary contrasts

From Josephine Burns, Director, Burns Owens Partnership
ArtsProfessional had worthy intentions in undertaking a survey of pay in the arts sector and here are some comments which we hope will be useful for the next time  and there should be a next time so that trends can be determined.

Firstly, you say (AP issue 132) the cultural sector as a whole is widely constrained by a financial model that is dominated by the vagaries of government funding. However, the cultural sector consists of much more than the arts and exhibits a much more mixed economy than the subsidised arts sector. The definitions you are using and therefore the sectors you are including need to be more clearly defined and explained. Secondly, there is a normative tone to much of the article  e.g. people leaving the sector is a bad thing; is it and if so, why? But above all, the survey is fundamentally undermined by providing no comparative statistics concerning pay levels in other areas of the economy and only through this comparison is it possible to substantiate many of your claims. For example, the analysis of low pay is, effectively, meaningless as there is no objective way of knowing if the reported pay levels do indeed represent low, average or high pay& without an attempt to subject the findings to some kind of comparative analysis, they are weakened as a public policy tool. Further, it means that the important points you do make regarding for instance, pay differentials, are undermined by an account that can be too easily caricatured as special pleading.

The issues of pay and conditions in the sector (however defined) are crucially important and therefore the methodology must reflect best practice to be taken seriously and have the desired impacts.

ArtsProfessional is currently working with The Department of Cultural Policy and Management at City University to develop plans for extending the scope of the salary survey. Further findings from ArtsProfessionals salary survey can be found on page 9