We all know that our profession is in the midst of a transitional period from an older conception of librarianship grounded in print culture to…well, we really don’t know what yet, do we? It’s no secret that libraries and librarians are struggling to define their roles in the new technology-centric climate. Unfortunately, many in the field who are wary about the potential effects of the new technologies on librarianship are often depicted by some advocates of “Library 2.0” as being “resistant to change.” But often such people are not resistant to change per se. What they are resistant to are changes that they do not have any control over, and that could potentially deskill and deprofessionalize us if improperly implemented by library management. It’s not so much a question of “tradition” versus “change” but rather a question of power relations in the workplace and who gets to make decisions that affect the fundamental nature of our work.

Fortunately, a rather large percentage of public librarians in the U.S. are members of good, old-fashioned organizations that could potentially give them a voice in how technology-driven innovations in libraries are implemented – unions. Unfortunately, the potential role of our unions in positively shaping library innovation in the coming years has been almost completely overlooked.

Union density (the percentage of workers in a given field who are union members) in public libraries is very high. According to a recent report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate in 2008, at 38.7% (link to the press release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.htm). In comparison, only 12.4% of the total wage and salary workforce is unionized. We need to use our unions to democratically decide how libraries will redefine themselves in the coming decades. This will help to maintain the professional status and salaries of librarians and improve the quality of the services we offer to the public.

There are a number of potential obstacles that must be confronted if our unions are to be relevant in this regard. Many library union locals are moribund. Members often view the union as external to them, as an insurance scheme that exists only to maintain wages, administer benefits, and handle a grievance here and there. We need to understand that we are the union and that it will only be effective to the degree that we are active and ready to organize ourselves around these issues. Also, decision-making in regard to innovation is usually considered a “management prerogative” that workers cannot bargain over in contract negotiations. This can and must change. The influx of young librarians into the profession can revitalize our union locals. And vibrant, active locals can organize to assert greater worker control over innovation so that management does not use technological innovation as a cover to deskill and deprofessionalize our jobs (and subsequently lower our wages and salaries). Let’s talk more in the comments. I’d love to hear what people out there think about this.

The Friday morning sessions weren’t super-compelling. I went to “How to Work Positively in a Unionized Environment” because my system is unionized, and I’ve heard many many comments about how that is one of the big obstacles to change. However, the presentation was a little disorganized (there were seven people talking!) and the talking points were pretty general and obvious. (Respect, Trust, Understanding, Openness, Courage, etc.) There was also some roleplay to illustrate the difference between “traditional” positional bargaining and “interest-based bargaining” which is supposed to lead to win-win results. Of course, every single alternative negotiation methodology makes the same claim, so I’d take that with a grain of salt. Ultimately, I didn’t take much away from the session.

The other session I went to was “Optimizing Space For Results,” which interested me because the branch I work out is a big open building where the distribution of furniture, shelving, “zones”, etc. hasn’t been that well thought out. I was hoping to learn some specifics about how to reimagine or redesign the space, but the presentation was a little more general than that, along with a lot of visual examples of how various libraries have tackled certain challenges. It was all fine, but I had a hard time identifying any real takeaways.

Heading to lunch now.