On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Katherine Malmquist wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong but it seems the message going out from many of our
> members is that we can solve this problem of using outside businesses
> to run a law library by just not Interlibrary Loaning items to the
> "contractor" of Baker & McKenzie. Excuse me but that supposes two
> things:
>
> 1. Law librarians are only good for interlibrary loans -- I mean if
> you can cause total caos in the firm only by not interlibrary loaning
> than that is what we are only good for.
Since the majority of us do not work for Baker & McKenzie, denying them
ILL's is really the only thing that we, as a group, can directly do to
register our disaproval with the firm's actions. Sure, we can write
letters and form committees to combat this phenomenon. There absolutely
is a place for that apporach. But, we need to be far more active in
preventing this from becoming a trend.
I have nothing against library contractors. But by simply taking the high
ground and assisting the scabs that are hired to replace the B & M
Librarians (even if they turn out to be professional librarians) we risk
cutting our own throats. Let's face it: if it works out in the Chicago
office of Baker & McKenzie, then all of us that work for law firms are at
risk of being outsourced out of our jobs.
These thoughts are my own and do not reflect the collective thinking of
Skadden Arps.
Anthony Amabile
Online Services Librarian
Skadden Arps
NYC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST