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