see comments to yours below:
On 3/23/2017 11:35 AM, Nathan Coy wrote:
> "This is part of the new GIG economy"
> But if it's just the gig economy part, why are many other library field
> positions not showing this trend as acutely?Is it a management decision?
> It that librarian positions tend to have stronger organized labor
It is a management decision.
There are certain "Standards" expected of libraries,
especially academic, prison, and perhaps public; Many grants are funded
ONLY to entities which have met the standards. Few if any standards for
Special Libraries (mostly corporate,) although Medical and Law libraries
have pretty stringent standards.
> "Many of these grants, depended upon by libraries and museums, may go away
> if Trump and the Republicans have their way with the budget request."
> Libraries only seem to depend on many of these grants in certain areas,
> such as technology and archival work. If they go away does that mean
> libraries will be forced to broaden their positions for line items beyond
> certain areas? Or will these jobs just not get done? or combination of
> both? If this does come to pass people deciding budgets will have to make
> these decisions and what does that mean for this work? Not enviable
> positions to be in for sure.
'...depend...in certain areas.'
This is usually because the grants available
are only for certain areas.
I can't speculate on what happens without
grants; I would expect a lot of things just won't happen until there is
extra funding from other sources.
Lots of people in business think non-profits
should basically run on their own without help from outside.
Even good libraries and museums have lost
funding from their communities at times.
> Nathan Coy
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Paul Jackson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> This is part of the new GIG economy. That's where everyone is a
>> contractor, and entities doing the hiring do not pay benefits. It's a
>> consultancy world. Not too different than Adjunct professorships.
>> Lots of grants are pretty much static, i.e., short term and limited $$
>> at best. Once the money is spent, there may not be money to continue.
>> One such project is at Columbus College, where they have a retired
>> archivist volunteer doing much of the cataloging. I've had three of these
>> (paid) projects since retirement; payment pretty much covers expenses.
>> Many of these grants, depended upon by libraries and museums, may go
>> away if Trump and the Republicans have their way with the budget request.
>> Paul T. Jackson
>> Trescott Research
>> Steilacoom, WA 98388
>> On 3/23/2017 10:39 AM, Nathan Coy wrote:
>>> As an avid watcher of the job market in the A/V preservation world and the
>>> library field at large I am curious on thoughts about why A/V centric jobs
>>> seem to be primarily term positions while many other fields of library
>>> aren't. If there truly is no shortage of work to be done in the same way
>>> there is no shortage of work to be done in cataloging, why then are
>>> significantly more (and more professional level) jobs that are permanent
>>> the cataloging field as opposed to A/V preservation work? Is this
>>> attributed to lack of advocacy on part of professional organizations?
>>> Managers involved in financial decision making? Organizations able to get
>>> grant money for A/V and thus creating a cycle of term funding and hoping
>>> from project to project and institution to institution? I am genuinely
>>> curious about perspectives from individuals working in several different
>>> capacities. It seems this is a problem in the archival field (as I
>>> understand it an issue raised at the SAA convention somewhat recently
>>> generational advocacy) in general, but is even more acutely present in A/V
>>> specific work as can be attested to through a survey of job
>>> If this is the case, is promoting the field as a profession while not
>>> supporting it organizationally problematic?
>>> Nathan Coy
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.