On Friday, I had an in-person interview with the editor (my main contact person) and the managing editor for the copy editor's job about which I've expressed my concerns here.

It might be worse than I at first thought. At this interview, the editor--my prospective next boss--told me that five copy editors have worked there in the seven years since he started there. All else equal, not good.

The last one, he said, was there about a year and was fired for allegedly not editing copy to the depth and quality desired. He told me that he had tried to work with this person and offer him the resources he thought would help him meet the magazine's standards but that that did not ultimately bring the copy to snuff. The first of the five, he stated, was a holdover from the magazine's (apparently original) owner. The editor told me that this first copy editor, a man in his 70s, was promptly fired after the editor discovered, as he alleged, that this person was "cutting corners" with the copy editing in a way that jeopardized not only the magazine's credibility but the magazine itself.

The remaining three, the editor said, were younger people who, he claimed, seemed to still be unsure about what they wanted and, for a variety of reasons, found jobs elsewhere--often, he at least implied, after being unable to grasp the complexity and the demands of the copy editor's job. Two, he noted, were women--"God bless 'em," he said to me, wondering aloud if they might have taken some exception to his management or communication style. "That's a pretty sexist attitude," I thought to myself. This guy seems clearly not a "people person," but one short with words and apparently unwilling or unable to keep his staff from being under heavier workloads and deadline pressures during the last two to four weeks of the magazine's eight-week production cycle.

When I noted on Friday that the editor-admitted turnover issue (something I did not let on that I knew about already--but knew only about three copy editors in five years) and my concerns over making sure that we could have a strong, stable, long-term fit meant that I wanted to clarify a lot of concerns with him, he seemed a little impatient, saying that he had already spent about three hours with me. (Actually, he spent about one hour and ten minutes with me on the telephone and another 50 minutes or so total in person--20 in early March and 30 or so on Friday, a total of just two hours.) However, he added that unless he decided on one candidate (out of five, I believe, from his own state and two from a nearby neighboring one, me included) at once, something he implied he doubted would happen, he said he would likely bring the final two candidates back for another in-person interview, at which time, he said, he could better address my questions.

And I have plenty. Except for the editor's asking me during the first telephone round about my salary requirements, no one there has yet said a word to me about salary or other benefits, except that no relocation assistance or telecommuting options are being offered. Again, not good.

I find it at best hard to believe that the short tenures of all five past copy editors here can really be attributed only to shortcomings on their part. The editor strikes me as being far from friendly, at least based on what I've so far seen from him. Businesslike and professional, yes, but not very empathetic. I fear that he might be loath to make it clear to his copy editor what he really wants up front until it's too late for that person. Does he really expect a world-class, committed copy-editing professional to take a job with so much yet in the dark?

Then, of course, I strongly believe that, in addition to the possibility of the editor's seemingly often abrupt, short manner and possible dislike of elaboration (something often vital to any really good copy editor!), salary and other compensation levels and/or workload/deadline issues might be at the root of this high turnover, which apparently also includes the three magazine’s three slots for its senior editors.

Having already discussed the workload issues (noted in my first posting) with the editor by telephone, I did not bring them up to him on Friday. But I did then discuss them for about 10 to 15 minutes with the managing editor--who was able, as the editor forewarned me, to spend all of 45 minutes that day with me.

Unless the editor and his publisher (the son of the magazine's founder--the editor made it clear to me that he is the sole contact for the staff regarding the publisher) are willing to learn from any mistakes they might have made and still be making here, they have no business expecting their next copy editor's (or should it be "victim's"?) tenure to be any longer than those of the last five.

I wonder if this is all what they really want--disposable, short-term people to whom they can pay peanuts, squeeze dry as much as they can, and then cast aside or just let quit. Something clearly requires more explanation here. For me, of course, with the job over 65 miles and a one-hour-and-15-minute drive each way, as well as the added gasoline and car maintenance costs, the stakes are very high. If I were to move, housing costs would quite possibly be higher, with scant savings in money (but some possible ones in time). What if any assurance have I that this job will really last? I fear this editor and publisher, maybe by perverse design of the kind noted two sentences ago, might be impossible to please.

Were I to take this job without some real answers, I would feel a bit like a woman entering Bluebeard's lair. I am continuing to find the names and whereabouts of other former staffers, some of whom seem quite accomplished--and all of whom were there for three years or less. I wonder how much of this might be attributable to the two principals involved. Before 2000 or so, this magazine seemed to have a more stable staff and cadre of freelancers.

Let me know what you think of all this, including the following thank-you note that I e-mailed the managing editor. (I also then sent a similar e-mail to the editor, omitting the discussion of the deadline and workload issues that he and I had discussed during telephone interviewing.) To my best judgment, all of what I've written and said is utterly professional and legitimate--but correct me if I'm wrong.

Does my thank-you note make it clear, in your estimation (and in, of course, professional and positive but still clear terms) that if the folks there really want to pursue me for this job, are interested in my commitment and skills for the long term and in not advertising this job again in about 1.4 years (yes, that's the average for the last five) or so, that they need to address the concerns I've encountered and am raising? Do I make it sufficiently clear between the lines to them that if they're unwilling to address these concerns with me, if they might really be looking for another cheap short-termer or a doormat, that (maybe unlike at least some of the others) I'm an experienced, no-nonsense professional who expects to be paid and treated like one, who doesn't hesitate to speak up for improvements from the status quo--and who will take a quick walk (either before or after taking the job) if my own expectations aren't met? Or have I left any possible room for them to think yet that I might be some desperate "easy mark"?

If they respond well to what I've written, great. I do want to give them every chance to tell their side of the story and make a case, something I think clearly merited by the strong "red flags" surrounding this place and job. On the other hand, if they don't consider my concerns legitimate and decide I'm more than they might want to handle or bargain for, likely no big loss--I quite probably will have dodged a "bullet." As Quarterflash sang nearly 30 years ago, let them then "find another fool."

Let me know what you think. Thanks for being a strong reality check!

Text of my thank-you e-mail:

-o0o-


Dear [name redacted]:

Many thanks to you and [the editor] for your and his time, thought, and interest when we met earlier today regarding your need for a truly committed, top-quality copy editor at [your magazine]. After talking with you both, I am as interested as ever in pursuing the possibility of putting my skills to work for you, your colleagues, your publications, and the vital mission [of the magazine] that we all share.

As you know from your and my own conversation, I share your and your firm's deep commitment to advocating for [your clientele] "without fear or favor," even when it might mean criticizing or challenging others, however entrenched or powerful. It is refreshing--and rare--to be considered for an opportunity to put one's skills to work for an organization that shares many of one's deepest lifelong personal and professional values. Having known about and read [your magazine] since childhood, I have long agreed with and supported your [highly compatible] viewpoint and efforts.

As I'm sure you and [the editor] have discerned from my background and our discussions, I indeed am a proven, versatile, and disciplined magazine copy editor with a demonstrated record of commitment, stability, and longevity. As my former employers will gladly verify for you, I also know what it takes to deal effectively with tight, often changing priorities and deadlines and how to help you create and verify copy that not only meets your all-important maximum (not minimum) standards of editorial quality and factual accuracy, but that is also on target with your intended audiences and purposes, on budget, and on time. Having dealt successfully in many different high-volume, multiple-contributor, and deadline-heavy situations and settings with editorial and other production challenges of the kind you and [the editor] have described to me, I can definitely help you explore possible solutions toward mitigating (and, in some cases, even resolving) the issues you've faced with, for example, some freelancers and the production crunches those issues can create.

My thanks to [the editor] for his noting the high turnover you've had in your copy editor's slot over the last seven years. This is something I had hoped you and I could also discuss today, and I hope we still can--especially in terms of how I can help you end such turnover. High turnover in such a vital job, like high incidences of rushed revisions and last-minute crunches, helps no one. As I told [your editor], I very much want to make sure as much as we can that if I am chosen for your job opening, the choice proves a truly strong, stable, and successful long-term fit for us all. Given the depth of the mutual commitment involved, I am as keenly interested in this at least as much as I'm sure you and all your colleagues are.

Hence, I look forward to the possibility, as [the editor] mentioned, of meeting with you and him again in the near future so that we can all discuss the details of what you would expect from me, how best I can meet and exceed your expectations, and what I can expect from all of you. As we noted earlier today, such a meeting would indeed be the best setting for resolving any final questions or concerns we might have regarding the job and what we each and together seek through it. Should you want or need any further information from me regarding this matter between now and then, please do not hesitate to contact me.

In the meantime, thanks again, [name redacted], for your consideration. I look forward to being in touch with you and [your editor] again soon.

Sincerely, . . .

Just a hunch, but that thank-you letter might scare off a guy like that. On the chance that he does offer you the position, stop going over the minutiae of this job and the application process, firmly establish the minimum salary you would consider taking for this unfulfilling, short-term job, and don't accept anything less.

Good luck.

In two (three?) long posts you've yet to say anything positive about the publication.

Does that mean you're considering it only out of need for an income and/or benefits?
We all have bills to pay, so that can be a legitimate reason to take a job.

Your reasons might be perfectly clear to you, but some applicants get so caught up in pursuing a job that they don't consider why they want it.

I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that you are seeking "permission" to forget about this job. You have it. From what you've told us about the company, I see nothing but trouble and heartache.
We all need work, but at what price?

No offense, but in my opinion you have not made it sufficiently clear that you are a no-nonsense professional if you expect them to read between the lines.

If it were me, with the information gleaned so far, I would have enough knowledge to assess what needs doing. I would provide examples of problems I've solved elsewhere to show my value to them, state my concerns about their operation concisely, offer to help solve their problems, and state what I think that is worth to them and to me.

If that scares them off, better to know now, before I drive another two and a half hours round trip for another meeting that may or may not be productive. If it doesn't scare them off, then I've got a challenge and a promise of reward. If they renege on that contract down the road, or undermine my work -- as it sounds like they might -- I'd deal with it when the time comes.

In the meantime, put yourself in the driver's seat. They're obviously not going to look after your best interests. Take charge. Make them an offer that suits you. You have nothing to lose, except a possibly lousy job working for lousy employers.

If you don't mind a little TCE tough love, if I were the editor and got that letter I would wonder why I hired an copy editor who needs to kill so many trees to make a point.

Kind of echoing Phillip, but it's been my experience that thinking that hard about something usually means that it's not what you want to do. Details might be a little easier to handle if you settle that question.