ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Benefits received by college librarians

By John Robson

Library Director

Rose-Hulman Institute ofTechnology

and Susan A. Stussy

Library Director St. Norbert College

A survey of 119 college libraries in the Midwest.

Although ALA publishes annual salary surveys, no nationwide survey of the benefits received by college librarians now exists. We believe that benefit issues are particularly crucial for academic librarians due to the unclear social status and politically vulnerable position of many, if not most, librarians in higher education. Job classifications are a perennial problem for academic librarians, and they may admit an employee to the eligibility pool for significant institutional benefits or exclude that employee from consideration for institutional benefits granted only to individuals in more highly regardedjob classifications. While recent legal changes have restricted the ability of employers to discriminate between classes of employees concerning access to crucial benefits such as health care and pension funding, discrimination still exists even in these key areas.

The ACRL College Libraries Section’s Ad Hoc Committee on Real Income thoroughly considered the issue of the benefits received by academic librarians between 1985 and 1988. Susan A. Stussy chaired that committee, and John Robson was a member. Unfortunately, this committee was unable to accomplish a great deal due to the inexperience of both the members and the chair.

After the committee concluded its work, the authors resolved to find out where college librarians in the five states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin stood in terms of access to standard employee benefits and eligibility for academic benefits such as sabbaticals and tenure.

To obtain this information, the authors sent a survey shown to the library directors of non-doctoral degree-granting four-year colleges and universities in the Midwestern states. Institutions marked R in the American Library Directory (41st Edition, 1988-1989) were excluded. With that exception, all private non-denomínational, private sectarian, and public institutions were surveyed.

The authors mailed out the survey between November 1988 and January 1989, and all replies were received by March 1, 1989, so that the answers reflected conditions in late 1988 or early 1989, which may have changed in the time lapse between the conclusion of this survey and the publication of this article.

Of the 185 libraries meetingthe authors’ criteria in the targeted states, all received copies of the survey. The authors received 119 replies, which represented a rate of response surprisingly high at 64%. No clear pattern appeared to separate the institutions that responded from those that did not. Sadly, all respondents did not answer all questions, and many library directors seemed uncertain where they stood on significant benefit issues.

In the course of this survey, the authors confronted two major problems. These problems were: 1) their lack of grant funding and organizational support, which made it difficult to mail all surveys at the same time, and 2) their lack of statistical sophistication, which made compilation of all survey results in an efficient and timely manner difficult. They benefited from the cooperation received from St. Norbert College Computer Services, since Todd Maki and Dulce Hutchinson helped tabulate the survey results and gave very generously of their time to manipulate these results in graphic form.

The body of this article has been pulled from the responses to questions 8-13. Questions 8 and 9 covered academic status and responsibilities, while questions 10 and 11 covered librarian access to health, retirement, and vacation benefits. Question 12 concerned dependent care, and question 13 concerned librarian access to the education and travel benefits increasingly necessary to update professional skills in a rapidly changing work environment.

The answers to question 8 revealed that most librarians have at least some claim to faculty status. Seventy-eight respondents claimed faculty status, while 20 respondents claimed that they did not. Twenty-one questionnaires did not answer this part of question 8.

Answers to question 8, however, revealed that the faculty status held by college librarians is often very nebulous. Only 46 respondents held faculty rank, while 54 did not. Nineteen respondents did not answer this part of question 8. On the key question of tenure, only 43 respondents were tenured or tenure eligible, while 53 respondents were in non-tenure track positions, and 23 respondents did not answer this part of question 8. Six fortunate respondents indicated that they had a choice between tenure and non-tenure track status, while 91 respondents had no choice, and 22 respondents did not complete this part of question 8.

On the positive side, 66 respondents indicated that they were eligible for institutionally funded research grants, and only 28 individuals responded negatively, while 25 persons failed to answer this part of question 8. It was reassuring to know that 88 respondents out of 119 had some paid professional development support, although the authors were very concerned for the 13 individuals who indicated that they received none. Eighteen individuals did not fill out this key part of question 8. Disappointingly, only 36 of 119 respondents received support for research.

The most surprising survey responses concerned question 9. Almost half of the respondents (53) indicated that librarians taught at their institution, and 34 respondents reported that librarians taught in the academic disciplines. As in question 8, a significant number of questionnaires were not responsive.

While only three individuals indicated in question 9 that they were required to publish, 64 individuals said that they were encouraged to do so. Sadly, the rewards reported for publication were minimal or non-existent, and the 79 librarians reporting 12-month contracts clearly had limited publication opportunities.

Responses to question 10 indicated that most librarians had disability, life, and medical insurance as well as a retirement plan. The responses received indicated that 95 institutions offered disability insurance, 91 institutions offeredlife insurance, 100 institutions offered medical insurance, and 99 institutions offered a retirement plan to librarians. While it is reassuring to note that most college librarians enjoy these basic benefits, the negative answers in this section (7 disability insurance, 10 life insurance, 1 medical insurance, and 2 retirement plan) are very disturbing along with the failures to reply.

Responses to question 11 in many ways paralleled question 10. Most librarians enjoyed basic holiday and vacation benefits, since 91 librarians reported holidays, 93 librarians reported vacations, and 92 librarians reported sick leave. A significant minority, or 36 librarians, reported paid maternity leave, although only nine librarians reported paid paternity leave, which indicated that a substantial degree of sex discrimination still existed in this area.

It is amazing to the authors that some college librarians still lack access to holidays, vacations, and sick leave. ACRL should give serious consideration to benefit-related issues and show particular concern for the least fortunate members of the profession even while the more fortunate members of the profession fight for benefits such as maternity and paternity leave.

Answers to question 12 revealed that child care and dependent care assistance are still ideas whose time has not come for most college librarians. Since these benefits are beingincreasingly sought after in the corporate world, however, the availability of these benefits could increase dramatically very quickly, if colleges wish to compete for good personnel.

In tabulating answers to question 13, the authors found that librarians had good access to education benefits. Librarians at 68 institutions could take courses during normal working hours, and only 38 respondents indicated that they could not, which left a non-response rate of 15 completed survey forms. Spousal and child education benefits were available to 78 librarians, while 10 librarians indicated that they did not enjoy these benefits, and 31 did not respond.

After completing this questionnaire and survey, the authors realized that: 1) specific mention of sabbatical eligibility should have been made in question 8, and 2) spousal and child education benefits should have been separated.

In summation, the authors conclude that most college librarians enjoy employee benefits standard in the corporate world and that vacation and tuition benefits are a big plus for academic librarians. We are, however, concerned that most college librarians lack standard benefits enjoyed by teaching faculty even though our credentials are gradually becoming equivalent, and some of these benefits may be needed to undergo the constant professional updating librarians need today, whether or nottheyhaveordesirefacultystatus.