How to use this Page

By Sarah Damaske

October was National Work-Family Month and, while we have a ways to go to making work-family balance a reality for all, I also think that we have a lot to celebrate. Women’s portion of the labor force hit an all-time high in the last decade and it remains at historically high levels today. And women’s employment has helped to bolster families in these hard economic times.

One of the reasons that Sarah Jessica Parker movie, I Don’t Know How She Does It, didn’t make it at the box office is that the story is less relevant than it was ten years ago when the book came out. While women (and, increasingly, men) certainly feel the strains of balancing work and family, they are also much more likely to be “doing it” these days — nearly three quarters of mothers with children under 18 work today.

I recently conducted eighty interviews with women living in New York City to investigate how they made decisions about work and family and what I found may surprise you. Nearly half of the women I met worked steadily full-time through their 20s and 30s, prime child-bearing and rearing years (and the majority of these women also found time to have children). Another 16 percent worked part-time after having kids and another quarter wanted to find stable full-time work, but struggled to do so. Only ten percent of my sample left work immediately after having children.

Women who stayed employed full-time found work provided unexpected benefits for their families. Women are now gaining higher education rates than men, so while they were rarely paid as well as their spouses, women often were in jobs that had better social networks. I met teachers, administrators and secretaries who were married to firefighters, mechanics, and prison guards. These women explained that their jobs helped them gain access to opportunities, like internships and information about good colleges, that their husband’s jobs couldn’t give them.

Women who worked steadily also felt more financially secure than their peers and could provide for families when times got tough. One of my respondents explained to me that even the best laid plans could go awry — husbands could be fired or fall ill — and continued work guarded against the unexpected.

While women are working more, there remains considerable diversity in their work-family experiences. Those of us championing Work-Family Month should recognize that this diversity demands a range of policy recommendations. Better family leave and sick day policies, as well as increased workplace flexibility, would benefit the women who stayed employed full-time. An increase in the minimum wage and universal daycare would most benefit the low-income women who wanted to work full-time but struggled to remain employed. Workplace policies that allow job-sharing or temporary part-time employment would accommodate the needs of mothers and father with young children. And re-entry programs and a stronger safety net would benefit those mothers who want to remain at home while their children are young.

My respondent, Virginia, put it best: “We all work and strive, because everyone wants the best for their kids.” If we take her words to heart, we can find the political will to implement these policies that will benefit our nation’s children and their families.

Sarah Damaske is an assistant professor of Labor Studies & Employment Relations and Sociology at the Pennsylvania State University and author of For the Family? How Class and Gender Shape Women’s Work.

0 Comments on Working women as of 1/1/1900

Add a Comment

By Sydney Beveridge, Social Explorer With the new school year approaching, Social Explorer is taking a closer look at education data today and over the years. The most recent available data (from the 2009 American Community Survey) reveal education levels and distinctions among groups, as well as the correlations between educational attainment, income and employment.

Add a Comment

At a time when young adults are aimlessly looking for someone, anyone, to hire them, it seems there's finally an industry that needs today's Millennials and is willing to potentially employ them in abundance. It isn't something you can study at... Read the rest of this post

Add a Comment

Jerald M. Jellison has been a Professor of Psychology at the University of Southern California for three decades.  His book, Life After Grad School: Getting From A to B, looks at the unspoken truth that less than 5 percent of the 2.5 million graduate students in the U.S. will realize their dream of becoming a professor.  Jellison looks at what the other 95 percent should do, illuminating the transition from academia to a satisfying and well-paying job with a company, government agency, or not-for-profit organization.  In the excerpt below Jellison addresses how students should find out if they are destined to become a tenure track professor.

What are your prospects of being hired as a tenure track professor?

This is a difficult question.  The answers can set off emotional alarms that make you want to scream, “I don’t want to think about it.”  It’s hard to estimate whether you’ll be hired because so many extraneous factors can influence your chances.  It can be difficult to get a precise answer to this question in the best of times.  Making a reasonable estimate is even more complex when the job market is in flux.  You also have to consider the ranking of your graduate program, your advisor’s academic reputation, and the strength of the letter of recommendation he’ll write.

University budgets are currently shrinking, and there are fewer openings for new faculty.  The shortage of positions is exacerbated because many older professors are postponing their retirement.  It was never easy to become an assistant professor – now it’s much more competitive.

On the other hand, a few stellar students can feel confident they’ll be hired for a tenure-track position.  The vast majority of grad students live with uncertainty.  There are some other sources of data you could use to determine your academic possibilities.  Compare your vitae with those of advanced students who will probably be hired as tenure-track assistant professors.

You could also contact recent graduates who became professors.  Ask their perspective on the current job market.  If they can review your vitae prior to the discussion, they may be wiling to give you a dispassionate estimate of your prospects.  Recent grads from your program will have direct experience with the job market.  They can give you realistic perspective.

In addition to talking to your major professor, you can also talk to other professors in the department. It may be challenging to create a climate in which they feel free to give you their honest judgment.  No one likes to deliver bad news, so unless your performance has been truly dismal, professors are inclined to paint a cautiously optimistic picture.

When professors make their predictions, listen carefully to their use of any qualifying phrase.  They may be trying to protect themselves, as well as you, by veiling a pessimistic estimate.  Listen for phrases such as “assuming you are very productive” … “if you really strengthen your vitae” … “if you can get all those papers published.”

To increase the chances they’ll be completely forthright, you must establish a context for the discussion by making it undeniably clear that you want the truth.  Reassure them that if they give you their realistic perspective, you won’t have a meltdown in their office, or go on a martini marathon.  Alert them ahead of time that you are seeking their advice because you respect their opinion.  As you enter their office, reaffirm that you’re looking forward to a frank conversation.  Explain that you want the truth because you need to make some hard decisions.

The writing may already be on the wall.  You may have a good idea of what each professor will say.  Prior to these meetin

Add a Comment

With the recent news of Yahoo’s potential acquisition by vile Microsoft and its prior layoff of 1000 hardworking geeks, there was a bit of an air of piracy in the office last week.

Linden Lab is going into another round of recruitment, focusing on web developers, QA folk, and other nerdy types. If any web developers out there (you, yes, YOU Joy!) want to work in a more stable, hilarious, and weird environment, you might want to fill out an application to work at Second Life. Free beer, the Love Machine, and a frightening amount of RockBand can all be yours!

Linden seems to be where the socially-developed nerds go to work. There’s a much larger % of women, extroverts, parents, and charmers working at Linden than is considered industry standard. Which means you tend to not find yourself in conversations with dudes who can’t make eye contact with a girl, or folks who get REALLY EMOTIONAL about their code.

It’s good to be a god, too, even if it’s only in-world. You can read more about our wickedcool office culture in the Tao of Linden.

Add a Comment

I'm still tracking through the new labor law, and I'm still on the purposes. (Part 1 is posted at Post # 160.) There are some good statements in the purposes with which I agree, and a few more subtle assumptions with which I disagree.

On the good side, these statements:

"...a minimum wage rate may not be sufficient to attract citizens and permanent
residents to take a job for which they are qualified."

And this:

"Wage rates will not rise so long as cheap foreign labor is available."

And this:

"The Commonwealth has the responsibility to provide fair employment conditions
for foreign nationals, to use their labor for the purposes of economic growth
and stability for which it was intended, and to regulate labor practices in
order to protect against potential abuses."

But then the law seems to eschew the most obvious means of addressing these issues: 1) a higher minimum wage; 2) a real and enforced moratorium / limit on the number of foreign workers in the CNMI; and 3) application and enforcement of all federal labor laws; promotion of unions; and, most importantly, treatment of all workers equally.

The purposes section promotes the idea that locals need to have less competition to get the jobs they "should" have, and those jobs should be the ones for which they are "educated"--the management and professional jobs.




Some of the problems in this part of the purposes section:

"The Commonwealth's goal is to establish a regulatory environment so that jobs
are available for its qualified high school, college, and graduate school
graduates."

The market place generally favors the more educated worker with higher wages, but the under-educated (those who have dropped out of school before getting a high school diploma) can contribute valuable skills and labor to a healthy economy. They should not be ignored. The policy of the government should not continue this prejudice against blue-collar work!




Another problematic statement of purpose:

"If the job is reserved for citizens and permanent residents, then the
competitive economy will cause the wage rate to rise to a level that citizens
and permanent residents find acceptable."

The CNMI Labor Department has failed to classify jobs for the past 25 years, and has allowed employers to hire foreign workers at minimum wage for jobs like accountant and engineer! We do not need to "reserve" jobs for the CNMI local residents to push up the wage. We do not need to perpetuate a two-tiered system of labor-with local workers in designated (high-paying) segments and foreign workers in the other (low-paying) jobs. This type of system invites abuse. The preference for U.S. and permanent resident workers is legitimate and needs to be enforced. But we need to enforce that preference in all job categories, and not create a two-tiered system of labor. We need our work force to work together, not separately.

There is another way of addressing the issue of artificially depressed wages in professional, management, and skilled jobs. Besides increasing the minimum wage-which encourages greater participation by everyone in the labor market, the CNMI Labor Department can set ranges/brackets of reasonable wages that must be offered for certain types of jobs if foreign workers will be used. This is less problematic on an equal protection basis than barring foreign workers outright from jobs. If our minimum wage is 50% of the U.S. minimum, then the range for an accountant's position could be 50% of what accountants earn in the U.S. When the job is advertised, resident workers can see the potential for greater earnings than minimum wage. This doesn't make us competitive or on par with the lure of the U.S., but is does provide for a balanced and consistent wage structure. And this benefits everyone. Many people who live here want to stay and willingly earn less than in the U.S. in exchange for the many beautiful and beneficial offerings the CNMI offers. The resident work force that is attracted to the higher paying jobs in the local economy can get these jobs if they want.



And yet another problem in the statement of purpose:

"The overall guiding policy with respect to foreign national workers is to
provide for a stable work force and protect due process rights without creating
entitlements."

It is that last bit--without creating entitlements--that I find troublesome. Our government has let in a huge number of alien workers over the past quarter century. They are not automatons, robots, who work and earn their pay and have no human life. They are people, with relationships, children, ties to our community. This bit of the purposes ignores the reality that has already occurred from the decisions of our leaders to allow this long-term alien population in the CNMI. Their children are U.S. citizens, born here. The children have entitlements that are shared by all U.S. citizens. These children, upon reaching 21, can petition their parents into the U.S. for green card (immediate relative) status. These children will vote in CNMI elections.

The fear that our local island population will be over-run by a "foreign" resident population is misdirected at the alien population. Our leaders have ensured this result by their decisions of the past, despite warnings, despite encouragements to have moratoriums on hiring foreign workers. It it too late to take back the CNMI from the natural consequences of the decisions CNMI Chamorro and Carolinian elected officials have made.

When I first arrived in the CNMI, we had a "permanent resident" law included in our CNMI code. It was repealed, on much the same thinking as now proposed in P.L. 15-108--the idea that the way to protect a cultural heritage is to deny others equal political status. This does not protect culture of any worthy kind. It only promotes evil.




One last bit before I close this long post:

"It is the intent of the Legislature that this Act shall not apply to persons
admitted to the Commonweatlh as tourists, or to persons employed illegally, i.e.
without the approval of the Department of Labor, or to those persons employing
others illegally in the Commonwealth unless specific provision has been made
herein."

The CNMI government is painfully aware that we have a human trafficking problem. Despite their repeated efforts to cover up current abuses and their insistence that the problem is a thing of the past, we keep seeing this. Especially in the sex industry--today's story is Club Jama. We've had the Red Heart Lounge, and the StarDust and Star Light nightclubs and others--all in the last two or three years.

When girls and women are trafficked into the CNMI they are almost always brought in as tourists, and then forced to dance naked or prostitute, kept locked in barracks or escorted everywhere they go.

Before P.L. 15-108, these girls and women could file labor complaints. And the Labor Department was fairly good at investigating. Now trafficking victims can't get this help. I think this is just another means the CNMI government is using to hide the reality of human trafficking in the CNMI. Workers, whether lawfully employed or tricked into unlawful employment, or foolish enough to agree to unlawful employment, are still laborers and deserve the protection of labor laws. It's not enough that the government may take up the case for the trafficking victims. They need easy access to a complaint mechanism that other workers have, too.



I'm not impressed by the purposes of P.L. 15-108. A law built on this foundation cannot be a good labor bill for the CNMI.

jmho.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Donald (sorry for earlier mistake) Cohen hints at it in his letter today. Anthony Pellegrino included it in the assumptions made in his column earlier this week. We hear it all of the time--islanders, that is, the Chamorros and Carolinians of the NMI, don't want to do the work that has been handled by the foreign workers, because they're lazy!

I beg to differ.

This is a stereotype like the "shiftless Negro" of last century, or the siesta-taking Mexican--both prominently featured at times in America. It's a false icon that has worked its way into the dialogue and needs to be challenged.

I've been here 23 years. I know people in most segments of the community. I work with Chamorros and Carolinians in my office on a daily basis. They're not the exception. They represent the excellent quality of workers that exist in the local community. And although I work in an office, it's not all paper work. There are times when we all pitch in to haul water, clean the office, repair our dilapidated surroundings. In the past we've moved locations. And everyone, especially our local staff, has worked hard at these jobs, too.

We've all seen islanders sweat and endure hours and hours of hard work on their local farms, or preparing for fiestas and other events. This is real work. We know Chamorros and Carolinians who have moved in droves to the mainland U.S.A. for better jobs.

There is no lazy gene in the local talent pool. When the motivations are there, islanders work as hard as anyone else.

The problem is the issue of motivation. What U.S. citizen wants to work for a mere $3.55 / hour? (And that represents a raise from the $3.05 that prevailed as minimum wage until July 2007!) If islanders value their work at a higher rate than $3.55 / hour it doesn't make them lazy; it just means that they are fortunately not as desperate as the impoverished foreign contract workers who will accept any low pay. If the local islanders are moving to the mainland for jobs (which they are), they're not expecting to laze about. They're working hard, but getting higher pay that their work deserves.

I've heard complaints from Saipan employers about their local staff taking off for funerals and family needs. I've known locals who gave up their jobs for these types of reasons. All to whom I've spoken at these times seem ignorant about the federal law, the Family Leave Act. We could do with some better education on this law and the protections it affords. We could use a local law that extends this act to all employers, including the small ones. Then there would be fewer problems with these personal issues.

Just because foreign workers have fewer rights, less status and are more vulnerable, they complain less. That doesn't mean the local worker is a bad employee.

Of course there are some who will not work no matter how high the pay or good the opportunities. These people exist in all cultures. But they are a small minority.

So let's stop assuming that Chamorro and Carolinians do not want to do the hard work, the construction jobs, the farm work, the cleaning and service jobs. And let's stop pretending that it's all about "training." There is some training needed, especially for construction, but that can be met with voc-ed classes and on-the-job training the same as in the mainland.

We don't need special rules to get locals into the workforce. We don't need special opportunities and more expensive "training."

What is lacking is "motivation." And motivation could be instantly supplied with a higher minimum wage, one comparable to that in the mainland U.S.A., exactly what has lured hundreds and possibly thousands of locals to the mainland in the past few years.

What we have instead of sufficient motivation is this foolish, slow adjustment of minimum wage that is designed for failure. It's designed to cost employers just enough to cause problems and not provide enough boost to workers to make a difference--so that it can be shut down and stopped, and the further increases can be scuttled. And it is designed so that suppressed wages at the horribly low amounts can be continued.

With higher wages in the private sector, the local population will step up and WORK! Employers will be less tempted by cheap foreign labor, which won't be as cheap any more. Those foreign workers who remain in the CNMI will be treated better, too, at least economically, with higher wages. And everybody will win. Those earnings, in whole or in part, can be spent here, or saved here, and help restore our economy.

So please, everyone--including our elected leaders here, and our community and federal leaders-- stop assuming that locals do not want to work in real jobs. Stop assuming we need labor laws that grant special privileges to our local population. Our elected leaders especially need to stop pushing for desk jobs and management positions for locals. Let's honor all work--not just with "labor day" and recognition that the leader of our Christian community was himself a carpenter. Let's honor it with a living wage and the courage to treat people who have blue collar jobs as important, contributing members of our community.

We have a diverse community, and a range of talents, skills and interests even among our local populations. Let's embrace this diversity. Let's provide the motivation for work by everyone, in whatever jobs are needed to be done. That motivation would be higher wages, decent wages, a "living wage."

And then let's see who is "lazy."

Display Comments Add a Comment

P.L. 15-108 is 71 pages long. So I'm going to comment on bits and pieces of it, as I plow through it. These are my initial thoughts. I may revise them as I get to other sections of the law. I may re-think my positions and analysis as information or other comments come to light.

And because the bill is 71 pages long, I won't comment on everything. I haven't formed any strong feelings based on the coverage yet. I've been somewhat amused by all of the back-and-forth debate, wondering how much of it is just over-reaction and how much is warranted.


So here goes--my first foray into P.L. 15-108:

I got to the bottom of page 1 without screaming. Already I didn't like what I was reading. The law begins as most laws do with a statement of "findings" and "purposes." These are often instructive in how the language of the law should be interpreted, so I like to read these.

But this one starts with a purpose of achieving more employment for resident workers. That would be good. But I didn't like the "finding" written into the law that Chamorros and Carolinians should get even more preference than U.S. citizens and U.S. Permanent Residents for training and hiring. I think the notion that such preference is desireable goes against the fundamental freedoms of our U.S. and CNMI Constitutions that provide for equal protection.

And I didn't like the inference that locals should be groomed for management only jobs. I'm not fond of the prejudice against blue-collar work. It crops up again and again here. I don't think it makes economic sense. It runs directly counter to what economists (quoted in our local papers from sources like Wall Street Journal and other reputable business-oriented publications) are saying is the bedrock of an economy that can grow and thrive. And I find the prejudice against blue-collar work morally offensive.

So by the bottom of page 1, I'm not liking this bill much.

At page two, I found this:

The Covenant envisioned the employment of foreign nationals in the Commonwealth in order to create an economic base that would provide the citizens of the Commonwealth the economic opportunities and standard of living that their counterparts on the mainland are able to enjoy because of the vast area and large population from which communities on the mainland may draw employees.

What does this mean? It sounds to me like we get rich off the backs of cheap foreign labor. And we don't dirty our hands with the work ourselves. And that's our glorious vision for the CNMI.

And this purpose is "esteemed" because it's written into our Covenant. It's a bedrock principal!


I've read the Covenant. I've read the committee reports that constitute the legislative history of the Covenant. No where is there any such purpose stated.

The Covenant provided for local control over immigration in order to avoid problems with too many foreign nationals coming into a small community. The worry was not that we needed labor to sustain our industry; we could get that with U.S. controlled immigration. The worry was that the U.S. controlled immigration would not be responsive to our small, local issues and would allow foreign labor to overrun the island and change its character.

How do I know this? I wasn't here then, but as I've said, I read the reports. None of the reports--the House Committee Report (#94-364), the Senate Committee Reports (#94-433, 94-596), the Marianas Political Status Commission Memorandum, the Administration Memorandum, all assembed in a handy Section By Section Analysis prepared by Herman Marcuse of the Department of Justice--mention anything about providing cheap foreign labor so the locals could use them to raise their standard of living. The only comment about the reason for local control over immigration is this, from the Senate Committee Report, echoed in the Administration's Memorandum:

The Immigration and Naturalization Laws (subsection (a) [of Covenant sec. 503]. The reason this provision is included is to cope with the problems which unrestricted immigration may impose upon small island communities. Congress is aware of those problems. See, e.g., Alien Labor Program in Guam, Hearing before the Special Study Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 19-25.

The vision of the CNMI's founding fathers was local control of immigration to limit the numbers of foreign workers. How badly did we screw up? Our government let in unlimited numbers of foreign workers, and we are overrun. And now our local population is a minority in its own place. That was exactly what the Covenant was supposed to protect against, but didnt work out.

So the "vision" now espoused in this latest law, because we can't admit that we made mistakes and didn't live up to the real vision, is one that our Legislators have concocted, not one that was built into our Covenant.

And it's an awful vision.

With this vision, I see the people of the CNMI standing on the back and necks of the poor foreign workers. While the people of the CNMI enjoy middle class life, the foreign labor eats the dust on the floor.

That's what these words say to me. That's what is hidden in the text of the purposes. That we must have a social stratification, where locals are the owners and managers and foreigners are the peons.

And it's wrapped up in red, white, and blue--saying that this is what they have in the U.S. and we want it too!

And that's another distortion. In the mainland U.S., all people can enjoy the benefits of the large populaton and industry that can be built with it, but all people are entitled to be treated equally, too. The workers in those factories are U.S. citizens who organize into unions and bargain for better wages and benefits. The owners can't deport them when they complain.

The stated purpose of P.L. 15-108 is designed to keep foreign workers in subjugation to us.

Is there some other reading of this purpose? Is it just a neutral saying that we need foreign workers because we don't have enough local labor force to maintain industries?

I don't think so, because then it would say that we are employing foreign workers to help us create an economic base, where all people in the CNMI could enjoy a better standard of living.

The specific design of this purpose puts the workers on the economic base side and the locals on the enjoying a better life. There's no shared work and no shared benefit. That's by design.

As a purpose for a law that governs how we live, we should be striving for a higher, more ethical way of life. This island if filled with "Christians." Christ argued for a living wage, not exaltation of locals over foreigners. Not special preferences at the expense of others. Christ was a blue collar worker--a carpenter.

We have a long way to go, and a lot of wrong thinking to overcome. Our legislators and Governor should hang their heads in shame for allowing this purpose to be included in P.L. 15-108.





As a small side note: I'm sure someone will say why didn't I address these comments when the bill was being considered. The simple answer is, I can't unless I receive a specific written invitation directed to me (and not the general public or general bar association, etc.). I work for an organization that has regulations prohibiting comment to influence legislation, unless specifically solicited. (And even when I receive a request, I'm sometimes too busy to put my professional time into it. This blog, I do on my own time.) Once a law is passed, it becomes fair game and I'm free to comment.

As another small note: It shouldn't take a comment from me for our Legislators to see how offensive these findings and purposes are. Or to read the Covenant and the historical documents and see what was really said, what the true purpose was.

Display Comments Add a Comment

In response to an inquiry from a former fellow ALA Councilor, what I’m doing these days is research and writing for a labor/management trust—essentially supporting labor issues in the organized pipe trades.  One current project involves green buildings; we strongly support the use of green technology and methods in construction, and especially in public buildings such as libraries. 

Here are some links to green libraries in California:

Los Angeles Public Library,  Silver Lake

Los Angeles Public Library, Exposition Park 

Santa Monica Public Library 

University of California, Merced

San Mateo Main Library 

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

Today’s correspondence includes a pair of messages.  The first is from the City of Los Angeles Public Library.  They wish to inform me of the following:

“Congratulations!  You have successfully completed the examination for LIBRARIAN,” et cetera.  My score on the test was 85; my rank number 2.  There were 2 individuals with the same score, and 2 with higher scores. 

I have of course taken this same examination with varying results.  If memory serves, I’ve scored as low as a seventy-something.  Also, if my memory isn’t too bad, an 85 falls too low on the list for them to consider me for hiring.  I’m in what you could call an endless tape loop, a sort of eternal Groundhog Day with LAPL.  If your curiosity is morbid enough to require complete satisfaction, you may search this site for other LAPL results over the past few, what is it now—years. 

I also received a big, fat envelope from the County of Los Angeles Public Library, one of our two large systems here in southern California.  This one also begins

“Congratulations!  You have successfully passed this examination with a final score of 92.50.”  It appears from the letter that I am in something called Band 2.  Last time around I scored over a hundred owing to veteran points, but wasn’t hired.  You will forgive me if I confess the belief that the County will not have become more supportive of my cause in the interim between that last test and this one. 

I am frequently asked why I keep interviewing with these libraries.  My answer is always the same:  I want to work as a librarian, particularly in the systems which I grew up in, and to which I owe so much as a patron.  Another reason is, they haven’t begun charging for the privilege—this isn’t like applying to graduate school.  Actually, what I think my friends are asking is why I would apply for work and post the results in a public forum.

The answer to that is because

1. I can.  There is this thing called the Constitution, and within that certain Amendments which permit me to write anything that is not libelous or a threat to national security.  Even in these troubled times, I don’t think that the feds will worry about this blog, though certain librarians have indicated their displeasure.

 

2. I should.  I want the library world to know what’s going on with regard to hiring; though I can’t write about any situation other than my own, I have the authority and the information to portray that.  Library workers and especially prospective librarians should be able to find real-life information about finding employment.  I can offer a smidgen, just a taste based on my own effort, and so I do.

3. I need to.  Somebody has to write about the paradox, the cruel and ironic situation of there being supposedly jillions of librarian jobs unfilled, and the fact that some of us are being turned down like a bedspread every time we test or interview.  Perhaps more than some of us, or maybe just the same somebodies, over and again.  Without explanation.  And because it begs the question, at least a dozen times over by now:  This guy here, the one with the blog, what is so bad about him that he shouldn’t be a librarian? 

And so we are here, and you are reading this, and I will return the forms that came in both of the envelopes and the story will turn a page into another chapter until the book is done.  I didn’t look at the last page but I can tell you how it won’t end:  I won’t quit applying.  No indeed.  Me and those libraries, those wonderful places that I grew up in and have used all my life may expect to hear from me in one way or another until they close the lid on my pine box.  And if they don’t like that, they have nobody to blame but themselves, because libraries, that sweet wonderful amalgam of books and people and reading, made me the way that I am.  For which I, at least, am grateful.

Michael McGrorty

 

Add a Comment

Today I got a note in the mail from the City of Inglewood:

Dear Ms. McGrorty:

We are pleased to inform you that you have successfully passed the examination process for the position of Associate Librarian.  Your final score is 86.00 and your rank on the eligibility list is 1.  This employment eligibility list will expire on September 18, 2008 unless the list the list is exhausted prior to that date.

Pursuant to the City Rules and Regulations, the top three ranks and applications of eligible candidates will be released to the hiring authority for consideration.

---------------------------

Well, I’ve learned two things:  that somewhere along the line I’ve had a gender change, and that I scored atop the other Inglewood candidates.  I am not particularly impressed with the latter bit of information, having scored in the same place with two other local libraries, both of which found a way to hire somebody else.  On the other hand, now that I am a woman, perhaps my luck will change.  This last hiring committee was the first one I’ve gone before (of many) which actually had a man on it.  You remember men—the library minority it’s still okay to mess with?  Yeah, those guys. 

I’m still waiting for news from one of the other previous “perfect score” libraries about my latest exam, and will go to the other one of them next week to provide another challenge to their ingenuity.  I get to take these exams every six months; the way I look at it, given the average life span, I will go before the local systems fifty more times each before I die.  Some day I’ll be rejected by the daughter of somebody who rejected me a generation earlier.

Meanwhile, I’m off to pick out some skirts for next week’s interview.  I’ll bet nothing for Fall is on sale anymore.

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

File under:  Prophets without honor.

We are all of us about to find out whether the library world can pull its head out of (let's just say the sand) long enough to prevent the loss of a very great person and a genuine asset to the profession.  I write of Walt Crawford, who is facing unemployment as of this October, and who is casting about for a position.  It is my fervent hope that some firm or other picks up his option so to speak, but it is my fear that Walt will be left unsigned after the winter draft.  As a free agent Walt would still be able to travel and speak, but I'm sure he could use a spot of the wherewithal as much as anybody else. 

I say about Walt what I've also said about Jessamyn West:  why doesn't some large library system suck these people up and make good use of them?  The answer is--well, never mind.  I try not to get negative after a good dinner.

See the man:  http://waltcrawford.name/

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

Years ago I worked as a probation officer in the County of Middlesex, which is in central New Jersey.  I took the job because I needed money—it paid $16,500 a year, which really money even in 1986, but it was close enough and we didn’t starve.

I was only in that job for 21 months.  I wish very much that I had been able to afford to be in it forever.  If you aren’t made for that sort of work you won’t understand why anybody would want to do it, and I’m not going to try to convince you.

The offices were grubby, every piece of furniture and equipment was shabby and dingy, the work was an eternal avalanche of excessive cases and the clients were all vying with one another to commit new crimes and otherwise drive me out of my mind.  I couldn’t wait to get to work every morning.

On Monday the newly-sentenced probationers would come from court to the waiting room, clutching their paperwork and often enough, the world’s biggest grievance against the court system, if not the entire world.  None of them seemed very grateful to have escaped prison. 

I remember that I would have to read them the Standard Conditions of Adult Probation, a list of promises that they seldom if ever kept.  They would sign this form and I would present them with a copy for them to lose on the train trip home.  The most commonly broken commandment of this list was Number Nine, “You shall support your dependents and meet your family responsibilities,” followed Number Ten, “You shall seek and maintain gainful employment, and promptly notify your probation officer when you change your place of employment or find yourself out of work.” 

I had a few probationers, some as old as sixty, who had never held anything like a regular job.  About half were functionally illiterate, and many of the rest couldn’t seem to figure out a train schedule.  Nearly all were abusers of alcohol and/or drugs, and a high percentage were addicts. 

On Fridays we would go to court to bring charges against the ones who hadn’t played along with that list of rules.  On the three days between new clients and court we would try to make something of the caseload, a living, breathing roster of human failures. 

These days, when I go out on job interviews, I hear employers ask the currently-fashionable question, “Would you feel comfortable working with a diverse group of people?”  I always answer, “Have you ever been a probation officer?”  But it doesn’t make any difference.  If you have never done that job, the explanation is only a collection of words.  What would I tell them that would resonate, anyhow?  Would I say, “Okay, you’re sitting across from a guy with fresh needle marks and a case of hepatitis who needs drug treatment and who is running from warrants all over creation.  Where do you start?”

When you interview for library jobs, they always ask what you’d do if a patron came to the desk to complain.  This, I take it, lies near the tension-ridden apex of the trade’s personal exchanges.  What does one say to that who has visited people in jail that he sent there the week before?  But I digress, and it doesn’t make any difference anyway.  The two jobs are light-years apart, not least in the type of people who pursue them. 

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

H.B. 15-38. AvailableHere . It's called the Commonwealth Employment Act of 2007, but it's all about alien labor. I haven't been invited to comment on it in my official job, so I can't submit these comments to the Legislature. But as a citizen and human being, I can speak my mind here.

I've made it through the first 10 pages of 63. The bill is long enough to suggest that it took some sincere effort. And I appreciate that.

But from what I've read so far, I already feel sick to my stomach from it.

This bill can't be good because it is based on assumptions that are wrong, assumptions that start with a view of our economic woes through the wrong end of the scope, assumptions aimed at rooting out the evils caused by those d___ foreigners we bring in to work for us, assumptions that are foolish and immoral.

Here are some things in the "findings and purposes" section that rankle:

PAGE 1.
"The employment preference for citizens and permanent residents is implemented by clarifying and improving provisions of the current law, such as limiting public sector jobs to citizens and permanent residents...requiring that employers provide jobs to citizens and permanent residents ...at least 20% of the work force, and restructuring the moratorium on new hiring of foreign nationals..."

WRONG. #1. This law will not help get locals into the labor force. Locals and permanent residents will continue to rush to the mainland where they can earn $7.25 per hour or more. What will get them into the local labor force are higher wages and better working conditions. Until employers are FORCED to provide these, no amount of law or administration is going to improve the preference for hiring locals. Locals don't want the bad jobs, and cheap foreign laborers complains less, are easier to dupe and scare into obedience, and are still readily available.

WRONG. #2. Employers must hire locals in numbers that make up at least 20%?!! That's the ratio of local workers to foreign workers we are aiming for? Four foreign workers for every local? Do you think locals want to work in those conditions? Do you think our US. citizens and permanent residents want to be the outcast, the minority, at work on our islands? Better to head to the US. Our Chamorros, Carolinians, Chuukese, Palauans, etc. will be a minority there, but they'll earn more and get full rights.

WRONG. #3. Restructuring the moratorium is a load of waffle. Set a moratorium and enforce it. Stop cheating.

STILL ON PAGE 1.
"This employment preference is promoted by effective job referral services...effective advertising...and effective training to qualify citizen and permanent resident employees for jobs that require special skills."

WRONG. #1. What makes you think that we can have effective job referral services with a new law. We have a law. We have a job referral office. It doesn't work. The problem is not that workers aren't signing up for jobs. The problem is not that referrals aren't being made. The problem is that employers WANT TO HIRE ALIEN WORKERS. We don't need to fix the government office or train the workers. We need to force an attitude change on the employers. WE NEED TO TAKE AWAY CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR. Otherwise, there will never be good jobs for our local people in the CNMI.

WRONG # 2. We can qualify our local population for skilled jobs, but if we allow employers to pay minimum wage for these jobs, because alien workers will accept the jobs at that price, we will never get our local population into the jobs. Accountants at minimum wage. Engineers at minimum wage. Paralegals at minimum wage. Nurses earning far below stateside standards. We will never get our local population into these jobs. W ell, at least not here. And the brain drain will continue and get worse.

STILL ON PAGE 1.

"The Covenant envisioned the employment of foreign nationals ...to create an economic base that would provide the citizens ...the economic opportunities and standard of living that their counterparts on the mainland enjoy..."

WRONG. #1. The Covenant envisioned that the CNMI would strictly limit immigration. The reason for local control was to allow fewer aliens into the CNMI than might come in under U.S. control, not to allow more. We screwed up.

WRONG #2. Are we really going to pass a law that says we're using the poor of the world to enrich ourselves? That's what this says. And it's immoral.


MOVING TO PAGE 2.
"The Commonwealth's...investment in ...education...has produced a local work force...for managerial, supervisory, technical, professional, and other skilled jobs.... foreign national workers must be available to fill the unskilled and lower skilled jobs..."

WRONG. #1. (I'm screaming here.) We are so superior that we continue to think we should "supervise" and "manage" others. We've done such a good job with our government, with CUC, with the state of our roads, our capital assets, our retirement program... This is so wrong.

WRONG. #2. Even if we have some talent (and we do), some educated (and we do), some imaginative thinkers (and we do), as a general policy, we should want only the best for the CNMI. We should always be looking for the skilled, the educated, the professional. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CAR MECHANICS, FARMERS, MAIDS, FACTORY WORKERS, WAITRESSES, STREET-WALKERS, PIMPS AND PROSTITUTES.

These are not the key to a sustainable economy. These are not the people who will make us smart, beautiful, welcomed in the world. We do not need the masses. And we can't sustain them. For Pete's sake, we import food! We import all our fuel! We have limited land. WE DO NOT NEED THE MASSES, THE TEEMING HORDES. We want fewer people, doing more. And that means we need to entirely revamp our thinking about who we allow to enter the CNMI.

If we are truly so smart and educated, we won't be afraid of the competition from other smart, educated people that we let come in. We'll benefit from the exchange of ideas. We can become a mecca of learning, of advanced research and design for oceanography, for the environmental green campaign, for something to help the world. We do not want to become a floating casino, money-laundering off-shore bank, dung-hole of the Pacific.


STILL ON PAGE 2.
"The current economic situation...requires the continued availability of foreign nationals...but also demands that the system...be more efficient and less costly to operate."

WRONG & RIGHT. This says we want cheap labor! We don't want to spend the money on an immigration and labor system that would be fair--just cheap. Well, the cheapest way would be to completely turn over immigration control to the U.S. Then the CNMI wouldn't have to pay for it at all. LET'S DO THAT!



STILL ON PAGE 2.

"The early-intervention mediation...achieves good results in promoting fair employment relationships..."

A THOUGHT. I don't know about this program. To be truthful, I've never heard of it. I wonder how many alien workers know about it. Perhaps it does work, in which case it should be advertised more widely.

ANOTHER THOUGHT. The biggest labor problem alien workers face is not getting paid for their work. When this happens, they are stuck. If they complain, they can be terminated and sent home without the benefits of the employment contract they made. If they don't complain, they may end up working for long periods of time without ever being compensated. They are helpless. This is why Buddi Dhimal set himself on fire--he worked and didn't get paid, and the CNMI government helpfully decided to send him back to Nepal without his pay. This is why the Chinese and other garment workers marched in protest. This is what makes work in the CNMI into slavery.

We can't make employers pay their workers because the employers leave, or have no money or assets that we can reach here. And we have "helpfully" stopped requiring employers to post bonds, if they ever did.

What we really need is a requirement that for every alien worker hired, the employer posts one year of salary and benefits. Then the CNMI government can issue the paychecks to them. When the next year comes, the employer has to post another year's advance payment to renew the contract. If employers don't like it, perhaps they'll hire locals.


STILL ON PAGE 2.

"Economic stability and growth ...require support for the visitor industry and other investments, both local and foreign, that generate new employment opportunities."

WRONG. #1. We don't need to generate new employment opportunities. Who will fill those jobs? More aliens. This system only provides stability for continued dependence on foreign workers.

What we need is to figure out a new economic model, a sustainable economy, that recognizes the limits of our environment and resources, and takes advantage of our natural strengths. We need to generate self-sufficiency, and something to export to help our GNP.

WRONG. #2. Not all economic investment is created equal. I am tired of seeing little tire shops along the road--we have enough already. On the other hand, the plastic recycling venture should be applauded and supported and multiplied everywhere. I am not totally against garment factories. I like clothes. But I want all of our businesses to be fair to their employees, zealously considerate of our environment, and basically moral. Not the robber-baron version of enterprise.

WRONG. #3. We need to support the visitor industry, but I fear that this statement in a bill that addresses alien labor means that we have to make exceptions to our good limits and standards on alien labor, exceptions for hotels and tour companies. And I think that's a bad idea. Look around. We have a local population that can fill many of these jobs. Visitors like to see local people when they visit. If there's one place our local population should be, it's in the visitor industry--spreading that island friendliness, creating our own "hafa adai" spirit to rival the aloha spirit of Hawaii.

I'm ready to tackle page 3, but it's late, I'm tired, and this post is already long. I'll come back to it tomorrow or the day after. But for now--let's just say, I think this bill will not take the CNMI in the right direction.

Just a brief summary, observation, here. This bill is aimed at alien workers. We can't change the vast number of impoverished, desperate people in Asia who are willing to come and work for low wages in the CNMI, willing to pay recruiters, willing to cheat and lie their way into the CNMI, just desperate to be willing enough to do anything. We have to stop focusing on our alien workers and start focusing on what we can change. Ourselves. Our own attitudes. That's where the solution to our economic woes lies. And that's where we need to put our energy.

Display Comments Add a Comment

The minimum wage is going up a whopping 50 cents, to $3.55 per hour, starting in July 2007.

Meanwhile, the U.S. minimum wage rises to $7.25, in a leap of $2.10. Notably, 30 states already have local minimum wages at that rate or higher.

And still our businessmen, like Juan Pan, complain and cry that this raise will hurt "us." Still, on our local news, we hear conjectures and hopes that there are loopholes, that this wage hike will be limited to one year, that the full effect of 50 cents per year until we reach the U.S. level just won't happen to us, won't be forced on us.

What "us" do these concerns purport to address? Not me. Not the fair businessmen and women here who already pay more than minimum wage. And certainly not the vast majority of people in the CNMI who are adversely effected by the wages kept low by a stagnant minimum wage and a ceaseless influx of desperate foreign workers, while prices continue to rise.

And yet it is these loud protests against raising the minimum wage here that make the news, are heard and repeated, are echoed by our Governor, are shown to represent us.

I am deeply ashamed of the CNMI.

The churches are full on Sundays, and the same people who sit in the pews and "pray" are willing to treat their brothers and sisters in God with contempt and disdain. Is it simply too much for us to share our earthly wealth? And why aren't our priests and ministers speaking out more forcefully about the needs of the poor? Don't all major religions include the precept of the need for charity? Isn't Christianity a promise to the poor, where a rich man will have as much chance of entering heaven as a camel of getting through the eye of a needle? Obviously, there are limits to the faith we share, weaknesses in our practice of it.

Instead of taking a chance on offering a living wage, the CNMI, through its loudest voices, insists that even a small pittance added to the miserable wages paid now will hurt us. What about all the employees, the "us" who are hurt by the constantly decreased value of static earnings?

The minimum wage hike that is now law, as it will be applied to the CNMI, is inadequate and is designed (intentionally?) to sabotage future wage increases. It's enough to force some marginal businesses to close, but it's not enough to do much good for people here to increase their spending or boost the economy in that regard.

I'm glad that the U.S. stepped into the long-time breach in fair wages here. I'm glad that there is some wage increase. But I wish that all of us in the CNMI would raise our voices to drown out the greedy, the heartless, and the users who protest this wage raise.

WE WANT A LIVING WAGE FOR EVERYONE. We support this and more raises to the minimum wage. All together now...WE WANT A LIVING WAGE FOR EVERYONE.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Walt Crawford received his termination notice from OCLC. I was really hoping he’d be one of the people they kept and apparently so was he. He’s now 61 and looking for work. In the library profession this shouldn’t be impossible, but it’s always a pain in the ass. If you’ve got a need for someone with his background, experience or attitude, don’t wait, drop him a line.

employment, jobs, walt

Display Comments Add a Comment

This morning’s New York Times informs us that there is a sort of minor rebellion going on among the food delivery workers in New York’s Chinatown—the ones who bicycle out to your home or business with those take-out orders of lunch or dinner.

As it turns out, many of the restaurants are not paying their employees the minimum wage, and, as the allegations go, are also making illegal deductions from what little pay they do provide. 

“‘The conditions are pretty bad in all the restaurants, so there’s no real advantage to switch to another restaurant,’ said Yu Guan Ke, a deliveryman who said Saigon Grill usually paid him just $120 in wages for his 75-hour weeks.” 

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/nyregion/15delivery.html

This sort of thing is not unusual in the restaurant community.  Many customers aren’t aware of this, but the federal law permits the restaurant to use the employee’s tips to make up the minimum wage.  Unless state law modifies or forbids this, that is.  [A sidenote:  the pending federal minimum wage legislation could either extend this credit or eliminate it entirely.  And something else:  did you know that those 20% gratuity charges they add to large restaurant parties and banquets aren’t tips—in other words, that they don’t go to the employees?  A tip must be a voluntary offering from the customer to the worker; it cannot be limited or defined by the employer.  That extra 20% goes to the restaurant or hotel management.]

And so, many of the food deliverers are filing cases with the federal government or with state authorities.  And they are winning.  The reason for this is that local immigrant support groups have stepped in to help the workers.  This is always a good thing.  Recent immigrants, particularly those who aren’t here under legal paperwork and who don’t speak English, often believe that going to the government will result in a quick trip back to their homeland, or worse.  This isn’t, and hasn’t ever been the case.  The folks who do wage and hour work are concerned only with the enforcement of wage laws—getting money for people who’ve earned it.  They don’t let the employer use immigration status as a club to beat down workers.  One of the things you will notice if you do wage and hour work is that employers will willingly hire illegal immigrants, and will just as willingly turn them out to avoid their responsibilities under the law. 

There are plenty of lessons in this, most of them obvious, some not so.  Remember this when the delivery guy comes to your door on a rainy night with your dinner.  Try to tip reasonably.  When the menu demands an additional 20% for large groups, call the manager over and ask why. And if you happen to find someone who might not be paid correctly, give them my name.  I’ll be glad to help them out for a cup of that good restaurant tea.

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

Let’s imagine for a moment that you, Jane Doe are applying to a library for employment.  You put in your paperwork and eventually get an examination date; let’s say that it is an oral exam, as they generally are.  Not long thereafter you receive a test score—for the heck of it let’s say you have gotten a ninety out of a possible hundred. 

The library you have applied to is a very large urban system; they interview and test constantly for openings at all levels.  On the application form is the notice:

“Applications accepted and testing done on a continual basis.”  You see that the letter with your examination results bears the notation:  “These results expire six months from the date of this letter.”

This has you confused, so you call the library’s personnel office for an explanation.  And are told, not unreasonably, that this is merely the way the library operates; receiving so very many applications, it would be difficult for them to open and close the examinations over and over again, especially for beginning librarian jobs. 

This answer leaves you a bit puzzled, but it appears that there is nothing to do but wait to be called for employment.  So you wait.  After an long spell of waiting, you call the library’s employment office and are told that you have not yet been hired because others have higher scores than you do.  This worries you because you notice that you’re the six months of your test score eligibility is running out.  Pretty soon you will have to take the examination again—possibly receiving an even lower score, which will further diminish your chances of ever receiving employment. 

You ask yourself, ‘Is this fair?’

The question is not whether the situation is fair, but whether it is legal.  Fairness is not, as many a person has discovered, an essential element of labor and employment law.  The law is mainly concerned with what an employer cannot do, and that is a small list indeed compared to what can and is done all the time. 

Having said that, let’s see what we’ve got in the Case of the Rolling Applicant.

Our Jane Doe has her test score in hand, a number which is not only open to assault by the test scores of others, but which has been rendered highly perishable by virtue of its limited lifespan.  Jane’s score is like the milk at the grocery store—a certain grade, without value after a particular date. 

The obvious benefit of this setup is that the library doesn’t have to open and close an exam for positions which will always be advertised and needed.  The disadvantages are these:

1. It denies the applicant the chance to be considered for a position against a stable pool of applicants—in other words, in a situation where all other circumstances are equal.
2. The test procedure permits the library’s scoring interviewers to discriminate based on their obvious knowledge of Jane’s sex and her test score; all they have to do is give a higher score to later applicants whom they prefer.

3. It leaves the library open to charges of disparate treatment and outright discrimination based on the above.

A window into why:

In 1978 the federal government promulgated its Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which has since become an essential guide for employee hiring.  What the Guidelines provide the reader is a sort of word-to-the-wise about what federal investigative agencies (EEOC and so on) will look for when examining hiring procedures by employers both public and private. 

Among other things, the Guidelines require that a testing procedure for employment have the following to be considered valid:

Content validity.  Demonstrated by data showing that the content of a selection procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the job.  See section 5B and section 14C.

Construct validity.  Demonstrated by data showing that the selection procedure measures the degree to which candidates have identifiable characteristics which have been determined to be important for successful job performance.  See section 5B and section 14D.

Criterion-related validity.  Demonstrated by empirical data showing that the selection procedure  is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior.  See section 5B and 14B.

All of these various terms and conditions are put down by way of determining whether the hiring process complies with federal prohibitions against discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, veteran status and national origin.  The Guidelines do not explicitly state rules for the test procedure, but we can easily imagine a complaint being filed by our Jane Doe, herself a woman and therefore a member of a protected group, against the library on the following grounds:

“I, Jane Doe, was the victim of discriminatory hiring practices by the Blank Library District in that the competition for open positions was rendered discriminatory by virtue of the fact that my score was rendered consistently inferior to the scores of others outside my group, not because of my own performance or any objective standard, but because I was made to compete unfairly with an endless stream of applicants whose scores were continually re-introduced to the pool until my eligibility ran out.  I feel that the test was not unbiased in that my test score became known to the evaluators of later applicants, who could then consciously or unconsciously decide to score others higher until I was effectively eliminated from consideration.”

Jane has got herself a nice allegation there, and one that the library district will find very hard to dispute.  The investigators don’t even have to get as far as those three measures of validity—the test, that gathering mechanism for essential data from the pool of applicants, seems pretty shaky on its face. 

The reason why most recurrent tests have open and closing dates is to draw a box around a group of applicants; single them out for a common exam, in a common time period, which is evaluated by a common procedure—not, mind you, the applicants but their attributes.  Jane is alleging that the procedure permits the library to ensure that others surpass her known test score.  How much do you want to bet that some of those who got jobs were not in Jane’s protected class? 

Despite these risks, rolling application procedures of this type are not uncommon in the library world.  Caveat employer.

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment

In November of 2004 I applied for a position as a librarian with the County of Los Angeles.  I was interviewed shortly thereafter, but received a notice that I did not pass the examination, which consisted of a handful of oral questions.  Passing required a score of seventy, and it is possible that I scored as low as a zero.

In November of 2006 I reapplied and was given another oral exam, with the same handful of questions; the result was that I received a score of 95 out of 100, to which veteran’s preference points were added, making my final score 105, and therefore higher than any other possible applicant other than a veteran or disabled veteran. 

During a later assignment interview I was informed that the library personnel office would be in contact within a short time.  In January of 2007, not having been contacted, I began a series of phone calls to the library’s personnel offices.  Their representative informed me that they had no information to provide.  Finally I was told to contact certain library managers, who did not respond to my emailed messages.

During the month of January 2007 I examined the listing of openings for Librarian 1 listed on the County Library website.  On successive days I various libraries and their chief librarians, all of whom reported that they did in fact have openings for an adult reference librarian, and that they would welcome my employment in those branches. 

I discovered that one of the openings I inquired about had been filled and the others not yet been filled by anybody else.  Further inquiries to the library have not resulted in any information or assistance of any sort.  In other words, the silent version of the runaround.

Rather than accept this as a final outcome, I decided to ask for some help.  I filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.  They in turn have accepted the case and have sent a notice to the County Library.  The letter from the DOL to the County is lengthy; it includes s summary of allegations and other material.  Paragraph number four states,

“On the surface Mr. Michael J. McGrorty has established a prima facie case that his initial failure to score high enough to be considered in November 2004 while his subsequent high score the second time he applied on the surface appears to have been due to discrimination toward him because of his military duty and status

Add a Comment

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill to increase the federal minimum wage; that increase, the first in almost a decade, would raise the minimum from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over a  two-year period.  The Senate has voted against the bill, but passage in that house appears to depend upon the addition of tax breaks for small businesses.  In any event, nearly all experts in the field believe that the bill will eventually be passed and the wage increased.

The effect of an increase in the minimum wage should be considered by library managers well in advance of its occurrence.  Public employees are explicitly covered by the federal minimum, and the instantaneous change in wage rates and relationships calls for quick change, not only in wage rates but in other areas of administration as well.

Apart from the simple increase in wages and the impact upon budget planning, other significant elements to consider include the effect upon current collective bargaining agreements, retirement and benefit contributions, and overtime calculations.

The increase provides an opportunity for management to re-evaluate pay structures and practices; within the collective bargaining milieu it offers the chance for a constructive discussion of wages and classifications, with or without a re-opening of the agreement.  The time to act is now, before the wage increases become law.

M. McGrorty

Add a Comment

One of the commonest things to find on a library listserv is a newly minted librarian or library student complaining about the difficulty in finding library work.  It is also not unusual to read comments to the effect that library administrators don’t care whether there are enough jobs, and that they also don’t care whether the starting pay is adequate.

To be sure, it has never been an easy thing to obtain employment as a librarian.  The best strategy, and it is not a suitable one for many, is to be willing to move just about anywhere to get work.  As for those allegedly uncaring administrators, I am sure there are a few out there; even so, common sense dictates that it would not work to the benefit of any library chief to be unable to fill positions because of low salaries.

A case in point:  Los Angeles County Librarian Margaret Donnellan Todd.  Reviewing her regular communications with her bosses (the County Board of Supervisors), I find frequent, and in fact, constant comments like this one:

“As stated repeatedly in our previous reports, until salary and classification issues are made competitive, the recruitment and retention of librarians will remain problematic.  It is our hope that with the salary raises negotiated in the new union contract, we will see improved recruitment numbers.  In the meantime, the Department is working hard to continue active recruitment measures to fill librarian vacancies.”

--M. D. Todd, Quarterly Report, Recruitment and Retention.  [click here, or go to http://www.lacounty.info]

Todd’s mention of this situation is as regular as these reports.  If you go to the county’s document website, you can see the actual number of vacancies (41 as of the date of the cited report) and what the Department is doing to fill them.  These are hardly the acts nor the attitude of an administration that doesn’t care—they obviously do, and from the nature of the correspondence, it seems likely that the Board of Supervisors wants to be kept informed of the situation.  Somebody, in fact, many important somebodies, seem to care quite a bit, at least our here in Los Angeles County.  Keep that in mind for what it’s worth, and don’t forget that there are jobs to be had in this neck of the woods. 

Michael McGrorty

Add a Comment