Not quite
Posted By: anon on 2007-08-07
In Reply to: Does the author give a figure? - Diane in NY
She gives a table of comparisons with others whom she calls "technicians" (we are in that table along with a radiology technician, cardiovascular technician, coder, and editor.) She says we earned an average of $25,408 in 2006 according to the Department of Labor Statistics. Not a word about benefits which should be mentioned as the others to whom she compares us with probably receive very good ones because they are employed by hospitals. Benefits are not addressed at all for anyone.
Within the article is a comparison of what we made since 20 years ago. Her premise is based on many factors but I do not think they qualify to reach the conclusion she reaches. My main problem is with her statement that we are "adequately compensated" for what we do by comparison to others whom she deems "technicians" like us. I say we are not adequately compensated because our job is entirely different from the others, except for the Editor category and according to her table using the same resource for her statistics, they make $32,000. A good MT doesn't need an editor. Hence, a good MT's pay should be comparable to that of an editor. Coders come in at a higher rate than us even and they do not do hands-on either. I think she is comparing apples to oranges and we end up losing. I think she has a weak argument that may hold influence in the wrong places for us.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
