On 8/17/96 Andy Finch wrote: >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? With all respect, the time-worn cry of employers to coal mine workers, steel workers, carpenters, seamstress groups, etc. has been " if you want me to give you a raise, who do I fire?" This has been proven in the history of labor relations to be a phrase, not a position. Management has always found how to raise wages without gutting industry IF labor sticks to its guns. In the museum world it is a failure in leadership and a lack of vision that prevents management from treating its employees with greater value. Universities are practical models of institutions that work with alumni and supporters to fund chairs and department positions. A good museum director, development director, and pr staff could easily approach targeted supporters to fund important positions with presitigious staff, freeing up the payroll for the rest of the support staff who may not have achieved national reputation. This is hampered by the eliminating of positions and replacing the functions with low-paying programming and education staffs. We know that directors do recieve bonuses and other perks. There is extra that is out there. Money can be raised but it takes a true philanthropic vision to support an important aspect of social institutionality to use it. America is making money right now. The mutual fund market has been up as much as 50.9% in this past year alone (Dreyfuss Aggressive Growth). Understanding how to use business to support museums is different than imitating them. The business model fad ill serves the type of trained and highly motivated staff that occupy museums. In business, management tries to up production by exploiting employees and customers. Paul Apodaca