I think Jason Zengerle's response to me on merit pay in journalism sort of proves the point. "I think merit pay is the norm," he says. "Not necessarily in the sense that there are predetermined, hard-and-fast metrics assessing performance (although I do think web traffic numbers probably play that role at some publications) but in the sense that good writing and reporting--or at least what the bosses consider good writing and reporting--tend to get factored into what you get paid."
According to the Department of Labor, "Merit pay, also known as pay-for-performance, is defined as a raise in pay based on a set of criteria set by the employer." That fits the definition used in discussions of education, where merit pay is tied to student improvement, test scores, etc. It doesn't fit a situation in which "my editor likes me" results in a fuzzy and undefined increase. What're the criteria? Agreement with said editor? Fun writing? Personal relationships? Good ideas around the editorial table?
