Libraries

[bunn]

 Caught a section on the radio earlier today about the library closure protests. They were saying: use them or lose them. 

This is a call to action that works well for, say, local pubs or milkmen.  I don't think it should necessarily apply to libraries though. I live in a rural area, and am currently,  relatively time-poor and shelf-rich.  It makes sense for me to buy books rather than driving to a library during opening hours.   I am not a customer that particularly needs a library at present: in fact, using one would be something of a pain. 

However, I have certainly been shelf-poor and time-rich (or more conveniently located) in the past, and very likely will be again in future.  The fact that I am not using the library much *now* should not be interpreted as a vote to close the place!  

 I'm not using the local primary school, police station, hospital or prison either, but nobody thinks that means I never will.   Surely public services should be used primarily by those that need them, not by those that merely think that they should remain open...?

Comments

Re: it would be lovely if services ran until you happened to want them,

[thecatsamuel.livejournal.com]

A&E and the fire service are funded by looking at past use and projecting further requirements (more or less) so they are (sort of) working on the assumption that a given number of people will need a particular sort of help over a particular time period. Schools plan on projected population patterns and assuming some people won't have kids (boy did they get that one wrong round here). But I'm still not 100% convinced that you can plan ANY public service to be fit for purpose on the assumption someone might at some time want something from it.

I'm sorry to sound stroppy here, but I have a big problem with the idea that volunteers can simply step in and replace trained professional staff. If a volunteer, who had put the same effort to get the same qualifications, has the priviliged position of being able to work for free, where does that leave the rest who gained those qualifications thinking it was part of a career path? On the bloody supermarket checkout forever, perhaps?

I have a big problem with the idea that volunteers can simply step in and replace trained profession

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Didnt' say that they could - only that maybe there is space for volunteering in there somewhere.

Re the qualifications though, I think that's the 'where does it leave people thinking it was a career path' is just the gamble you take with qualifications. It would be nice if you could be sure the qualification was going to mean a job, but it just doesn't, unless it's in a field where there aren't many people.

There are a *lot* of people with museums qualifications now working, like me, in IT and its related fields, because when it comes down to it, there are a lot more jobs in IT than there are in museums, and the qualifications give you skills that are useful in both. I remember attending a conference a few years back when I was in the bar chatting to about 6 people, and it turned out all of us had fled the museum field...

If you want work that isn't short-term contract work and can't afford to work for free or very little, then in such a very small and competitive field, I found I was an immediate disadvantage compared with the people that are prepared to drop everything and travel anywhere to live in a single room to get six month's worth of work (or, live off Daddy and work for free till you finally get appointed to a decent job). I concluded that I just didn't want it quite that badly. :-/