I too have been following this thread (an appropriate metaphor for a glove discussion) with interest and some dismay. Pardon me for being hardnosed and unequivocal, but I think this is a no-brainer. A museum professional simply cannot--must not--should not--dare not--knowingly permit anyone to mishandle collection material. To do so is unprofessional and is poor stewardship. A volunteer who refuses to cooperate and follow instructions and professional, approved procedures is indeed a "goriller" and in my opinion could be "fired" for insubordination. Who needs such a volunteer? Now if you can't bear to get rid of the uncooperative volunteer because he/she is otherwise nice, fun, rich, or influential, just take the material away that they mishandle and let them do something safe like filing office correspondence or answering phones. Seriously, it's often possible to wean people away from the material that they are not handling properly, give them something else, and do it tactfully. I've had the problem of volunteers and interns who mean well but just don't have the manual dexterity to handle certain kinds of objects safely. If you don't have the tact and human qualities to interact with people, plus the will power to protect your collection from mishandling--whether by marauders or bunglers--you don't have any business supervising volunteers in a museum environment. Now that I've addressed the gloveless volunteer problem, perhaps someone can help with the problem of STAFF who won't wear gloves at the appropriate times. I once pulled rank on a new employee who was uncooperative and refused to wear gloves while working with glass photographic negatives; admittedly, he was conscientiously trying to hold them only by the edges, but in so doing he was risking dropping and breaking them. I wrote a strong "or else" memo, he apologized, and complied. But then there was the CONSERVATOR whose full handprint is still visible on one of my color photographs because this person pressed an ungloved hand on the surface to emphasize a point. It's my understanding that this person still doesn't wear gloves with photographs. Any reactions? --David Haberstich