Re: OT: Public libraries

On 4/22/2025 10:41 AM, bitrex wrote:

Volunteers tend to be retirees.  Often, folks with nothing else
to keep them busy.  As they tend to be older and often suffer
from physical ailments, their long term availability is questionable.

 i.e. people that don't ask for much and can be pushed around.
 There are no shortage of library science-degreed "real librarians" willing to work in a public library for modest wages. But they tend to fall into two camps: women who also have their "Mrs. degree" and (as you implied earlier) have their engineer husband as the primary bread winner. But there's only a glut of those in very affluent areas like say Cape Cod.

The turnover at my branch has been phenomenal!  No less than 8 "managers"
(they no longer call them "head librarians").  All "retiring" long before
"retirement age".
They have been pushed out -- coerced into quitting by being reassigned to
libraries clear across town from their homes or in "risky" neighborhoods, etc.
The most recent manager wasn't there a year...
This also extends to regular staff rotating through with short stays.
I am constantly being reintroduced to the latest group of employees...
by the NEXT group to be leaving!  My library card raising eyebrows:
"Oh, I've never SEEN one like this, before!"  (yet another attempt to
market themselves -- offer a CHOICE of library card designs; mine predating
all of those offerings)

And also younger freshly-minted degree-holders looking to improve their resume; library science isn't like comp sci they don't start headhunting even outstanding students from prestigious schools for cushy jobs at FAANG corporations out the door.
 There are roads to well-paid jobs but newbies are expected to pay their dues and working full time at a public library is sorta like the library science equivalent of a combat tour on the resume, particularly if they can point to concrete numbers "Increased patronage 30%. Re-organized media inventory for maximum efficiency. Implemented techniques to..." etc..

I doubt there is much that you could point to, here, as an "improvement"
in services -- unless you could indicate a reduction in *costs*.  Amusingly,
there seems to be money for rearranging the interior of the buildings
(new TALL stacks; then replaced with SHORTER stacks -- to open up the
sight lines to make the pace more "inviting" -- to rearranging the locations
of workstations, etc.)
Presently, our stacks are about 5 ft tall.  The bottom foot of which is
left empty (because people can't bend down that low).  Children stacks
are a bit less than 3 ft (though they can access stuff that's practically
on the floor).
My hometown (population 10000) library easily had more materials on hand
than this branch.
Note my other comment regarding how readily they *discard* items.
Is there a different pool of money for acquisitions??

But some towns aren't going to like hires like that either, they know their value and can't be pushed around, and will likely be on to better things sooner-or-later.

There are limited opportunities for such a degree, here.  Few businesses have
need of those services.  The city is 250 sq miles (e.g., Boston is a fifth of
that; chicago being comparable in size).  This takes a lot of opportunities
off the map.  Even suburbs are effectively affiliated with the single
(county!) library.  More remote suburbs have smaller budgets and fewer
facilities requiring staffing.
Feenigs being an alternative -- but generally a lot less desirable place to
live.