For those seeking an answer as to why the B&M atrocity
happened, the answer may very well be found in Maura McBreen's
comment, as reported in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, that this
is part of Baker's plan to make its Chicago office a "'showcase'
for global telecommunications and library services", and that the
B&M "internal staff was not in a position to do as well as an
outside agency in making the operations global."
The comments from Ms. McBreen are nothing but a collection
of the latest consultantspeak. (George Orwell, where are you when
we need you?) It would not surprise me, in fact, to learn that
the statement was prepared for her by the consulting firm that
advised B&M on closing the library (Peat Marwick, by one account
posted in this list). I know whereof I speak: I have read
hundreds of consultants' proposals and project reports, and the
jargon is enough to make you gag. Strip all the business school
buzzwords away, and what you usually find is that the basic
recommendation of the consulting firm is to get rid of FTEs. Call
it whatever you like, reengineering, restructuring, downsizing,
right-sizing, the result is the same: good people out on the
street.
On April 8, Michael Cassidy wrote, "If, and this is a big
if, a contractor takes over the operation of the B&M library,
they won't be supporting the decision to lay off the old staff.
They will be supporting their right to seek work, thereby keeping
their librarians employed." Well, that all depends on which
contractor gets the job. The latest wrinkle in this kind of thing
is for the consultant to propose firing the in-house staff,
outsourcing the services, if the client still has a need for
them, and then itself providing the services. It would not
surprise me to hear that Peat Marwick is providing the library
services, or that it has set up a captive company to do so. I
have seen this done; I know it happens. Any of the ethicists out
there want to comment on that? With all due respect to the
Cassidys, I seriously doubt this is the kind of thing they had in
mind when they were defending the role of contractors in this
debate. I would also hope that, if the possible scenario I have
described is indeed the case at B&M, that they would not support
such a way of doing business.
I'm glad to see that AALL is taking up this issue. I also
feel, as some others have noted here, that we as librarians
should be looking at effective ways to be respected as
professionals, and should learn how to make a business case for
what we do. We do add value to our firms, whether as in-house
staffs or as independents.
Ann Davidson
adavidso@oyez.law.upenn.edu
Opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my institution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST