Ethical considerations regarding library nonprofessionals: competing perspectives and values

Part of the temptation of the decision-maker is selective scanning and weighing of factors, principles, loyalties, etc.--i.e., based on a prior decision, however covert or unconscious, the decision-maker selects and weighs, and perhaps only even perceives, those factors alone which support his decision, ignoring other claims and circumstances. In order to confront such tendencies and to arrive at a more just decision, the philosopher John Rawls (1958) developed a technique called the "veil of ignorance," which is useful in this context. When a decision-maker is about to embark on a decision, she must put on a veil of ignorance, such that the decision-maker in dialogue with the other stakeholders in a particular decision will not know after the decision what position she will hold and how she will be affected by the decision. That is, in this thought experiment, she will not know whether she will be an administrator, a professional librarian, a staff member, a nonprofessional library associate, or a systems professional. In such a manner, the decision-maker will be more sensitive to the concerns of each stakeholder given that they will not know what circumstances they will occupy after the decision, and she will seek a solution that will strive to be just to each stakeholder.

Whether decision makers will use such techniques remains to be seen. It is hoped that they will. While one cannot control the process of the decision maker, one can at least indicate the variety of concerns and interests of the various stakeholder. The intention here is to lay forth the variety of ethical principles that come into play and how different stakeholders or different roles of stakeholders may value, prioritize, or apply such principles or how they might manifest their obligations. With this framework, decision-makers will, it is hoped, pursue a more enlightened approach to their decision-making.

THE UNDERVALUATION OF LIBRARY NONPROFESSIONALS

For this issue, the policies and decisions of administrators have the greatest impact, but both ethical principles and the interests and claims of different stakeholders should be considered. The two most obvious principles that would come into play would be respect for human beings, in this case nonprofessionals (with the concomitant values of freedom and self-determination, protection from injury, respect for privacy, equality of opportunity, privacy, minimal well-being, and recognition of their work) and the need for justice. Nonprofessionals would see their handling by administrators, professional staff, and the public as unjust or unfair in any number of ways--e.g., performing nonprofessional or professional work without sufficient recognition, whether in terms of compensation, status, or perks, failure to have the opportunity to move toward professional status, when experience, self-education, or training may warrant it. Furthermore, they may believe that they are realizing not only obligations to themselves, but also organizational obligations, by promoting a workplace where work is properly rewarded and where overly restrictive barriers to professional status are challenged. They may argue that social responsibility, fairness, and human dignity insist that employers provide a decent wage (where pay scales are unacceptably low). If working conditions are incredibly poor, nonprofessionals may engage in pressure ethics, survival ethics, or subversive ethics. They may also argue that they are undervalued by the public as well as by professional staff. All of the above would facilitate organizational disharmony and lack of organizational trust.