Library Worklife

Volume 4, Special Issue • June 2007

Spotlight

Good News: Better Pay, Reduced Workweek Hours and Improved Benefits Revived Montville Township (NJ) Public Library (v3n5, May 2006)

By Patricia Anderson

Already established substandard wages, poor productivity, bad morale, high staff turnover, mediocre customer service, a non-competitive workweek, poor workplace conditions and facing hostile collective bargaining negotiations just around the corner, the outlook for improved wages and work conditions seemed hopeless. The year was 2003 and the union contract had already expired. As the newest director at the Montville Township Public Library, following a series of rotating directors, I had to remind myself why I accepted the Director position. I told everyone it was because I needed a new challenge. Challenge was an understatement.

The following article should motivate other librarians and library workers in similar seemingly hopeless situations not to give up. Even if it’s only one person, albeit the director or a department head or a lone board member, it is possible to pave the way for positive negotiations, revive staff morale and confidence, and convince library trustees that it is important to pay market rate wages and offer competitive benefits in order to provide better service to the communities we serve. I should know because I did it and in all honesty it wasn’t easy. There is no substitute for fact-gathering, number crunching and a constant "stay the course" mentality.

At the time, I had just completed a statewide salary survey for the New Jersey Library Association and a salary advocacy toolkit for the membership, so I was feeling quite confident at the time that I could take on another demanding project. I told myself I would make a difference for the Montville employees and the library. After all, I had improved wages and salaries as director of two other public libraries. I had been through the ALA salary advocacy training in Atlanta the previous summer. In short, it was time to put my money where my mouth was.

Allow me to provide a bit of backdrop to the challenges that I faced. The library had been suffering from a leadership vacuum due to long periods of either no director at the helm or a series of intermittent directors and acting directors. To be fair to some of these individuals, they were often so overloaded with day-to-day building problems and personnel staffing issues, there was little time to address global concerns, such as the overall wage structure, benefits and customer service.

Not only was there a leadership vacuum at the director level, the board of trustees was unfocused. There was no strategic plan or vision and there was no commitment to staff development. An internal building renovation project had just been completed in 2002, which had required the bulk of the previous director’s attention. The building project seemed to be the primary focus for everyone at the expense of the collection, morale, poor wages and staff vacancies. In fact, when I arrived in early 2003, there was a beautifully renovated children’s library, but no children’s librarian. What is the point of having a beautiful building if there is no one to staff it?

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on how the Library Director and the Library Board improved overall salaries, wages and benefits due to a significant change in commitment. How does a change in direction/commitment occur? What is required to initiate this change? How does a Library Director convince a Board of Trustees that it is imperative that more dollars be allocated to wages and salaries?

First and foremost, someone—the Library Director, a trustee, or a staff person—must take on the role as "lead spokesperson." They must be willing to articulate what the key issues are and why the current practices must change. Articulating the issues requires: 1) identifying the problem; 2) identifying potential solutions; 3) conducting a cost/benefit analysis for budget purposes; 4) and a constant reiteration of what you are hoping to accomplish.

In the case of the Montville Township Public Library (MTPL), the head of the Personnel Committee took on the role as lead spokesperson. She was a stickler for facts and numbers and knew it was not adequate to just say wages at the MTPL were substandard or below other libraries within the county. She wanted proof and the more numbers the better. It was up to the Director of the Library and the business manager to gather the data. There was evidence that wages were not competitive; staff turnover between 1999 and 2002 was 50%. Many employees were leaving citing a non-competitive hourly wage, a non-competitive workweek, and a weak benefit package in relation to other libraries within Morris County. The workweek at MTPL was 40 hours a week, whereby all other libraries within the county worked a 35-hour workweek. The longer workweek only made the hourly wage differential that much more disparate.

The philosophical mantra that the Director and Personnel Chair repeated often to the remaining board members was that "if the library wants to attract high quality job candidates and retain them, the library must increase wages and benefits and reduce the work hours to become competitive."

The first step toward proving that wages for MTPL were substandard involved surveying each library within the county. The library attorney, who was preparing for the upcoming union negotiations, actually mailed the survey out to surrounding libraries on his letterhead. Coming from the board attorney added some credence and urgency to the matter. There were only a few weeks to gather the data and prepare for late summer negotiations. The first time the survey was sent out, only nine libraries out of thirty-four (34) surveyed responded. The small sample size that responded did not satisfy the Personnel Committee. As mentioned previously, there is no substitute for fact-gathering and data collection. As a result, a second survey was conducted.

This survey yielded better results. Fifteen (15) libraries responded and the wages from both surveys, along with our own actual hourly wages for MTPL (see Table I-2003, actual figures are in first column). Based upon an employee earning $30,000 per year, it was deemed that a Montville library employee earning the same wage earned approximately $2.00 per hour less due to the forty (40) hour workweek, a 12.5% differential.

In nearly all job classifications except "principal library assistant," a Montville library employee actual salary was below the Morris County average. (see Table 1—shaded column to far right). After weeks of data gathering, it was clear that the MTPL wages were considerably below their counterparts within Morris County. The Personnel Committee still had two more items to address: 1) the forty (40) hour workweek, and 2) the lack of benefits that were competitive with other libraries.

Regarding the workweek, a cost benefit analysis was performed showing what the "cost" to the library budget would be in terms of lost productivity for the final quarter of 2004 and all of 2005. Note that union employees were now working more than a year and a half into a new contract year without a finalized contract. A mediator had been assigned to complete the negotiations in August of 2004. The Personnel committee was preparing for a wage restructuring to take place in the final quarter of 2004 and of course this would impact all of 2005 as well. After conducting a cost benefit analysis, the impact on 2004 was negligible due to staff vacancies. This was good news and was making a case for implementing the workweek change.

The pluses of a thirty-five hour workweek were:

A thirty-five hour (35) workweek would achieve parity with other Morris County libraries at a minimal cost to the salary and wage line item in 2004 and 2005.
Because full-time staff salaries would not increase during 2004, the net savings to payroll would not be compounded in subsequent years and payroll taxes would be reduced by 8% (payroll tax rate in NJ).
Recruitment efforts would be enhanced dramatically.
Staff turnover should be reduced.
The mantra of "attracting high quality job candidates and retaining them" was again reinforced.

The minuses of a thirty-five (35) hour workweek were:

The reduced workweek would set a precedent for future wage negotiations. However, any change could be negotiated as a one-time occurrence.
The reduced workweek could be or would be construed as a huge "gain" for the union, which could affect the balance of future negotiations.

Due to space constraints of this article, it is not possible to illustrate all of the cost benefit scenarios. For instance, another concept that was considered was a one-time across-the-board 10% wage increase for all union employees, while retaining the forty (40) hour workweek. While this was actually a less expensive option by a few thousand dollars, it was rejected primarily due to the 10% increase, which again the committee felt would be precedent-setting. They felt it would upset the balance of future negotiations.

The last of the three-pronged approach to correcting the wage and benefit disparities was the "benefit" equation. Vision and dental benefits were available to library employees at their own expense. Approximately ten full-time employees were eligible for these benefits, administered by Montville Township. Several employees had discontinued the dental benefit because the premium was quite high and was almost equal to the overall annual benefit. The annual premium was approximately $900 and the benefit was $1,500 per year. As a result, several individuals had dropped the benefit completely. Employees were also disgruntled over this benefit because Montville Township employees received this benefit, along with vision, at no cost.

As a sign of good faith and as a morale-building exercise, vision and dental benefits were granted to all full-time library employees. The cost to the library for this added benefit was approximately $17,000 per year. Considering that library employees had not received this paid benefit for nearly ten years and through several prior collective bargaining sessions, this was a true olive branch extended by the Library Board. It was an indication that the Library Board really did want to strengthen recruitment efforts and build a positive relationship with the union. A few board members were not completely behind this gesture, but the majority ruled in favor and it was part of the overall Memorandum of Agreement reached between the union and the board in August of 2004.

Following a daylong mediation session in August of 2004, the union employees successfully negotiated the following contract highlights:

Three year wage increase of 4.5%, 4.25% and 4.0%
Reduced workweek from 40 hours to 37.5 hours per week (compromise)
$1.00 per hour increase for all library assistants
Increase to $11.25 per hour for all senior library assistants
One-time adjustment of 6.25% for all full-time employees due to the reduced workweek
Vision and dental benefits for all full-time employees.

Granted, not everyone benefited from the negotiated contract, but in the aggregate there were significant improvements on the wage and benefit side. The most impressive gains were at the entry level and at the senior library assistant job classification level. It took a lot of hard work (more than a year and a half) to convince everyone on both sides of the table that it was necessary and imperative to increase wages and benefits in order to attract good quality candidates and not lose them to other libraries. A new and improved wage structure was intact. Both the Library Board and the union membership ratified the agreement in the fall of 2004.

Now, two years later, spring of 2006, the "proof is in the pudding." Turnover has subsided, productivity has soared and morale has improved greatly. It is once again time to start preparing for another round of negotiations, as the union contract expires in December of 2006. The good news is that it is possible to turn a bad situation around, but it requires diligence, sound economic arguments, and cooperation among all parties. Sharpen your pencils.

Patricia K. Anderson is Director of the Montville Township Public Library in Montville, New Jersey.

Winners of the 2005-2006 SirsiDynix ALA-APA Award Spread the Word about Salaries (v3n5, May 2006)

By Gwyneth Mibeck and Elissa Cadillac

In April and May we are featuring the winners of the 2006 SirsiDynix—ALA-APA Award for Outstanding Achievement in Promoting Salaries and Status for Library Workers. Elissa Cadillic is the current President of AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1526 at the Boston Public Library, Boston, Massachusetts (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees). In April, we interviewed James Fish, Director of Baltimore County Public Libraries.

LW: Describe your process of advocating for better wages.

EC: AFSCME, Local 1526 consists of approximately 300 members, including Branch Library Assistants (BLAs), Clerical (BCs) and Mechanical (BMs) staff. A group of BLA-2s in the branch libraries realized that the work they were being asked to do deserved upgrades. At that time, a package was put together detailing the reasons why they should be upgraded. The BLAs took their current job descriptions and listed their responsibilities and extra duties that were not listed and gathered letters of support from their branch librarians (supervisors) and the community. We wanted something to prove to the negotiating team and the Library that said, “Hey, these people deserve.” and “they deserve because of XYZ.”

During contract negotiations for 1999-2001, the proposal was put on the table. At that time, the Library and the Union agreed to do a formal study on a group of positions that were looking to be updated. A committee was created which included two senior members of management and two Executive Board members of AFSCME Local 1526. We created a study based on classification analysis with the following criteria: Knowledge, Critical Thinking and Impact. The survey, which consisted of approximately 77 questions, was sent to a selection of members whose positions were asking to be upgraded, but also to others whose positions had recently been upgraded. These recently upgraded positions would be used as benchmark positions to judge the others against.

The committee first took the responses from the benchmark positions and graded them according to our criteria. We then took the rest of the responses and rated them. Once we had scores, we put all of our studied positions in to table. By doing so, we could compare the positions to our two benchmark positions.

We found the benchmark positions did prove that they were properly regarded in previous years and that the positions that the union was asking to be upgraded clearly showed that they were above the benchmark positions. The branch positions that are being upgraded in August 2006 came out significantly higher than their counterparts in the Central Library. So, even though they had the same grade level (BLA2) they scored more than 100 points higher. This clearly demonstrated a significant increase. The supervisory positions (BLA4 and BLA5) also scored higher than their Central Library counterparts.

After the results proved the need for upgrades for certain positions, the library took it to the budget committee for approval. The union sent it to the Mayor and City Councilors. Unfortunately our timing was such that the September 11th tragedy occurred, and budget decisions were put on hold. Even though we had the backing of Management at the BPL, we were not going to get our upgrades. So, we had to put them back on the table for the last round of negotiations (2002–2006) and the negotiation team decided that we weren’t settling without it. We had proven over and over that the upgrades were well- deserved. After a long time and with help from our larger council, we not only won our upgrades, we also won a 10% increase over a 3+ year period for everyone.

LW: How did you develop your own survey?

EC: We borrowed from other places, including different city surveys. We had many meetings discussing what needed to be measured and how to get the responses that proved or didn’t prove the need for upgrades. The committee came up with questions that could be asked in a variety of ways to evaluate the answers. Each of the criteria had a range of questions that would allow the responses to be rated. As a member of this committee, believe me - it was very time consuming and sometimes very frustrating, but in the end, I believe we came out with a survey that can be adapted and used again.

LW: How do you feel unions play an integral part in libraries?

EC: I may be biased, but I think a union helps to keep the workplace stable. Unions create a foundation and help to provide an equal playing field for men and women as well as maintaining a level of benefits. Sometimes issues that arise that without a union would cripple the average municipal worker. A prime example is health insurance. If this benefit was taken out of collected bargaining, most of my members who had to pay out-of-pocket would not be able to pay their rent, buy food or commute to work. The union is constantly negotiating better wages and benefits to allow their members to keep pace with the rising cost of living. They aim to keep people from having to put in 70-80 hour weeks while being paid for only 35. In terms of promotions, unions help build career ladders. In the case of our branch upgrades, we will have 76 higher positions then we did before. In our current round of negotiations, we will put other positions that showed they deserved upgrades on the table and push for those to be awarded.

LW: How have job descriptions changed with technology?

EC: The way things are automated has changed. We’ve had people start by working on non-electric typewriters and doing everything by hand. An example is our process of getting labels on items. This has become streamlined by printing them out on a printer in bulk, instead of typing them individually. The training necessary to use updated technology is something that is addressed by retraining current staff. Many of the younger hires already have those skill sets. Technology may have changed the way we find information or process our materials but on the whole, the actual job that needs to be done is still getting done; people still need their books checked out, and people need a physical person to answer their question. At the end of the day there’re still people doing those tasks.

LW: What is a metaphor to describe the process?

EC: It was definitely a fight. You get to a point and you’ve made your case, and at the last minute, people say, “Oh well, there is only so much in the pie and if you take a piece for 76 people, you’re taking away from everybody else.” Or, "You’ve proved it but we really can’t justify spending the money that way." You can’t give up. "If you keep pounding away at a nail with a hammer, eventually the nail head sinks into the wood. "

LW: What advice can you give?

EC: Agree to do a formal study, but be prepared for something to happen once you have concluded your study and try to get assurances up front. Sometimes you must repeat the same process over and over. Don’t give up. Get testimonials from the people doing the job and their supervisors, as well as the community. In our case, one government documents BLA had been in the same position for a long time. In this case, as someone left the position in his department, the job was reviewed and then upgraded. Since he had never left his original position, his position was never upgraded. During his testimony to the City, he moved all of us to tears. Here was a dedicated public servant who because he truly loved his job was punished for not moving on. Because of the study and his testimony, his was the only position immediately upgraded at the ratification of the contract. The day we signed the contact, he got his upgrade. The branch upgrades will happen in August 2006.

Reach out to other places, and see what they are doing to try to increase salaries and/or benefits. If you are an association, considering becoming a part of a larger union. AFSCME represents more than 10,000 members working in libraries. It has been helpful to be affiliated with a larger union and get assistance and support to make changes in our workplace. We negotiate with the Library and the City of Boston and, while we do our own negotiations, sometimes it is nice to be able to work together with the other City of Boston AFSCME Council 93 unions over common issues.

If your location isn’t unionized, remember that there is strength in numbers. The more you can stick together over issues the better off you are. I do think that especially now with libraries being one of the first cuts in budget lines from the federal, state and local governments that the more community involvement you can get, the better off you are. I also believe that without a union in larger public libraries, people may not be getting livable wages and may soon lose benefits that are sorely needed, such as health insurance.

AFSCME Local 1526 is proud of our last contract, our upgrades, our wage package and the language changes to our contract. Securing that contract proved that all the hard work, long hours and the feeling of banging your head against the wall on many occasions is all worthwhile. It meant a lot to us to be nominated for an award for our work in securing salary increases from the ALA-APA. When I was notified that we won, I felt proud of all the hard work that the negotiating team, the library assistants and I did to help secure a better future for my members. When this process began, I was one of the BLA2s who felt strongly about pushing for upgrades for the job that I was being asked to do. While I am no longer a BLA2 or even a branch staff member, I could not be more pleased that in only few months, they will be rewarded for their patience and perseverance. I hope other places realize that hard work and determination do pay off in the end.

Plan Your Referendum for Success (v2n7, July 2005)

By James Rachlin and Socrates Rivers

As expense growth continuously erodes public library district budgets, the number of library districts facing difficult choices is mushrooming. Where local laws permit it, the inevitable result is a proliferation of these districts approaching their taxpayers with a ballot question seeking a tax rate increase. Rate increase questions may be for new construction or for operations.

Whether a library seeks professional assistance in marketing its referendum question or simply tries to sell it to the public on its own, certain guidelines are helpful in formulating an executing a strategy.

Surprisingly, there appears to be no correlation between the size of the requested increase and whether it passes or fails. Rather, voters must be deciding on the basis of whether a given increase is well justified. If so, they will vote for it.

Consequently, referendum planning, budgeting and forecasting must center on three questions: How much do we need, how long will it last and is it clearly justifiable to our residents? Unless these questions can be answered satisfactorily internally, they will never pass public scrutiny.

How much do we need? A myriad of factors must be addressed.

Costs can always be reduced, but possibly not in a manner acceptable to the Board or community. Nevertheless, the Board should ask: Can we tolerate working with less staff? Are there programs that are no longer useful? Are we operating our building and programs in the most efficient manner possible? Can we reallocate the tax levy? Are we charging appropriate activity fees? Do we have unneeded maintenance expenses? Is providing services to out-of-district residents cost-effective?
The revenue side also cannot be neglected: Are we taking advantage of all grant and subsidy dollars? Are we investing our funds to the greatest advantage? Are our existing fund balances appropriate? Has the district accounted for additional revenue it might receive due to the expiration of any subsidies currently given to taxpayers? Have we exhausted other revenue sources such as developer fees, impact fees, and revenue sharing where appropriate?
Any forecast of revenues and expenditures must anticipate changes in the library and community that effect financial performance: How do we see our community growing? Do we have employee negotiations coming up? Do we anticipate hiring additional staff? Will medical insurance costs keep rising dramatically?

How long will it last? The anticipated revenue from a tax increase should be forecast against expenses. See how long the increase will last by assuming trends in revenues and expenditures will continue. The increase can be made larger or smaller to conform to the perceived comfort level of the community:

The year after an increase is in place, it begins to be eroded by cost increases. To have an increase last more than one year, a surplus will have to be built up. How big should the surplus get? Will it be a plum just asking to be squandered? Will tax objectors require it to be refunded? These considerations may limit the feasible amount of a rate increase.
Make sure you understand how much money the referendum will generate and when you will begin to receive it. Is it an ongoing revenue stream or a one-time payment? If there are multiple estimates of the impact of the referendum, however well intentioned, the Library subjects itself to criticism, accusations of not understanding what it is asking for or, worse, lying.

Is it justifiable to our residents? Having answered the first two questions, this is an easy one. Clearly, the Library has considered every contingency and made decisions about how it wishes to be run in coming years. If the library staff has prepared properly, the staff, Board and community will be in sync, and the resulting plan should reflect how the community wants to be served.

The only question remaining is:

What is the alternative? To approve a rate increase taxpayers must be absolutely clear on the alternative. Only by presenting this alternative - not doom and gloom threats - will residents have something to which to compare the rate increase. Should the rate referendum fail, the alternate plan must be implemented exactly as laid out. If the public does not like that reality, they will pass the referendum the next time around.

The Referendum Campaign

Once the financial plan is in place, it must be communicated to residents. The underlying philosophy is simple: Build on the acknowledged strengths of the Library to give the community confidence that the rate increase is deserved and justified. By working from strengths, a positive image is cemented in the community's mind. At the same time, the Library must convey a compelling need so that the values important to the community are seen to be at risk. By building trust and establishing a compelling need, we increase the likelihood of a winning vote.

A referendum campaign contains the following essential elements of communication:

A proactive political support base. Beyond a unified board, the implicit or, better yet, explicit backing of key political forces is an immeasurable asset.
A message that resonates in the community. Consider why community residents support their library and what is important to them. The campaign theme must echo these feelings.
Establish a compelling need. Every member of the community must have a chance to know about the referendum and why a yes-vote is important. A convincing presentation is essential to making a persuasive argument.
Communicate constituency by constituency. Different stakeholder groups have different interests. The message must be delivered by someone trusted by the constituency and shaped to address that group's primary concerns. Our motto: One set of facts, many reasons to support the referendum. Stealth campaigns do not work and destroy trust within the community.
Attention when separate referenda to build (bond) and operate (rate, usually) the library must be on the ballot at the same time. Both issues must be given adequate attention; perhaps with more than equal time given to the rate question. Buildings are easy for taxpayers to understand while tax dollars for operations are perceived as a black hole.
An alternate plan if the referendum fails. Not threats, a plan. Face the community with a choice between services as they have come to appreciate them and something less. If the referendum fails, execute the alternate plan.

The framework for communicating is as important as the message itself. Specifically, we have identified the following "Top 10 Key Items for Referendum Campaigns":

Communicate before you ask for money. Don't show up on the doorstep with your hand out. Community-wide newsletters trumpeting outreach programs and successes help establish the Library as more than a place that loans books.
Positive Mental Image. Everyone involved in the Library and its campaign must project a positive mental image to the community. This image can permeate the District and generate significant goodwill.
Organize the Committee. The most critical component of the referendum campaign is to have a team of energetic, responsible, visible, well-liked and well-connected community members. These individuals should be tailored to their specific roles - someone in public relations to head the PR committee, a local activist to head the human resources committee, and so on. Choose a campaign leader who is a good organizer with political connections.
Get the Story Straight. Everyone must work from the same set of facts or you will sow confusion among voters. To get the facts straight, use a fact sheet that all members of the committee can work from.
Slogan. One of the first activities of the referendum campaign will be to select a slogan. The campaign slogan will be a rallying cry for the community, a phrase that encourages the community to support the referendum.
Establish Speaking Engagements. Don't hide the referendum. Numerous speaking engagements at each civic organization in the District, open houses and tours, coffees all help raise public awareness. However, limit the number of public speakers to help keep factual inconsistencies to a minimum.
Establish Public Relations Effort. Increase public awareness with a constant trickle of press releases and mailings, signage and posters. Seek active and positive press coverage.
Reach the Support Group. Reach natural pro-library constituencies: parents, users, groups that meet at the library and others. Ensure that members of these groups are registered to vote and that special interest groups endorse the referendum.
Bring 'em to the Polls. Get supporters out to vote. Keeping a list of yes voters relative to the votes required to win to help track the progress of the referendum.
List Keeping, Telephone Polling and Poll Watching. Apathy kills referenda. Keep lists and then call to remind each supporter to vote. Poll watching ensures that missing voters are contacted to vote once more before time runs out.

Referendum campaigns can be a rewarding and trust building experience for the Library and community. They are an opportunity to observe and learn about your community while materially contributing to the quality of service. Plan and execute your strategy properly to ensure you get the funds you need to serve your community well.

James Rachlin is Manager and Senior Vice President of Public Finance and Socrates Rivers is Assistant Vice President of Public Finance at Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, Inc. If you have questions, please contact Socrates at 312-441-2607 or srivers@gkst.com.

We would love to have your feedback on these articles!