From a personal perspective...requiring staff to purchase membership, and things like "donate to the annual fund, otherwise we can't keep going!" messages put a lot of pressure on staff who already do not make a lot of money. It is basically saying "pay to play". If you cannot afford membership, you cannot afford to work here.
And yes, I know most membership fees are fairly nominal and are a great deal in the scheme of things...but I have personally been in a situation where no, I cannot afford an extra $50 in order to do my job. In my mind, it equates to a financial scrutiny for employment, which further narrows the diversity of the applicant pool when hiring.
I agree with others who say that this equates to a salary give back. I don't know that I agree with the "you don't believe in our mission enough to buy a membership!" equation either. No, I love the mission, I love the work, I love the collection- I wouldn't be in this field if I didn't. But I have medical bills, student loans, mortgage, and an elderly parent in long term care. I just don't have the money (and, because of the above, the time to really enjoy and utilize a membership).
And what would the consequences be for a staff member who didn't (or couldn't) buy said membership? Dismissal? Discipline? Revocation of job offer?
I know a lot of staff *do* give freely to their institution- both during and after employment and in their estate planning. They give money and art and objects, and that is wonderful. Many staff purchase memberships as gifts for friends and family as gifts. Those that can and want to give, are giving a great gift. But requiring the purchase of one is not the way forward.
Cheers,
Tracey
------------------------------
Tracey Berg-Fulton
Collections Database Associate
Carnegie Museum of Art
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-14-2015 02:48 PM
From: Michael Holland
Subject: Staff asked to purchase membership?
Deborah Smith raises some interesting questions. I doubt that many choose careers in the museum field under the illusion that their compensation will be Zuckerbergesque, and I think most understand that there are other careers that are more lucrative. It seems that currently the task at hand is not so much to convince all of society that museum workers are as valuable as anesthesiologists and corporate lawyers, but rather to convince museum leadership that their staff should be able to afford to continue doing their jobs with some hope of being able to afford housing, a family, retirement, etc. (This same issue is surfacing in the for-profit sector as well.) It seems that too many museums are running on a financial structure built on staff members who have spouses that earn higher incomes. This causes high turnover and is pushing a lot of good talent away from our field.
Michael
------------------------------
Michael Holland
Principal/Owner
Michael Holland Productions
Bozeman Mat
Original Message:
Sent: 07-13-2015 09:09 AM
From: Deborah Smith
Subject: Staff asked to purchase membership?
The key word is "invite." No one likes to be told they "must" do something, even if their inclinations already lean that way.
Regarding the occasional complaint throughout this thread that it's adding insult to injury t(o demand that employees dig into their own pockets, when so many museum workers are so poorly paid): what drew you to the job in the first place? And is the issue with your personal employer, or is it a much bigger issue to convince a much broader spectrum that your motivation to work in the field of history, art, zoos, botanical gardens (pick your discipline) has at least as much value as the professions that pay far higher wages?