Emory Library Cuts Nearly 15% of Staff
Decatur Metro | September 25, 2009The Emory Wheel reports that Emory University Libraries has laid off “27 full- and part-time staff and librarians Wednesday” in an effort to bridge a $1 million+ budget shortfall.
A bit more…
“These reductions are based on elimination of work where job requirements have diminished or been consolidated, technology is being implemented, or cost effective alternatives have been identified,” Vice Provost and Director of the Emory Libraries Rick Luce wrote in an e-mail to the Wheel.
The library’s budget has been reduced by 4 percent, from $26.17 million to $25.13 million, as the library continues to reduce costs by enforcing collection acquisition cuts and by curtailing new hiring.
The library currently employs a total of 149 regular and staff librarians, 15 of which are regular part-time and 134 of which are full-time positions. The library also provides part-time jobs for 173 student assistants.
Latest from Decaturish
Wow, this is scarey. Not so much that library technology is replacing staff but that staff are being laid off rather than reassigned, furloughed, or just not replaced when they leave. I thought a well-endowed university like Emory would be a little more immune to layoffs.
Also, there’s something sacred about a library, kind of like a church, and one likes to think that working there would be peaceful, quiet, safe, not vulnerable to the business cycle. But I guess that’s unrealistic.
The problem is that the endowment is invested in the stock market, so what was well-endowed two years ago isn’t so much anymore.
Still better than Philadelphia, which very nearly shuttered ALL of its public libraries.
Wow. Benjamin Franklin would be turning over in his grave. Libraries and public schools are the basis of what made this country a land of opportunity vs. the old world where you had to be born into the right class to get access to learning. We need a constitutional amendment prohibiting the closing of libraries. I could live with not lending books, only having them available to read on site, but closing all libraries should be against the law. I’m positive that it’s a mortal sin.
“We need a constitutional amendment prohibiting the closing of libraries.”
I hope you’re joking, CSD. While I hate the thought of closing libraries as much as the next reader, the possibility of more federal government intervention in yet another aspect of our lives is anathema to me. Like other struggling media (e.g. newspapers, network TV), they need to find a way to make themselves more viable.
And that’s the end of my anti-government rant. You may now roll your eyes.
Is mortal sin ok?
Seriously, libraries aren’t closing, I don’t think, because they are struggling like newspapers. From what I’ve read, libraries are busier than ever in this economy. I don’t believe they are intended to generate revenue, are they? Other than fines, what revenue do they have? I guess I see public libraries to be like roads, public safety, national defense, public schools, and sewer systems–something that our country provided from the start so that we could be a free country with opportunity for all vs like Europe where only the high-born got these amenities. The rest of the population was supposed to live in squalor and ignorance.
Yeah, how is a non-profit that makes no money supposed to make itself “viable?”
I work at Emory library and after seeing several of my friends lose their jobs, this comment smacks of a lack of understanding that libraries aren’t businesses. They are there for the greater good and that is an investment, not only for Emory students, but for the larger population of the city.
Sometimes things cost money and it’s best that we all (specifically in the public library sense) shoulder the burden.
And libraries aren’t “media” either.
Snowflake, I’m totally with you on the mortal sin part. As a dorky child, libraries were my sanctuary, and I have fond memories of spending many hours safe from the south Florida sun in air-conditioned comfort and pondering the thousands of books I hoped to one day read (for free). I guess I just tend to react to phrases similar to “the government oughtta…”
Dresden, despite your assumption I don’t understand why libraries exist and their positive impact on “the greater good,” that does not mean libraries don’t have to remain viable. I am a strong supporter of the library system, and gladly pay taxes to keep them open. But that doesn’t mean they don’t need to find ways to attract and keep patrons who are easily led astray by all the other media out there (and yes, I do consider libraries a medium). If they don’t remain viable, they fall victim to those who don’t understand the sacrifices required to keep such valuable institutions open.
Finally, I am sorry for your co-workers who lost their jobs, as I am sorry for the 12,000 of MY co-workers who lost theirs. Don’t think you can make me feel guilty that just because they worked at a library they were any more valuable than others who have lost their jobs. DM and Dresden, I may be toeing the line with that last statement; if so, my apologies. But I sometimes feel people who work in not-for-profit organizations feel a sense of superiority over those of us who work for evil “big business.”
Nope doesn’t toe any lines in my opinion.
But I don’t quite understand how or why you consider a library a “medium” like an ad-supported newspaper. Be it in a borrowed book or free time on a PC, libraries are all about the belief that information be available free-of-charge to anyone that wants it. There’s no “viable” business model in that. It’s going to be a government money-suck regardless, if all we look at is the bottomline.
Libraries aren’t so much being closed because they aren’t popular enough, but because it’s a easy way to save money in a downturn. You ax a few librarians and all you lose is a bit of society’s intelligence and possibility (which is conveniently impossible to measure)…and of which there is an endless amount of. Right? right?
On a larger playing field, I’ve never been all that enamored by either the corporation-lovers or the government-smoochers. In our everlasting search for “truth”, we really strive to believe that we can define (if not implement) the solution to all our problems. But the more I see, the more I’m convinced if there is any sort of answer, it’s in-between. Government is the defense (taking care of ourselves) and big business is the offense (competing against each other and the rest of the world). Like a frackin’ football team, both are necessary in very large quantities. The real problem becomes when the offense starts to play defense (capitalism determining public health) and the defense starts playing too much offense (Fed Highway Act?).
Saying that a library, which provides a free, public service should remain “viable” (is that a conservative’s “sustainable”?) seems to me like using the offensive playbook to direct the defense.
I like this offense/defense analogy even though I’ve probably never seen a single football game in its entirety. It’s more specific and explanatory than just saying that we need moderation or the best of both worlds. Yeah, of course a mixed model of the business model and the public administration model is necessary, plus probably a few other models that I know nothing about. Life is complex in this universe and among humans with evolved brains and social behaviors that neuroscientists barely begin to understand. Too many are looking for a one-dimensional, one-size-fits-all, over-simplified approach to all issues. We need to balance strong belief, passion, and advocacy with a wisdom, broader understanding, and an empirical approach to solutions. Hah! And let’s do it by next Wednesday.
Back to libraries: My revised stance is we need them like we need roads; our civilization will be weakened without them. But libraries need to use good business practices to showcase and sell their work to the uneducated morons above them, I mean business officers (aka government bureaucrats and elected officials), who don’t already see their value. Since libraries are bustling with customers in this economy, I’m not sure they have to market themselves much better to their stakeholders (aka patrons). And if critical library staff and services are cut instead of the some of the consultants I’ve seen hired to provide generic, superficial, “strategic” advice to government at great cost, it’s a mortal sin.
I very much like Snowflake’s second paragraph. She captures what I was really trying to say. DM, I’m not advocating libraries should be run like businesses, and Snowflake has offered a better analogy (libraries to roads) than I put in my original post.
To make sure I am using the word medium, or media, correctly, I looked up the many definitions. The first one I found is “a means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information,” which to me broadly covers libraries. And when I talk about viability, it’s not necessarily a business-based definition. It is a more general idea that it is critically important that we keep libraries at the forefront of people’s mindset.
On another note, I seem to have inadvertantly positioned myself as a “business or bust” advocate. I just want to say that I recognize the need for government, taxation and regulation by a “by the people, for the people” leadership. I also recognize DM’s offense and defense will never exist fully peaceably. But I sometimes feel the need to defend commerce’s important role from some of the more zealous people on the fringe (that comment is not directed at ANYONE in this current discussion; each of you has put forth very thoughtful arguments).
Indeed. This seems like one of those conversations where we are all pretty much in agreement and have just been talking past each other. Yay for libraries!
I had never thought of business/government in an offense/defense manner prior to yesterday evening, but it sure is an interesting way of thinking about playing the game of governance. For instance…Defense is the last thing you can lose before falling into chaos, so it makes sense that forms of government proceed and underlie capitalistic ventures. Also, government CAN serve as your offense, but it’s a bureaucratic system founded on caution, so it often falters on the frontlines. And now I’m about to start spouting the theories of Stephan Ambrose, so I’m going to stop.
“Finally, I am sorry for your co-workers who lost their jobs, as I am sorry for the 12,000 of MY co-workers who lost theirs. Don’t think you can make me feel guilty that just because they worked at a library they were any more valuable than others who have lost their jobs. ”
I’m sorry your co-workers lost their jobs. But there’s no way I thought I could make you feel guilty about anything, mostly because I don’t know you or your work place’s lay-off situation. I don’t know if you intended to come off as defensive, but it certainly reads that way.
I knew almost all the people at Emory library that lost their jobs. I’m sure you knew many of the 12,000 at your company. But I never implied that non-profits were “better” or these people were more worthwhile than those that work in the private sector. You’re bringing that to the table, not me.
Emory’s AVP of Communications, Nancy Seideman, informs me that I incorrectly calculated the % of employees laid off from the library. The Wheel’s article was a bit unclear whether the 149 employees was pre or post lay-offs. I had assumed “pre”, so came up with 20%, when in fact its a “post” number….therefore the % is more like 15%. I’ve corrected the post title above.