All disclaimers, as usual.

I can't stand it any more.  Where do people think the money is coming from
to pay museum workers what they deserve.  Are museum directors are keeping
salaries low because they are sadists?  And if more money is devoted to
salaries, won't it mean less for programs?  Or fewer employees?

I would like to make more money, of course.  On the other hand, I'm
also aware of being envied by my colleagues in the advocacy community
(otherwise known as lobbyists) -- because they know that working for
museums is so much more interesting than working for, I don't know,
pharmaceutical companies.  That envy, it seems to me, is also a measure
of society's evaluation of museums.

Regarding unions, I'm all for 'em.  But nobody should underestimate how
much resistance there would be to a call to organize, even among museum
workers, and especially among curatorial/professional staff.  When I was
an exploited graduate student trying to organize a union, it was
incredibly difficult to get my colleagues to identify collectively, to
tear them away from a self-identification as "professionals," to get them
to (perhaps) risk their careers.  Very frustrating.

Finally, changing to the subject of sponsorships, I agree that kowtowing
to a corporate sponsorship regarding content is a terrible idea.  On the
other hand, *all* museums (expect those with gigantic private foundations)
are sponsored by someone, whether public agencies or private donors.  So I
think it's a bit unfair to consider the subject of sponsorship solely in the
context of corporations, which of course we all love to hate.

Sorry to run on.  I've been on vacation.

Andy Finch
[log in to unmask]
AAM Government Affairs
(disclaimers)