We don't believe that refusing to print certain
advertisements in the Appointments supplement is the right approach. It
would alienate employers who would simply place the advertisement elsewhere
- the salary of the jobs would not change and the LA would lose the
opportunity to try to engage in dialogue with that employer.

We are considering printing a stronger disclaimer in Appointments -
something along the lines of:

"Advertisements which appear in Appointments do not necessarily meet The
Library Association's recommended guidelines. The Association publishes
information on professional skills and qualifications and recommended
minimum salary levels for all sectors; these guidelines are available to all
members and employers. In all instances where advertised jobs do not meet
recommended salary levels The Library Association makes appropriate
representations to the employer."


And you have our assurance that we do follow up all instances where
advertised jobs fall below our guidelines.


Our experience proves that constructive dialogue with employers is a more
effective strategy than refusing advertisements - indeed it's the only
sensible strategy if the Association is to persuade employers of the real
value of the contributions made at work by our members.

Re the 'appropriate representations to employers' for jobs which don't meet the LA recommended guidelines… I'd be interested in a) seeing these guidelines; b) knowing what percentage of total jobs advertised in the supplement fall into this area; c) knowing of these what percentage the LA's intervention has a positive effect on and how the LA decides what a positive effect is (negating ignorance; positive education; a change in the proposed salary level…).
While I agree there is no point merely refusing to print ad's as they will only be advertised elsewhere I suspect the likelihood of anyone reading a disclaimer (never mind noticing that it's suddenly a 'stronger' one!) or reacting in any manner as a result of it is just not particularly high.
If however everyone agreed that they were largely in favour of the current content of the Guidelines… sending them out to HR personnel in the larger organisations employing information personnel, especially if was to named individuals with letter as part of a mini-campaign, might work better. My own experience would be it's the HR people who decide and they don't consult the information staff much of the time.
I would say also include the relevant Salary Guide but I suspect that would just put people off as in many area's I don't think the Salary Guide's have much resemblance to real life pay.

I think Bob has a point, but it's not the only point! Would it not also be sensible for the dialogue with the employer to take place *before* the advertisement is carried and not afterwards? This would inconvenience the employer because he would be delayed, and his vacancy would not be filled as quickly as it would have been if his salary offer had been more reasonable in the first place.

The point about "alienating employers" is a strange one. Where else are they going to go if not to the LA Vacancies Supplement? We all know that if it's not in the Supplement it's not worth knowing about, which is why it is dangerous for lousy jobs to get the cachet of respectability that it offers.

Secondly, many adverts, especially in the private sector, now state "salary by negotiation" or something similar. Does the LA enquire of the employer what general level he has in mind?

Thirdly, why not group ads more logically within the vacancies supplement, so that potential candidates can make direct comparisons between salaries offered for comparable posts? This idea may be awkward to implement due to the extensive use of display ads, but how about providing an index or table at the back of the supplement that lists the posts on offer, classified by sector, job type, experience level, etc? (We librarians are supposed to be good at that sort of thing!)

Hi again to Isobel and John - I've just read your comments on another topic area - and some of what I wrote in response about benchmarking standards of good employment practice applies here as well. I think the key message I'm getting from both of you is about the LA being more pro-active: having dialogue with employers when they're planning recruitment not just reacting to their adverts (some employers do ask our advice at the planning stage - but we need to do more of this); getting our guidance to the HR people; asking about salaries which are "by negotiation". These are all good points - I'll discuss them with our team of Professional Advisers; they are the people who deal with this area of our activity.

Grouping adverts is an interesting idea - and it's done in the job supplements of national newspapers so it's clearly common practice. I'll talk about this to the team who put Appointments together.

Auditing outcomes is also very important; I think you raise some important points on this, Isobel. It's part of a broader issue - how do we measure performance (in terms of demonstrable deliverables) in our advice/advocacy areas of work? This is something we are committed to looking at very carefully in the coming months - it's all about making our work more transparent and accountable to the membership.

Final comment is on your point, John; where else is there for employers to go and advertise? The answer is the local(for lower grade) and national (for senior grade) press. Those with long memories will know that we owe the success of the Appointments bulletin to industrial action at the Times group of newspapers many years ago...

Thanks again for your comments.

With all due respect Bob, I personally don't find that the proposed disclaimer absolves the LA from the role of protecting and promoting the interests of information professionals. I am a strong believer that individuals should be presented with a diverse range of posts, and it stands to reason such an approach will attract a wide range of salaries. However we are talking about levels of pay advertised in the LA Vacancies Supplement that are so bad you would struggle to rent a bedsit and would be leading a monastic existence to survive. I find it abhorrent (and I don't use my words lightly) that the LA steadfastly refuses to omit adverts that don't meet even the bare minimum standards of decency. I feel ashamed to be a member of a professional association that indulges in such practices, and I know of many others who feel the same way. Constructive dialogue is welcome but there are occasions when a subject is beyond compromise.

To prove that my case isn't purely emotive a job description for a senior post setting up a new library service appeared in last weeks Supplement. The job title is "Campus Library and Resources Manager" and the position is on the London fringe. Salary? from 15,210. I state quite plainly that this particular advert should *never* have appeared at that salary level.

One wonders that if LA staff were remumerated in a similar fashion to that encouraged by the current Vacancies Supplement editorial policy, then the conclusion from the LA might be somewhat different to that on the table now.

regards,
Ian A. Jones.

I do not think that the Vacancies Supplement should be advertising jobs, with very low rates of pay. It is a very weak excuse to say if they are not advertised here they will go elsewhere. A lot do anyway. We should have pride in our profession. I think it would have a great effect on employers, if they were told they could not advertise through the LA, if they were not offering a professional salary for a professional post. You never know it might also raise our status

Ian and Jill - thanks for reinforcing a point which comes across strongly from a number of members. The LA's current policy is, as you know, to accept all adverts, issue the disclaimer, and intervene directly as appropriate with employers. You are both saying that this is inadequate. As I've already said elsewhere I'm going to put all the points made in this discussion to the LA's Policy & Resources Committee next week; and one point, clearly, is that we need to reconsider this policy. Can I ask for more comments from others of you out there on this so that I can gauge the strength of feeling?

I'm very against accepting low-paid ads. I would have thought it a good rule not to collaborate with our own oppression.
Incidentally, thanks for your response on the Union thread--I'm sure getting firm with Government is the best way.

I completely agree that low paid jobs shouldn't be advertised in the Vacancies Supplement under any circumstances. If an employer has to advertise elsewhere so be it - experience will show them in time that the quantity and quality of applicants will only rise when they are prepared to offer a sensible salary and advertise in the LA membership's (not the LA staff's) professional journal. I suspect if you polled all the membership on this subject the majority would support this view.

I agree absolutely that low paid jobs should not be advertised in the record. They only serve to demoralise me when I see them and I'm sure others feel the same. In the last Vacancies there was an academic post offering scale 4 for chartered librarians. That's a non professional senior library assistant scale not a chartered professional's scale!

Whilst the school librarians adverts make my blood boil. Many of them offering only 40 week contract's whilst teachers (many of them less qualified) get 52 and much better pay.

The problem is getting through to employers who think they know what a librarian does (i.e. wear cardigans and hush people) that they don't and for us to show them what we do. I was asked at the college where I work, why a degree is needed "just to work in a library" - that says it all.

Thanks for these points about adverts in Appointments (and thanks Mike for the positive response to my comment on the union thread of this discussion).

Oops - 12am! Quick scribble! If we say that we are not accepting jobs at pay rates we consider unaceptable or just farcical for the responsibilities attached... Then that's cloud cuckoo-land, these things will no longer appear to rile us in the Appointments and some of us will forget that the issue is still there for a large percentage of our profession.
There are always going to be people who are forced to apply for those jobs because they need the job and nothing at what they would consider a respectable salary in their field is available to them. Many folk can't up sticks for a pay rise.
If we win this it's by educating employers generally so that the jobs which appear anywhere are of a better fit regards pay and responsibilites.

I also am against accepting low pay ads. I think it undermines the concept of being a professional association if we even imply that it is acceptable for librarians to be paid at clerical rates. We should also not forget that the record is a major source of information about comparative rates of pay that employers seeking to calculate salary for a position would look to.

Perhaps we could also think about being a bit more proactive. I once reported a farcical 'voluntary' job advert to the Australian LA and they entered into dialogue with both the advertiser and the employer. Could we not have somebody within the LA to whom external ads are reported? Perhaps they could even keep an eye on some of the major job advertisement sources and agencies...