The following is a rant.  Not a flame.  Tune it out if you like

The appropriate model isn't the American Medical Association, it is the
AFL-CIO.  We are not independent proprietors but are instead workers (remember
museum work?) hiring our skills for pay. The pay level is dominated by
employers who either value or do not value our skills and justify their
behavior with a nod toward some business models.  Businesses also hire labor.
If our employers are bright enough to adopt business models, particularly that
which says of inputs >buy (us) cheap sell (us) dear<, why have we not adopted
the countervailing business model, which begins with, >Not so fast, boss<.

So far as professional ostracism is concerned, the historian in me likes the
terms scab and fink to describe those who must take the low paid jobs and find
themselves supporting regimes which are fueled by promises and TQL.

Perhaps we resist seeing ourselves as a labor input because we are flattered to
think we have jobs allowing us to rub elbows with the anointed leaders of our
communities.  We are professionals.  We are educated.  WE ARE NICE PEOPLE.
University faculty used to see themselves that way.  No more.  As far as
membership in AAM, I note I am a member of the American Association of MUSEUMS,
not the American Association of Museum Professionals and Allied Workers.  There
is a difference, you know.

JOHN SCAFIDI
Collections Manager
Florida State Parks
Tallahassee, FL
[log in to unmask]

>I keep comparing museum professionals with doctors: the AMA was organized,
>then reorganized, so that the medical profession could command the respect
>and salaries they felt they deserved. Their tactics included forcing
>membership on doctors; lobbying for, and then restricting, legal licensing
>requirements; ostracizing those who did not subscribe to rules about
>treatment and charges; and fighting like cats whenever they felt their
>territory or status was impinged. Many of their strategies don't apply to
>the modern era, or to the museum world. For instance, unlike the AMA of
>1900, we already have, and insist on, strong professional credentials. But
>I have two questions: how universal is membership in the AAM? and, how much
>of hard***es are museum professionals willing to get about this issue? As a
>group, we're just not the Brutus types. Can you see ostracizing a colleague
>for accepting a low salary? hmmm. Are we willing to see small museums close
>because they can't afford us? unlikely. (they do close for lack of funds,
>but if the electricity is paid, there's usually someone who will staff the
>joint.) Will we refuse entry to the glutted field? Curator Medallions? I
>think that may be illegal now. So, what do we expect the AAM to do, in lieu
>of getting tough? Universal Museum Insurance? Single-payer Historical Plan?
>Could it happen? -S

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).