How Jewish organizations can financially survive the pandemic

This article is based on a presentation produced in partnership by the Union for Reform Judaism, National Association for Temple Administration, Women of Reform Judaism, and Women’s Rabbinical Network on behalf of the Reform Pay Equity Initiative with funding from the SafetyRespectEquity Coalition.

Perhaps this is your congregation: It is currently OK financially, but your board is worried, as membership and school fees are slow to come in. Do you cut all employees’ salaries for the coming fiscal year by a set percentage? Significantly decrease the congregation’s contribution to employee health insurance? And who gets consulted as this decision is made?

We Jews have a long history of wandering in the wilderness, the unknown — but it does not necessarily make difficult decisions during this crisis easier. How do we make those decisions reflect our sacred responsibility? And how can we make decisions when we don’t know the future?

The economic crisis caused by the pandemic is not going away and, in fact, could get worse. As a result, downsizing or payroll reductions are part of the current Jewish communal conversation. Amid this stressful context, principles of equity and fairness can get lost.

Instead, we urge Jewish leaders to ensure that short term fixes do not become worse than the problem, harming the reputation of our congregations, breaking trust in the sacred partnership among clergy and community, and resulting in smaller, disconnected communities down the road.

First, the best practices of decision-making must be utilized. We are all operating, perhaps fearfully, in new territory. The health and wellbeing of the congregation is a shared communal responsibility—neither the clergy nor the staff nor the lay leaders nor even the biggest donors can ensure congregational health alone. With that recognition, a process of careful, collaborative decision-making is needed.

What sometimes appears to take too much time in terms of consulting with all stakeholders, gathering options, ensuring that there is understanding and acceptance allows you to move fast once the decision is made. Furthermore, transparency—who made the decision? What factors were evaluated? — leads to greater trust from stakeholders as well.

Second, keep equity in mind and bias at bay. While most would claim that gender is not a factor in employment, we often see this bias in unspoken assumptions. Sometimes these come straight from the worst assumptions in business — that an “ideal” worker is one who can devote the most time to work and has no other priorities. Under this fallacy, anything less than a full-time position is devalued (if it’s so important, why isn’t it full time?) and employees with childcare responsibilities are assumed to be less committed. Bias also comes from assumptions that the woman’s salary is the “second” salary of the household and, therefore, not as needed (let’s protect the male “breadwinner” salaries at the expense of the “second” salaries).

A third consideration — we should not assume that there is a fixed pie of assets or a fixed set of job descriptions and that there is nothing a congregation can do other than cut salaries. Here too, good processes can help. Some congregations have moved up or added to their fundraising calendars (successfully) to ensure their budgets are intact. Others have consulted with clergy and staff for creative ways to cut costs or shift personnel to new tasks (i.e. zoom guru). And, when budget-cutting is unavoidable, consulting with those affected is crucial. Is health care coverage more important to them than salary? Is furloughing better than shifting to fewer hours? Even gauging interest in early retirement or voluntarily reduced hours is an option. Brainstorming with employees might reveal ideas that the board leadership had not considered.

Our top suggestions to promote equity in a crisis:

  1. Check your bias at the door—reflect on what assumptions go into how reductions and downsizing are decided. Double check your planning to ensure that there are not unintended consequences that particularly harm women, minorities and other vulnerable populations—and then track this data. Correct, if needed, before continuing with the decisions. Repeat this process when restaffing occurs.

  2. Equity and equality are different. Fairness does not mean everyone is treated equally. People have different needs and are in different situations (i.e. across the board pay reductions are far more devastating at the lower end of the payscale).

  3. The most highly compensated can take the lead on pay reductions or voluntary give-back donations—and publicize this broadly. This does not mean breaking contracts or strong-arming employees, however.

  4. Balance between the economic health of the community and of the clergy and staff. For communities where the economic impact has not been so harsh, it is incongruous to insist on pay reductions. On the other hand, in communities hit hard, difficult decisions made in partnership are necessary.

  5. Consult with key stakeholders (community, clergy, staff, board, and other legal and financial experts) throughout the process. Go slow to go fast.

  6. Trust is hard to build and even harder to rebuild—assume the relationship is a long term one and act accordingly. Even those laid off from a congregation often stay as members and are part of the community. The ripple effects of broken trust will permeate the larger community.

  7. Remember that decisions made now accrue to the reputation of the congregation. These can both create stronger reputations when a crisis is handled well or can harm a reputation when decisions are poorly made. And, of course, this reputation affects future relationships among clergy, the board and the community.

  8. Consider transparency at every step to build trust.

  • Make the decision-making process transparent even when employment outcomes are private.
  • Consider the timing of announcements and the sharing of information as well as the balance of what is private so that everyone feels included and supported.
  • Consult with affected parties about how outcomes should be communicated (i.e. when layoffs are announced, with names or just positions, by whom and to whom).

At times of crisis, we want to move quickly, reacting immediately. However, that can yield unintended damage. In this wilderness, the financial unknown, we must lead with our Jewish values, utilizing the best practices of process to ensure equity and maintain the sacred trust in our communities.

Andrea Kupfer Schneider is a Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Women’s Leadership at Marquette University.

Rabbi Mary L. Zamore is the Executive Director of Women’s Rabbinic Network and co-leads the Reform Pay Equity Initiative.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

How Jewish organizations can financially survive Covid

Tagged as:

Your Comments

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. All readers can browse the comments, and all Forward subscribers can add to the conversation. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not and will be deleted. Egregious commenters or repeat offenders will be banned from commenting. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Recommend this article

How Jewish organizations can financially survive the pandemic

Thank you!

This article has been sent!

Close
Close