 |
 |
Would it be true to say that the type of people who have traditionally followed the professions that Stuart mentions as being lower paid - librarians, teachers, social workers and nurses - are those that do not generally promote themselves, argue for pay rises, convince others of their worth, etc.? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Morris, Electronic Information Development Officer Hugh Owen Library, Information Services, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Penglais Campus, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3DZ Email: [log in to unmask] Extension: 1892 Phone: (01970) 621892 FAX: (01970) 622404 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In message <[log in to unmask]>, Stuart Halliday <[log in to unmask]> writes: > Hi folks > > Hazel's email seems to have raised a number of issues, one of which is > our lowly level of professional remuneration. > > What we are paid certainly does not accurately reflect the vital > function which we fulfill. In terms of the professions employed by > public service, why do librarians, social workers and teachers get paid > less than doctors, solicitors and engineers. On one level at least all > are equal. All are graduate occupations, all require intelligent, > articulate, erudite professionals in their ranks The question, however, > is twofold. Why has the situation of differential levels of pay > developed, and how is it to be remedied? > > Re the first question, one answer might be that doctors and (to a lesser > extent) engineers are paid more because the implications of error in > their profession could detrimentally affect human life. This answer does > not really go far enough, however. The real reason is, I feel, more > straightforward. Taking the case of engineers and solicitors, the bulk > of their professional members work in the private sector, in which more > competitive salaries can be paid. Thus the private sector sets the > yardstick which the public sector must follow in order to recruit > competent staff. In the case of teachers, social workers and librarians, > the reverse is the case. The preponderance of the profession work in the > public sector which is free to set a much lower wage structure (and > which, unfortunately) which the private sector can subsequently adopt as > its yardstick. > > That is primarily why we lose out. It is therefore folly to blame our > professional body for our low wages. It is not the Library Association's > fault. It is simply the fault of market forces and, if you like, of the > financial system by which we are governed. > > How are we to change things? There seems no way forward short of > ditching the whole capitalist/monetarist system, the very system which > is responsible for the truly obscene variations in remuneration - a > system all three of our major political parties slavishly support. Think > of the pittance paid to members of the nursing profession against the > millions earned by (or rather, paid to) to footballs and their talents > wives, for instance. Or consider the obscene wealth enjoyed by the > Gatesian empire, which at its height could have bought off the entire > Third World debt and still had enough left over to treat every adult > inhabitant of South America to a fish supper and a crate of Newcastle > Brown Ale. Surely the answer to the our simple question (and to the much > greater one) lies in finding a viable, acceptable and democratic > alternative to capitalism? > > ------- End of Forwarded Message %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%