I want to know if an employer can morally defend such expectations. Sole
practitioners in any profession may be expected to perform numerous
administrative tasks in addition to their professional tasks, but I repeat
my assertion that lifting is not a professional function of a librarian, and
that in larger settings, such administrative tasks are rightly the province
of someone else if the librarian can't perform them. That this fact may
cause inconvenience and expense to management must be one of those
"indignities" you speak of that life is heir to.
It is cheering to know that you yourself are sufficiently hale and hearty to
lift 40-lb. boxes in the course of your daily work. I suspect that you
routinely lift them two at a time. But what will happen when you are no
longer able to do so? Will you simply close your business in humiliation,
or will you possibly break down and hire a younger assistant, who may lack
your extensive bibliographical knowledge but have a stronger physical
constitution?
The definition of "disabled" in this country continues to appall me.
Disabled from what? The answer seems to be "disabled from functioning at
100% capacity." Personally, I have become disabled from working 100-hr.
weeks. I simply can't do anymore what I could do when I was 25, and I now
must content myself with working 60-hr. weeks. Fortunately, my employer has
either not caught on or decided that my limited contribution is still worth
paying for.
ph
Oprindelig meddelelse sendt 1/26/06 8:00 PM fra "Kevin. Mac Donnell"
<info@MACDONNELLRAREBOOKS.COM>:
> It is if the employer can legally defend it. You might also be required to
> type, be able to turn pages in a book, point people to the nearest restroom,
> and refill paper in the photocopier. In a small town branch library you
> might have to clean a restroom, sweep a sidewalk, or drive a truck. I will
> leave to your imaginations the skills required of school librarians.
>
> As one who has collated a few thousand books and hefted just as many boxes
> (not to mention breathing dust), I can well understand why lifting a box may
> not seem (or feel) like a "professional function" but employment (and life)
> is full of indignities, and many of them conform to Federal Labor Laws, ADA
> II, and OSHA.
>
> Kevin
> @
> Mac Donnell Rare Books
> 9307 Glenlake Drive
> Austin TX 78730
> 512-345-4139
> info@macdonnellrarebooks.com
> Member: ABAA, ILAB
> **************************
> You may browse our books at
> www.macdonnellrarebooks.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poul Henningsen" <phdotcom@EARTHLINK.NET>
> To: <EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Position Announcement - Cornell - 40 lbs of dust
>
>
>> Lifting is not a professional function of a librarian, irrespective of who
>> else might or might not be available to do it.
>>
>> ph
>>
>> Oprindelig meddelelse sendt 1/26/06 5:06 PM fra "Kevin. Mac Donnell"
>> <info@MACDONNELLRAREBOOKS.COM>:
>>
>>>> The open question is whether the ability to lift 40 lb. is an
> "essential job
>>>> function," that is, whether it is "fundamental or necessary to the
>>>> position."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly so, and it depends on the particular situation. In a smaller
>>> institution the archivist might be pretty much on their own to do their
> own
>>> heavy-lifting; in a larger library there might be studs a'plenty who
> come
>>> running when you put your lips together and whistle.
>>
>>