The Good Library Blog

To be honest, I think it's posts like these that damage the cause that you're working towards. The advert is for a qualified librarian to work in what could be called anything from reader development to marketing. Most people seem to agree that libraries need to work at their public image. The advert also states that the post-holder is required to work evenings and weekends. The pay seems in line with other roles. So is it just the funny name that you object to?

From what I recall of Tim's comments on related topics, he believes that a good library will generate its own publicity and that word-of-mouth is all you need. So you have no audience development librarians etc, spend the money on books and buildings and then the audience will come. I imagine he does find the name amusing too ;)

It's a ridiculous name. Is this one of those jobs not actually done in the library? Does this mean that there are some people employed in the libraries whose job does not include helping people to find books to read or study, but this person does do that?

For goodness sake, use the language properly

Why not call the job and that of all the other people employed 'librarian'? -- then there is no more of the demarcation between jobs, which is so expensive to sustain?

I don't understand your problem here Tim: a qualified librarian's required to work for less than the national average wage to work evenings and weekends promoting the library, its stock and its services to the public. Am I missing a double-entendre or something?

Any demarcation in jobs is expensive to maintain Tim. Would the managers of a company be happy to have their pay cut and job title changed to save money? Are all people in Boots chemists pharmacists?

Few people I have worked with in libraries have resented "demarcation" or not seen the value of it.

Regardless of this job, there will be people in libraries whose focus is not just on getting people to the books, although it will be a major part of the job.

All organisations have differentiated jobs and salaries to match.

Tim,

The website asks for a librarian and the job description clearly indicates working with members of the public (it actually specifies assisting library users with the use of library resources, I assume that this includes books).

If you have a problem with the wording in the advert then I suggest that you take it up with the HR department in Southend.

There should be no demarcation between 'professional' and 'non-professional' library staff. All public library staff should be called librarians-- all jobs should be open to all and given to those who are most able and experienced to do them-- not on the basis of some past academic study.

Demarcation is lovely for those who benefit from the practice-- but painfully expensive for those who pay for it.

The demarcations of public library staff are, in my view, having studied it a great deal, the cause of most of the excessive cost of the public library service and one of the main reasons why the service is in such poor condition (even- for the benefit of one commentator- in Rotherham where book issues are among the lowest in the country and falling dramatically and costs are high and rising)

For people who don't know, I live in Rotherham and use Rothrham public libraries. On the whole I have been happy with their service.I can only say what I see and experience for myself.
I hold no candle for Rotherham council, and have written to them to ask about the library service and its plans. I await a reply. They are planning a new library- we shall see what happens there.
The thing is Tim, Ok we go with your plan. Make all jobs and job titles the same and give em to the "best"- no problem.
When in post, these people will still need some form of training to do all that might be needed of them. Which costs.
And when they have done that training and are doing the job, they will want paying- an dpaying a reasonable wage, which currently isn't the case for a lot of library jobs. *But* if pay is essentially levelled, who is going to want to do the jobs? Why would someone want to work in a public library for £14k when they can get better paid jobs elsewhere?
I think your line of argument- that essentially people are feathering their nests at the expense of the public- is somewhat harsh.

Pete - there is an urgent need for training, both on the job and outside it in all corners of the service.

I would never suggest that pay should be levelled-- that's a crazy idea. The pay in the library service is pretty good. No one wants to throw that away-- they just want value for the money they pay. Just because you call everyone a librarian doesn't mean they are all paid the same-- or that they all get 14k pa.

If you go into Heffers in Cambridge where the pay is not nearly so good as in the library service, there are some incredibly expert and knowledgeable academic people and some not so experienced. They are all booksellers- but their pay rates vary considerably.

You'll even find on a good day, when they aren't unhappy, they are terribly proud of the amazing job they do and the tradition they uphold

i looked up the figures for Rotherham in order to make a point to you. You keep saying-- as the Minister and the DCMS have said for years-- there is no fundamental problem with the library service. That gives councils every where and officials in government the opportunity to say 'there is no problem therefore there is no need to devote time, effort and thought to making improvement-- in fact the service is doing very well' It is the story of the Emperor's New Clothes

Yet any small boy or person on the street can tell you that their public library is a shambles - most are dirty and scruffy, most are closed when they should be open and in most there is very little chance of finding what you need. That is what all the market research all over the country says, consistently and repetitively. Not all libraries are so bad-- but the figures clearly show that the majority are. Yet, you and the Minister keep saying 'there is no problem' -- so I wanted to point out to you that the evidence of the problem is in your own town, just as the evidence for the Minister is in the street next to her office. The issue here is not what librarians think-- it is what the public thinks. And, believe me the public, in general, think the service is pretty rubbish . So please stop telling everyone how wonderful the libraries in Rotherham are-- they aren't. If they were people would be using them.

Scanning the CIPFA figues, professional posts have gone down by 11%; overall staffing is up, mainly due to admin and clerical staff.
The bookstock decline is terrible, and needs to be halted swiftly- but I don't wish to link staffing and book losses. With good will and sensible planning it should be possible to maintain a well trained staff *and* a great bookstock.

Well done, Pete. so if the bookstock decline is terrible-- and the overall total budget is either fixed or needs reducing-- do you recruit more staff or buy more books? do we need more admin and clerical (and who are they? ) or less? who decides ?

Tim,
have just read the September 2007 library report produced by Rotherham MBC.
I see what you mean about lending figures, although the decline is being reversed. As for costs, that is not covered, although some funding was lost.
The stock is good as far as I can tell. There's a lot of reading group activity. The number of people visiting has gone up, although that could be accounted for in the main by computer use.

Tim,

a long reply, my apologies.

*deep breath*

On the pay scale etc- thanks for clarifying it. Overall I agree. I have said before that a work based training scheme, with different focuses for different tasks, and some managerial component for those running libraries could be a way foward. I would want some form of reflectiom built in too. It would be the logical role for CILIP- validating the courses,in cooperation with councils etc. This would provide a progression route and ensure that skills etc were kept relevant.

The library in Rotherham is good *in my experience* and I reserve my democratic right to say so. That people aren't borrowing as many books- this is a fact. I acknowledge it. I have no idea why- the stock seems good. The buildings do need work, something the council acknowledge- let's hope something is done.

I am happy to admit I was wrong about some aspects of the service that I am now learning about, and have contacted the service manager to ask about them.

My experience is all I can speak to. Should it change, as it has, I will comment accordingly.

Please note that I do not speak as a "librarian", but as a user.

My apologies if I have not been clear on some issues.

Let me make myself clear on what I feel about public libraries.

In essence I have said, here and on my own blog, that not all libraries are so bad, speaking only from my own experience. I consistently say that I am aware that there are problems, as I have seen reported elsewhere. Where they are bad, *of course* changes need to be made.

Perhaps fundamental assumptions about what libraries are for need to be reset first- the source of the problem is there. And I have clearly stated that I believe libraries are about books, reading and support for reading. Once those are established, other areas can be explored.

In terms of the last question, I'd say buy more books Tim- if the councillor responsible so decrees. Currently it is- or should be- up to them ultimately.

I have no idea who the admin and clerical people are, or what they do.

I'd say make more intelligent use of staff so you don't have to increase staffing *and* you can keep people in appropriate jobs. No more money on new staff. Savings can be made through better negotiations with suppliers and changing the way certain jobs are done.