An interesting debate & one I've heard a lot of recently - I'm
currently doing a masters course in museum studies & there are 80
full time students in my year and another 40 part timers currently,
so we see a lot of the competition. All the visiting speakers tell us
the job isnt what is used to be & the pay is ridiculous, but;

Before coming on the course I was unemployed and volunteering full
time four days a week, so whatever you get paid its more than what I
was living on. Which is a minor point, possibly not very helpful, but
I do think the level of volunteering is an issue.

More importantly are my reasons for deciding to join the profession;
I actually think that what you say in museums matters, & the history
you portray matters. People out there expect museums to tell the
'truth' so by only telling one side of the story or ignoring someones
story completely you disenfranchise them. I came into museums to
change the way history is portrayed & thus what picture of their past
people have & thus their picture of what is possible.

I regard this as a politcal agenda as much as anything else, so by
doing this I'm able to live what I believe in without the hassle of
front line protesting, without risking arrest, or physical abuse, and
getting paid for, which seems pretty cushty in some ways.
But then people who do the job because they love it or think its
important often get exploited. This doesn't mean the job isn't worth
doing. It probably does mean that we have to defent ourselves better
against those who would wish to exploit.

The only museum I know of personally that has very few (ie 1)
volunteers at a time is also the only one where the staff are
unionised so their jobs are more protected, not only in that they
have them & get paid without competing with people who work for free,
but also the content of their jobs are protected, so when staff are
asked to do something outside the line of curatorial duty the union
says "no" & the museum has to pay a contractor to come and do it.

Food for thought?.....
Jane