h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I like to provide a bit of background to these, as they might seem a bit random, so here we go. It's often said that the world's three largest organisations in terms of staff are the Chinese army, the Indian rail network, and the NHS. Ah, but what about the Catholic church, some ask. I don't know the numbers myself, but with a strong presence in every region of every country of the world, they've got to be up there, surely. The one that would tip it over the edge, though, must be all those monasteries and abbeys and convents: entire communities of people, all under the aegis of the Church.
The question is, whether they count. Obviously, ordinary parishioners don't, or you would have to include every railway passenger in India, etc. There is no doubt, though, that monks depend on the church for their livelihood. Is that the same as employment? Do they have KPIs? Is there an HR department in every monastery?

It's a tricky one, because what defines a "worker" or an "employee" is determined by employment law, and it varies from country to country.

Is a vocation a job? That is surley the point

I don't think you can give a yes or no answer to that, without going into the specifics. That's the problem.

Suppose they do work for their keep and work hard at that

Perhaps they are better classed as volunteers.

I would say that monks and nuns, although they may not receive a salary, are paid in kind and although they may rely on charitable donations, this is channeled through the church. They are therefore at least paid volunteers. They are probably not available for work (in UK terms) which further supports the view that they are already employed.

Nuns and Monks are known for producing plenty of food and drink for sale using facilities provided by the church. Mead, Bucky wine and beers spring to mind (is there a theme there?)

PP.

Wasn't there just an employment tribunal in the UK with a priest and the church, where it was established that they are not employees?

Thank you for that. I had no idea.

Perhaps they are employees of a higher power.

I posed the question elsewhere, and someone found a link to a report on that case. It was actually a priest rather than a monk, but I think it's fair to make the comparison.

To me a priest is more clearly an employee than a monk is.

I have had some time on my hands over the last three days, so I have looked stuff up. Who knows if what I have read is useful.

Monks probably are employees - but of their monastery. They take daily direction from their prior, they get food and lodging in return, the monastery itself has a principle purpose which is to allow monks to lead a monky lifestyle.

Priests on the other hand don't take daily direction from someone senior in the diocese, they generally get paid through income sources that they own "in trust" (i.e. the parish assets, donations etc) and the diocese has a range of functions which includes priests but also includes schools etc.

Looking at a Uni Melbourne law report, it is true that priests can be "defrocked" but that disciplinary action is against an "office holder" not to an employee (i.e. you may not pass yourself off as a priest if you break these rules and this may mean you are ineligible for certain posts). Similar to a GP - they can lose the "office" of a registered medical practitioner and be ineligible to work in a doctors' surgery but they are not employees of the [National] Medial Association.