Over the past week, I’ve really enjoyed listening to the Stuck In Part Time piece on NPR’s show “On Point”. It was fascinating to hear about just how much of the work in America has shifted to part time work and why this trend has been occurring since 2006.

I couldn't help but think about public libraries and compare where we are at to this trend. It made me want to write this post and pose this question to you: Have you seen your library shifting more of the work toward part time work in order to cut costs?

Yes, a frightening amount. My department already has a very small number of full-timers, all of whom are nearing retirement.... and the general thought is that they'll be replaced with part time staff. This has already happened in other departments, who had a decent number of full-time staff (so it worked out a little better.)

As one of the aforementioned part-time staff... I won't speak ill of them, but I do caution libraries not to replace their full time professionals with part-time PARAprofessionals.

My library hasn't really been hiring, but definately the -- gossip? word on the street? rumors? -- is that in the past years, there has been a shift to hire P/T instead of F/T to cut costs, esp benefits.

I'm in one of the other departments Emily mentioned. Yes, we have lost full-time staffing already. When I started at this library 5 years ago, we had 6 full-time librarians. We were down to 3 at one point, and are now up to 4. But we're having a lot of trouble filling the new part-time positions. Everyone really WANTS to be full-time, so the people we've hired for these part-time positions are just here till they find something better. So, there's constant turn-over and thus constant training and a lack of institutional memory, none of which is efficient! And because of the constant turn-over and constant job postings, people start wondering what's wrong with our library. Thus, the number of qualified applicants drops for every posting.

I thought you guys had more FT than 4!!! Yikes.

Nope. Four.

Just to keep everyone updated: we have another Branch on this topic over at branch.com if you're curious to see more responses. Foolish me accidentally started up two!

My outreach department was half PT and half FT but overall the organization had more FT than PT. Rarely was a FT position switched to a PT position for budgetary reasons. So, no I have not seen my library make this move to PT. Although I am not as cautious about paraprofessional filling in positions when the skill set is tight. Professional librarians don't tend to get the promotional positions though when they are offered. Nothing against the professionals but it was interesting to see. Perhaps another trend of hiring outside the bubble of librarianship?

There are times when 3-4 people working the circulation desk or shelving books is barely enough. There are times when one person can cover it. PT allows flexibility for libraries the same way it does for retailers. Not a good thing, not a bad thing just a realistic thing.

I agree that many librarians/library workers enjoy the flexibility of PT compared to FT work. But I wonder, what does that do to professional standards when suddenly librarianship doesn't provide enough hours to provide a livable wage for a family. Or doesn't provide health care? The libraries I work for provide health care to both FT and PT employees - for which I am grateful. However, being a professional and then not having access to health care or a supportable wage would make me want to look for employment elsewhere.